To my discredit, I've not discussed the fallout from the alleged "blood libel" article by Daniel Bostrom, which was published in Sweden's largest morning daily, Aftonbladet. The piece called for an investigation into claims that the Israelis harvested organs from killed Palestinians during the 1988-1992 intifada. The article led to screams of anti-Semitism, as exemplified by this: "You may be too young to remember, but this is how it began in Germany."
"Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes. After all we all know what they [the Jews] are like, don't we: inhuman, hardened. Capable of anything," the opinion piece says. "Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: 'Anti-Semitism' No, no, just criticism of Israel."
In other words, any criticism of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism.
As a follow-up piece in Aftonbladet (written by another author) notes:
So far, none of the journalists I have spoken to have read the article - the foreign editor at Matan Drori thought he had, with the help of a Google dictionary - but through Swedish bloggers, they knew that Aftonbladet had reproduced images of Jews who drink blood and eat children.
Contrary to the mischaracterizations of the Bostrom article in the English-language media, the piece (which I was the first to translate into English) does not revel in rumor and innuendo. Instead, it describes incidents which the author personally investigated while in the occupied territories in 1992. Bostrom attempts to get more than one side of the story, and he ends not with a condemnation of Israel but with call for investigation.
Not an unreasonable request, in my view. Had Bostrom written about any other nation, no one would question his fairness. But, as the follow-up piece notes, "...for some reason normal journalistic rules are out of play when it comes to Israel."
As I keep reminding readers, author David Yallop encountered the same reports of organ theft while in the same place at the same time. Yallop's book, oddly enough, did not provoke international outrage. Neither did Bostrom's 2001 volume, Inshallah -- even though that work carries the same story. (Or so I've been given to understand; I've not read it.) Neither did the investigative pieces published by Boston journalist Mary Barrett.
So why is the Israeli government suddenly screaming like an air raid siren? I can only presume that they hope to deflect attention from the FBI's recent arrest of a rabbi in New Jersey on organ harvesting charges. If you read the details of the FBI complaint, you will soon start to wonder how the NJ ring could have operated without covert aid from officials in Israel.
Are all allegations of Israeli organ harvesting a matter of mere rumor? Consider this, from an excellent article by Alison Weir:
Israel’s very first, historic heart transplant used a heart removed from a living patient without consent or consulting his family.
Further in the same well-footnoted piece:
In still another 2007 story, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Professor Zaki Shapira, one of Israel's leading transplant surgeons, was arrested in Turkey on Thursday on suspicion of involvement in an organ trafficking ring. According to the report, the transplants were arranged in Turkey and took place at private hospitals in Istanbul.”
Oddly enough, The Economist did not arouse international cries of "anti-Semitism" last year, when it published a piece that some might consider more controversial than Bostrom's. Bostrom wrote of events from 1992, while this brings the matter closer to current times:
Another kidney racket flourished in South Africa between 2001 and 2003. Donors were recruited in Brazil, Israel and Romania with offers of $5,000-20,000 to visit Durban and forfeit a kidney. The 109 recipients, mainly Israelis, each paid up to $120,000 for a “transplant holiday”; they pretended they were relatives of the donors and that no cash changed hands.
The same article goes on to discuss the organ trade in China. As before, I must ask: Why is discussion of Israeli participation in this trade considered racist, while discussion of China's role is not?
The Weir piece gives a precis of the strange tale of Alisdair Sinclair, a Scot who died under rather mysterious circumstances in 1998 while in Israeli custody. The body lacked a heart when it was returned home to Scotland. The resultant uproar forced Dr. Yehusa Hiss, who ran the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, to step down.
Hiss was previously accused of harvesting organs from fallen IDF soldiers:
In this case, as in many previous cases, the family is demanding an investigation and the dismissal of chief pathologist Prof. Yehuda Hiss. Other cases also document that Hiss and his staff took organs without requesting or informing relatives. Jars containing body parts of civilians and soldiers have been found in the forensic institute, but to date, no government agency has taken any action against Hiss, not even the minimum - suspending him from duty pending an investigation.
If the organ theft story is a matter of mere "rumor," then why was a real doctor named -- and why was that doctor removed from his position?
This story in Ha'aretz -- no-one's idea of an anti-Semitic source -- notes that the heroic Nancy Scheper-Hughes was the first to inform of FBI of the New Jersey organ theft ring run by Isaac Rosenbaum. Alas, neither Ha'aretz nor any other mainstream source has followed up on Sheper-Hughes' further revelation (as delivered in interviews and speeches) that the Rosenbaum ring was run out of Israel -- was, in fact, part of a worldwide enterprise run by a mysterious Israeli named Ilan Peri.
Not even Scheper-Hughes has dared to mention in public that an Israeli army officer named Geldaya Tauber Gady (listed in most news stories as Geldaya Tauber) testified in a Brazilian court that the ring was run by a shadowy man named Ilan, who was an agent of the Israeli government. (For links, see here.)
Should we discount as mere "rumor" courtroom testimony, under oath, from an IDF officer?
Back in 2004, the New York Times -- rarely considered an anti-Semitic journal -- took a closer look at the Brazilian arm of this international ring:
All told, the police in Brazil estimate that about 100 men, nearly all poor or unemployed, ages 20 to 40, agreed to sell kidneys. Though some would eventually be rejected for having an unusual blood type, frail health or signs of drug use, more than 60 men are believed to have gone to South Africa.
Recife and its slums had become so lucrative a source for organs, in fact, that Brazilian investigators believe that by late 2003, Israeli brokers, in an effort to swell their earnings further, were considering moving their operations to hospitals here and in other nearby cities.
With poverty offering up an unquenchable pool of volunteers, the local authorities say the ring had also begun inquiring about buying other vital organs from poor residents, including lungs, livers and corneas.
The same article speaks of a "syndicate that brokered transplants." Keep in mind that Geldaya Tauber (whose conviction is mentioned in this NYT piece) testified that an Israeli official ran this syndicate. I wonder why the NYT did not come under fire for promoting a blood libel, as did Aftonbladet?
Apparently, the Jerusalem Post is another "anti-Semitic" rag. A 2007 story discusses an illegal organ harvesting ring run by Israelis. The group paid impoverished Ukrainians for their kidneys. This was probably the same ring discussed by Scheper-Hughes.
Professor Scheper-Hughes has not yet been accused of anti-Semitism, but I won't be surprised to see her come under media attack. From a piece she wrote on August 20:
Israel has recently become something of a pariah in the transplant world. Without a strong culture of organ donation and under the pressure of angry transplant candidates, the Ministry of Health has refused to crack down on the country's multi-million dollar business in transplant tourism that arranges junkets from dialysis clinics in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to medical centres in Europe and the United States
"Why should we Israelis be made to travel to third world clinics to get the kidneys we need to survive from the bodies of peasants, soldiers, or guest workers who may be in worse physical shape than ourselves?" a 71-year-old "kidney buyer" from Tel Aviv asked me rhetorically. "Organs should be seen as a human, not as a national resource." It was good to see "Avirham," an elderly gentleman, alive and happy with his revitalizing 22-year-old "peasant" kidney. And his living donor? "A peasant, without anything!" he replied. "Do you have any idea what $1,000, let alone $5,000 means in the life of a peasant?"
As you ponder the moral idiocy of a man in his 70s buying a few extra years of life at the expense of a "peasant" in his early 20s, consider this:.
Human strip mining of the dead for usable parts is not limited to former police states in South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina. Similar practices can be found in one of the wealthiest communities of the United States. In the fall of 1999, I sat in a diner in Hollywood with Jim C., notorious "organs broker" who solicited international buyers and sellers from his home. "There's no reason for anyone to die in this country while waiting for a heart or a kidney to materialize. There are plenty of spare organs to be had in other parts of the world."
I don't know who Jim C is. One day I will. And I will write about him. Be warned, Jim.
Let's take a closer look at the tactics employed by those who would have us believe that no-one is Israel could be capable of such actions. This fellow considers Bostrom a conspiracy theorist weaving a "feverish antisemitic tapestry." His evidence? Bostrom's piece had quoted "Francis Delmonici," professor of transplant surgery at Harvard, who confirmed the involvement of Israelis in the trade. The response:
That Delmonici guy shows up all over the internet, although strangely only in posts about this article and its copies.
The implication: The professor is fictional. Bostrom, presumably maddened by the fever of Judeophobia, concocted the name and the (indirect) quote.
That's not true -- although the name did get slightly garbled. Dr. Francis Delmonico really is a professor of transplant surgery at Harvard; he is also on the board of the National Kidney Foundation. To my knowledge, he has never denied the sentiments attributed to him -- as he surely would have done, if they did not reflect his actual beliefs.
His internet presence is hardly relegated to the Bostrom piece. He also co-authored this article with Nancy Scheper-Hughes on the morality of paying for transplanted organs, as well as a number of scholarly pieces on "transplant tourism." He has written extensively about the organ trade in the Philippines, Turkey and Brazil.
Finally, for those of you do not automatically dismiss the writings of a Palestinian (the way an Alabma jury in 1936 would have automatically discounted testimony from a black man), consider this piece by journalist Kawther Salam:
My personal experience confirms what Mr. Boström wrote: while I do not know the particular case which he describes, it is typical for what the Israelis do in Palestine all the time, what is “normal” since the early seventies.
The Israeli military occupation started in the early 1970s to capture and keep the bodies of the Palestinians who they murdered... Since the early seventies, thousands of Palestinian victims of the occupation were “autopsied”, and many of their bodies kept in military numbered graves. Most members of the resistance who were killed were taken for “autopsy”, and also those who were wounded were abducted from the hospital by the Israelis
The director of the Jerusalem Center for Democracy and Human Rights, Salim Khalleh, stated that their organization has been able to document 270 cases of Palestinian bodies “reserved” in hands of the Israeli occupation, which are buried in numbered graves in secret military cemeteries, or in numbered compartments of cooling facilities. Among these cases, 24 are of Palestinian citizens of the city of Tulkarem. On 8 April 2009 the families of these persons whose bodies are still in the power of the israelis held a demonstration in Tulkarem. The demonstrators presented a petition to the director of Red Cross, in which they demanded that the international organizations make pressure on Israel to release the bodies of their sons.
(Note: A few hours after publication, I heavily re-wrote this piece for style. The substance remains unaltered, although I added a section on the Aftonbldet follow-up piece. Yes, I used Google's translation service, perhaps ironically. As before, I ask Swedish readers to correct any errors.)Permalink
I'm actually surprised that certain writers who are strongly critical of Israel have screamed about the Bostrom article. Their take: Allegations against Israel must be so firmly fact-cased that Israel's supporters can't deny one iota of them, otherwise we feed into their accusations of blood libel and allow them to discredit our entire cause. (One leading example is the folks at jews sans frontieres, who even called Alison Weir an anti-Semite. And a writer at the Electronic Intifada--no friend to Israel at all--was similarly incensed.)
I get what they're saying but I don't get how it applies to this particular article or the series of related articles.
Maybe credible allegations of organ theft are just too monstrous for even the most ardent anti-Israel folks to swallow? But why? Is organ bootery really worse than, say, using white phosphorus on civilians or forcing Palestinans to eat grass? I dunno.
posted by DancingOpossum : 8:29 AM
Donald Bostrom Swedish Journalist on Israeli organ harvesting www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZxyD931dEQ
Alison Weir: Israeli Organ Harvesting
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nq6YkWeH74
posted by Anonymous : 3:12 PM
It's not just that those who throw the accusation of anti-Semitism against Bostrom, and against those of us who believe there is probably a lot of substance to his allegations, are wrong. They're also deeply racist.
Why? I doubt there are many among their number who actually care whether the allegations are true or not. Because for them that's not the point. The point is that someone's accusing state officials and other Jewish individuals in the Jewish state of committing truly horrendous, barbaric acts. Obviously that's no criticism of those who don't do such acts and who would abhor and condemn them whoever they were done by, regardless of the religious or ethnic background of either the perpetrators or the victims. But that's not how Jewish identity works, in the main. Most Jewish people and people with Jewish family connections I've known, whom I've been able to discuss the issue with, have confirmed that the idea of "don't cause a shanda fur die goyim" is very deeply engrained, deeply respected, and scrupulously observed.
Lastly...I guess you may not be into the idea of an Arctic Sea connection with the timing of the Bostrom article, Joe. For the record, I'll add that I don't think the ship was carrying arms to Iran. That's just too close to the Sharon doctrine and Brand Israel for me to give it a lot of mileage at the present time. Weapons? Certainly. To Iran? Maybe, maybe not. I mean how would they get them to Iran by going through the English Channel? Drop 'em in Algeria? Whizz 'em to Syria? Or go round the Cape, maybe? Syria sounds very far-fetched, but even if the other scenarios are more likely, there are other possibilities too.
I keep thinking of the reports that stated the crew were granted visas for three days' "recuperation" on a Cape Verde island. Nuclear contamination? Nuclear warheads rather than missiles, As for the intended end-u maybe? Or just weapons-grade plutonium.
Another contender as the intended end-user would be Greece. Israel's certainly got an interest in the Greek-Turkish arms race in general and on Cyprus in particular.
Or a false-flagger? Might have been a party that was planning to store the weapons for quite some time, or one that was going to use them soon. I can think of an oligarch who has been keeping remarkably quiet on all this.
posted by b : 5:10 PM
Ha ha - after I said that the Bostrom article was probably Swedish retaliation for an Israeli military operation in Swedish waters, the Online Journalopines that in fact it was the other way around! They claim that "the timing of the Israeli piracy operation was to divert attention away from the Swedish media coverage of the organ theft story" and to get a PR dividend from the Iran story.
Like duh! If you're going to board a ship, the ship has got to be there!
They also claim, interestingly, that the guys detained in Moscow are linked to the Jewish criminal network in eastern Europe. This could shed light on why stories have appeared portraying them as petty criminals only. However, at this time I stick to my view that they were patsies. You need special forces for that kind of job, and you don't have much control over the timing.
Also, note that it's the Israelis who have (between the lines) released the information (and unofficially confirmed it) that Netanyahu paid a "hush-hush" visit to Moscow to "discuss", er, issues of Russian possible sales of defensive weapons to Iran.
Fucking curious the Russians haven't said anything.
One thing that's certainly been apparently happening is that the Israelis are smacking down the Russians like no-one's business. But appearance need not be reality. The Russians may not be so weak vis-a-vis the Zionists as they appear. After all, unlike the Americans they don't let Israeli firms guard their civilian and military nuclear installations - as far as I know, anyway.
A lot has changed this year, though, and the Zionists are mounting aggressive propaganda campaigns this week against a number of countries, including Sweden, Ireland, and Russia and even their pals Norway. Nothing less than total subservience is required, although on that basis a cut of a deal might be allowed. (The Israeli attitute to events in Israeli-armed and Israeli-controlled Georgia was that the Russians were being bloody obstinate and nasty, given that the Zionists had been so kind as to offer them a slice of the pipeline deal).
posted by b : 1:36 AM
Nicely spotted, dancing oppossum. What's going on? "Jews sans frontieres" is a pseudo-gang in my opinion. One of the leaders is very dodgy. They're the kind of group that certain not-so-clued-up pro-Palestinian elements like to approach. Guess where the reports go. Their "critical attitude" is always missing a firing pin where Jewish racism is concerned. A lot of it is "white man's burden" stuff, dressed up with clever intellectual posturing.
There have been other times in history when a big chunk of the Jewish or Israeli left has - sometimes all of a sudden - wheeled round and decided to support the Israeli authorities openly. See for example Amos Oz and other pseudo-lefties who threw up their hands at one point, claiming the Palestinians had shown themselves impossible to deal with. Israel Shahak (a good guy) was right to call the Israeli left fake.
...I offer this artwork. (Click to enlarge.) If there are any Annoyed People out there, please don't call your lawyers. I'm not making any money.
Permalink
Yeah, but Perry...you're the #1 wrong person to judge art based on your own lack of talent and star-value. Don't give up the day job. I still have not recovered the lost time and revulsive shudders from viewing your ill-fated attempts to make yourself into a youtube sensation...and it's super rare I manage to remember a name for good or ill. Joseph, don't censor this, please...it's a public service if it prevents even one more infotainment attempt by Perry.
posted by Zee : 9:56 PM
Perry's fine by me. I liked the web page on his site with all the eyeballs.
The Van Jones thing (now with a CDS update): This may surprise you...
...but I'm angry.
Angry not at Obama aide Anthony "Van" Jones, but at the Republicans who forced his resignation based on a 2004 petition he signed concerning 9/11.
True, I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama. True, I became -- and remain -- pluperfectly pissed off at the "truthers" who commandeered the entire national discussion of 9/11 by promulgating the inane "controlled demolition" theory.
(No, we will not not NOT discuss the CD theory here. I still recall the unpleasant events of 2006 and 2007, when the "trannies" -- as I derisively call the CDers -- nearly took over this blog. Their fanatical behavior, both here and everywhere else, consigned them forevermore to the fringe, to an internet ghetto which they have built for themselves and from which they will never escape. They have, for the most part, been banned from all sites outside that ghetto. After the way I've been treated by those zealots, I now delete on sight any comment that even hints at a pro-tranny stance. If you don't like that rule, fuck off and die and may spider monkeys rape your corpse.)
(One last word. The collapse of the towers began at the points of impact, dummies!)
Where was I...? Oh yeah. Van Jones.
Why am I pissed off at the Republicans who called for his ouster? Behold the hypocrisy:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called on Jones to resign Friday, saying in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."
Senator Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) urged Congress to investigate Jones's "fitness" for the position, writing in an open letter, "Can the American people trust a senior White House official that is so cavalier in his association with such radical and repugnant sentiments?"
These GOPers never denounced Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, both of whom have said that Obama hates white people. Both of those men are as coarse and repugnant as ungranulated salt on an open wound on a saint's body. (Pence is in tight with Limbaugh, incidentally.)
You want to talk about extremism? Let's talk about extremism.
What about the many Republicans -- including congressmen John Campbell and Bill Posey -- who promoted that "birther" nonsense? What about the un-chamingly zany Michelle Bachmann, who recently intimated that swine flu was a Democratic conspiracy, who says that no amount of carbon dioxide can do harm to the atmosphere, who insists that evolution has never been proven, who thinks that Obama is setting up "re-education camps," and who wants to hold a McCarthy-like investigation into fellow congress members to determine whether or not they are "pro-America"? What about Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, who -- after bidding farewell to observable reality -- told a crowd that Obama had established a private army, along with complete press control and a total gun ban, all with the intent of establishing a Marxist one-party state?
And what about Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond, the guy who called Jones "radical and repugnant"? Bond is the fellow who, when asked whether waterboarding constituted torture, replied: "It's like swimming, freestyle, backstroke."
Again: I'm no Obama fan. My record on that score is clear. But if the above-mentioned Republicans are not radical and repugnant extremists, then who is?
As for the petition that Van Jones signed: Keep the chronology in mind. As of 2004, the CD crazies had not yet taken over the length and the breadth of the debate over 9/11. Before the bombs-in-the-buildings bozos took over, a lot of good people were asking a lot of good questions about those events -- questions about the role of Saudi Arabia, the role of Pakistan's ISI, the relationship between the ISI and the CIA, the strange doings of Mohammed Atta in Florida, the easy entry of Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar into this country even after the CIA had pegged them as terrorists (they found San Diego lodgings with an FBI informant!), the escape of so many Al Qaeda personnel from Afghanistan, the strong evidence that Mossad assets in New Jersey had advance knowledge of the attacks, and much more.
You can read about those issues on the History Commons site, on Daniel Hopsicker's site, and elsewhere. Alas, the CD-addled "truthers" have de-legitimized those asking the right questions.
The actual petition that Van Jones signed makes no reference to any of that "bombs in the building" nonsense. In fact, it asks a lot of questions which I consider fair (especially when we consider the petition's date):
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
I applaud Van Jones for asking those questions.
By the way -- he has a remarkable history as a civil rights activist and as the founder of Green For All. In 2008, his resume was (in my view) far more impressive than was the c.v. of Barack Obama, who had accomplished little outside the realm of relentless self-promotion. Frankly, I would be a happier man right now if Obama were working in a Jones administration.
It's odd that conservative politicians are denouncing the "truthers" as extremists, since most of today's CD nutbags espouse conservative views. In 2006 and 2007, the trannies had made inroads into progressive circles, but the infection was blocked. The turning point occurred when a group of crazies, in a frenzy of self-defeatism, disrupted Bill Maher's show. That's the moment when many liberals woke up to the truth about the "truthers." Since that time, the tranny movement has attracted mostly the type of people who joined militias during the Clinton years.
One of the leading CDers is our old friend Alex Jones, a repugnant and radical extremist if ever I saw one. He has not exactly rallied his troops to support Van Jones. To the contrary: The Infowars site defames the former Obama aide as a "Marxist."
(As for Michelle Bachmann: I wish her a long and happy life. But like all other mortals, she will one day join the choir invisible. When that day comes, I hope that some lusty spider monkey will do his duty.)
Update: We've seen how the CD nuts have reacted to Van Jones. Now let's see what the CDS nuts -- that is, the Kossacks -- have to say. Guess who they're blaming? Hint: Not the Republicans. And certainly not Obama.
As many times as Obama disappoints me, I remain unwavering on one point: Clinton would have been worse. The Democratic Party is in its current pro-corporate spineless state thanks to the first Clinton we elected President.
Whatever happens: Blame Bill! Lost your dog? Blame Bill! Can't find your uncle's old chili recipe? Blame Bill! Big meteor a-comin'? Blame Bill!Permalink
He was'nt "defamed" as a marxist. Van Jones IS a self-avowed marxist. And he can't seem to give a speech on anything without blaming whitey for all the world's ills. From the environment to Columbine.
The attempt at justifying the politics of Van Jones by highlighting the shortcomings of select conservatives shows that you also find Jones unable to stand on his own 'merits'. Understandably, space constraints disallowed your listing the liberal Congressional members that would have fit this theme.
Belief in conspiracy theories is integral to the black community and mainstream among black voters. But Obama cannot be seen as giving credence to theories that accuse whites of deliberately poisoning black neighborhoods with toxic waste. Obama cannot stand behind Jones because being green cannot be made racial without giving substance to Beck's accusation that Obama is racist. That is why Jones had to resign. It has nothing to do with the Truthers.
posted by Anonymous : 7:17 AM
RIC: By all means, list the liberal congressfolk you consider analogous to the Republicans I mentioned.
Bravo, Joseph! Well put, and well remembered. There were valid questions being asked before the takeover by the "Screw Loose" crowd (the Loose Change video started out as a mockumentary and was re-edited several times when the celebrity-seeking brats who wrote it discovered a slew of nutcases believed it).
Questions not limited to, but including why was Bush even down in Florida, reading to schoolkids, fresh off a month-long vacation? Nothing else to do? And why his brother had already called out the National Guard down there.
Before the no-planers, many thought that Bush deserved to be impeached for gross negligence.
I always thought the conspiracies were being used to derail and discredit the real questions.
I'm no fan of anything Obama, but as for the charge of obscene language, Van Jones should've come back with a Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney attitude.
posted by Zee : 7:54 AM
"Belief in conspiracy theories is integral to the black community ...But Obama cannot be seen as giving credence to theories that accuse whites of deliberately poisoning black neighborhoods with toxic waste... because being green cannot be made racial.."
Interesting point, Anonymous (and people, make up a name/nym, sheesh! In the Name and URL field, you don't have to put in an URL, you can just put in a nym).
Obama, if he cared, could do so in a way that brought both Van Jones and the black community, to the realization that it's an economic divide. It's poor communities which are used as dumps. The coal ash in Tennessee (largest toxic spill in our history) wasn't confined to black neighborhoods. But since Brand Zero has always caved on this issue (throwing the people and his own legislation over when the nuclear energy interests didn't want to be held accountable for their waste), he'd rather chuck the manufactured nuisance instead of stand by his man.
So....under the bus with Van Jones! Maybe he got the catered underbelly, alongside Granny and Rev. Wright.
posted by Zee : 8:05 AM
"Clinton would have been worse" is what they have to say to themselves to avoid confronting the fact of their own dumbfuckery and complicity in the travesty they (refuse to) own.
Oh, for chrissakes. A young man in the Bay area flirts with "revolutionary" politics, realizes that the whole thing will never go anywhere, then cleans up his act and works within the system and gets respeckable. That's an old and familiar story. Dog bites man; sun rises in east; Obama sells out left. Yawn.
I see no indication that the man is a Marxist. Not even sure he has read Marx. The Marxists I've met, the real ones, never miss a chance to talk your head off with abstruse crap about the labor theory of value.
The historical facts clearly is indicate that Jones should never have been hired. This guy was arrested twice. How did he get security clearance supposedly by the best vetting process ever? This whole czar program needs the covers pulled back so we know who these people are and what they're doing. Is that too much to ask when, as a taxpayer, you're footing the bill?
Are there any Democrats willing to go to the mattress and call out these loons for the nutjobs they are? Other than Charlie Rangel that is. Where are the O-bots over running the town halls and tea party demonstrations like they did the Democratic caucuses? I guess it's one thing to push granny down and steal her caucus pack but something requiring balls to face down republican loons.
posted by MrMike : 12:13 PM
Glenn Beck has had Van Jones in his sights for a while. Earlier this year Beck was warning his viewers about FEMA camps -- a typical Jones/militia scare story. Last week he was exposing John D. Rockefeller as a secret communist. Common sense might tell you that the richest person in history should be the last person to be accused of being red. My guess is that his next target is the Rothschild family.
posted by Eric : 12:26 PM
"The Marxists I've met, the real ones, never miss a chance to talk your head off with abstruse crap about the labor theory of value."
oh yes! in college I used to think, will it ever end? I finally decided the only sane approach was to take the best and leave the rest.
....I guess it's one thing to push granny down and steal her caucus pack but something requiring balls to face down republican loons....
Well said Mr. Mike.
Of COURSE Repugs are hypocritical. They are what they are. My question is, why do Dems so rarely fight them?? Why don't they stand up for themselves and blast back?
People respect that. And imo, feel that if you cannot stand up for yourself, how can you stand up for them? You can't.
People are attracted to the GOP's expression of anger , even if they do not believe in the GOP policies
Besides the Clinton's , the only time I have seen the Dems get angry is at their own base for expecting something for their votes...or if another Dem gets pissed off at the GOP...then they yell at the offending Dem. But when it comes to the GOP, the Dems seem to immediately fold , in hopes the GOP will stop being so mean. Good Luck with that
I was wrong: Glenn Beck’s Next Target: Cass Sunstein. And this is before he claimed the head of Van Jones. posted by Eric : 5:22 PM
Indeed Eric ....and why should Beck stop when it's soooo easy? Who will stop him? WHEN will Dems stick up for themselves? It doesn't look good. They rarely did before and now they are headed by POTUS Political Jello who makes even them seem steadfast.
I well remember when Bill Clinton fought the GOP on various issues, he also had to fight his own party in order to keep fighting.
Dems will fight any Dem that wants to fight the GOP...they just won't fight the GOP. Their response to an opponent putting up dukes is to give up, give in, and endlessly apologize. It wasn't always like this.
Yeah -- Joseph, point of information: "CD"s or cross dressers are straight men and not transsexuals, so your 'trannies' joke doesnt take.
You are thinking of TVs, or transvestites, as any Eddie Izzard fan could have pointed out, in fact Im a bit surprised they havent til now.
Point of contention: Can see no difference from your using 'tranny' as a ridicule for these pinheads and just calling them 'faggots'. Its creepy and demeaning and doesnt belong on this otherwise outstanding blog. Dont.
Thanks.
posted by Zach : 8:18 AM
Reference point of clarification, for your Tuesday:
I did not want to write about Chappaquiddick during the period of mourning for Senator Ted Kennedy -- in fact, I did not care to address the subject at all. But some rather nasty and distorted things have been said recently, and corrections are in order. It's not my intention to excuse Kennedy's actions that night. But I do want to discuss certain common beliefs that just ain't so, even though "everyone knows" them to be true.
I'd also like to address the unconventional views of what occurred on July 18, 1969.
Pseudo-sophisticated "progressives" -- the Nation crowd, the Z Magazine types -- have always considered it permissible to launch any conceivable smear against anyone named Kennedy, just as the Kossacks smeared Hillary non-stop throughout 2008. "Everyone knows" that Ted was drunk that night, and "everyone knows" that he had sped off to have a quickie with Mary Jo -- just as "everyone knows" that Hillary killed Vince Foster.
Even if you have no toleration for Ted Kennedy, at least extend some courtesy toward the memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. She was an extremely religious Catholic girl who was something of a prude, and who almost certainly died a virgin. She did not swear and did not like others to use profanity in her presence. She certainly was not the sort to slip off for a quickie with a married man whose wife was pregnant. She was devoted to Bobby Kennedy's campaign and to everything he stood for. It is a cruel irony of history that she has become an icon for the Kennedy-hating right.
A lot of people have written of the "boiler room girls" (a group which counted Kopechne as a member) as though they were little better than hookers or groupies. That is a gross lie. They were campaign professionals, serious people. The other members of that group went on to have impressive careers. These women deserve far more respect than they have ever received from the right-wingers who write anti-Kennedy books.
There is simply no evidence that Ted Kennedy was drunk that night. None of the witnesses at the party refuted his testimony that he had not driven under the influence of liquor. Deputy Sherrif Huck Look, who saw the car before the accident, would have pulled the vehicle over if the driver showed signs of intoxication. If Kennedy had been drunk, his chauffeur could have driven.
Kennedy should not have been heading toward that bridge. He had turned right onto Dike Road; he should have gone left. Nobody knows why he made that mistake. Can you honestly say that you've never lost your sense of direction while driving at night? I'm rather good at keeping myself oriented, even in the dark, and I take some pride in always having a general sense as to which way is north. Yet on rare occasions I have found myself completely turned around, heading east while under the impression that I was going west.
The bridge came at the end of a downward grade. The bridge veered off to the left -- the road led to the water. The car stayed only briefly on the bridge, then sped off into the water. At the time, there were no guardrails, no reflectors, no signs. The crossing was an accident waiting to happen, and everyone on the island knew it. One need not presume that the driver was intoxicated.
Many captious writers have, in recent days, intimated that after the accident, Kennedy simply went directly back to his hotel room. In fact, he spent quite a long time repeatedly diving into the water attempting to rescue Kopechne, both before and after he went for help.
Senator Kennedy always said that his delay in contacting the police was indefensible, and I see no reason to disagree.
Alternative theories:
1. Many have suggested that Kennedy turned right and drove too rapidly because he spotted Deputy Sheriff Look and did not want to be seen alone in a car with a young woman.
I think this idea has some plausibility, and it certainly explains a few things. But it can't be proven.
2. A BBC documentary posited that Kennedy, fearful of being discovered by Look, got out of the car and returned to the party. Mary Jo was driving the Oldsmobile; she lost control of a car that was very unfamiliar to her.
A variant of this notion was first mooted in Jack Olsen's book A Bridge at Chappaquiddick. The theory has always seemed very problematical to me, although it has the advantage of neatly explaining the delay in reporting the accident. Why wouldn't Kennedy simply tell the truth? Sure, doing so would have been embarrassing -- but not as damaging as the scandal that occurred.
3. An anti-Kennedy writer named Kenneth Kappel wrote a once-popular book which argued that Kennedy and his friends Joe Gargan and Markham had conspired to transform the accident scene. In Kappel's scenario, Mary Jo died in an accident on land. The conspirators placed her in the driver's seat of the car and rolled it into the water, in order to convey the impression that she had driven the vehicle.
A far-fetched notion. There were skid marks on the bridge. Kennedy may have reported the accident belatedly, but when he did, he did not attempt to cast blame on Mary Jo. Mary Jo did have blood on her blouse, as Kappel suggests, but this may have been caused by bloody froth ejected from her nose after the body was recovered.
4. Did Teddy Kennedy strangle Mary Jo because she was pregnant with his child? That was the theory offered by right-wing author Zad Rust in a popular book titled Teddy Bare.
An absurd hypothesis. Any powerful and wealthy man intent on committing murder would have hired a pro to do the job quietly. (I'm sure Carmine had a name in his rolodex.) Mary Jo was not pregnant and bore no signs of strangulation. In fact, it is said that she died a virgin.
5. Did Kennedy and Gargan conspire to have Joe Gargan take responsibility for the accident? This was the thesis offered first by Jack Anderson. A later variant -- Kennedy hoped to blame Mary Jo -- formed the basis of the book Senatorial Privilege.
The problem with this theory is simple: Witnesses could have placed Gargan elsewhere. Although Gargan later turned against Kennedy, Paul Markham never verified this thesis. The author of Senatorial Privilege, Leo Damore, had many hours of an interview with Gargan on tape -- but the key statement went unrecorded, and Gargan never verified that he had actually said it. For this reason, Random House refused to publish the book and demanded the return of a hefty advance. The book was eventually published by -- you guessed it -- Regnery. A name you can trust.
6.A frame-up theory has had a limited popularity among open-minded lefties of a certain sort. According to conspiracy buff R.B. Cutler, Kennedy and Kopechne were kidnapped and drugged, placed in the car and pushed off the bridge. Kennedy escaped, but was later warned to take the blame for the death of Mary Jo, lest harm come to his children. (Consider this scenario the liberal answer to Kappel's argument.)
This scenario has a few pieces of evidence going for it: Deputy Look thought that he saw another person in the car with Kennedy and Kopechne. Mary Jo (supposedly) had a high blood alcohol level even though she had not been witnessed drinking that night. There was damage to the vehicle which (some believe) was not caused by going over the side of the bridge.
However, the problems are formidable.
The skid marks on the bridge immediately rule out the notion of a car gently rolled into the water. Some theorists claim that these are actually acceleration marks -- an idea that makes no sense. Why accelerate off the bridge? Why not go directly into the water?
The scenario discounts the testimony of Gargan and Markham. Neither this theory nor any other gives us any reasonable explanation for Kennedy's seeming nonchalance the next morning, before reporting the accident. Cutler offers a very detailed reconstruction of that evening's events -- but very few of those details come backed by evidence. For example, Cutler proclaims that a threat was leveled against Kennedy's children, but we get no proof -- not even a rumor.
I met Cutler once. He was a pleasant enough fellow, I suppose, albeit rather eccentric. I was not terribly impressed by some of his more outlandish ideas -- he was also the guy who thought that the "Umbrella Man" in Dealey Plaza shot a brolly-dart into JFK's throat. Cutler admitted to me that he sometimes uses ESP to help solve mysteries. While I strongly suspect that ESP is real, I'm not convinced that Cutler has any talent for it.
Lingering doubts: I don't buy Cutler's Chappaquiddick theory, but part of me still wonders if some key aspect of that night's tragedy remains untold. Is there an alternative scenario missed by all of the theorists?
Mary Jo left in a hurry, without her purse, which contained her hotel key. Why? Even a woman intent on a tryst will invariably take her purse. In my experience, only a threat to physical safety could cause a woman to leave her purse behind. That said, I have no idea what, at that party, could have been perceived as a threat. (Conceivably, she could have been very intoxicated, but no-one saw her drinking to excess.)
There are those who argue that Mary Jo was the real target that night. Her former roommate, Nancy Tyler, had dated Bobby Baker, the corrupt aide to LBJ. After leaving Baker acrimoniously, Tyler died in a mysterious plane crash. Some suspect that she learned secret information which she passed onto Mary Jo.
Was Kennedy fearful of being followed? Did he feel that he and/or Mary Jo were in some sort of danger?
Many of his actions that night indicate a man motivated by fear, not by lust or intoxication. His turn down Cemetery Road took him into a remote area. He may have thought that Deputy Look was someone else -- someone threatening -- hence the wrong turn down Dike Road, which also would have led to the most remote parts of the island. A sense of danger might explain his estimated 20 MPH driving speed, which was somewhat above the safe level for that stretch of road.
Nixon -- who feared Ted Kennedy more than he feared anyone else -- had a henchman named Tony Ulasewicz on the island when the accident occurred. Remarkable coincidence.
Perhaps unrelated, but worth noting: In 1972, Nixon arranged to have a man named Robert Newbrand assigned to Kennedy's secret service detail. Newbrand, a Nixon loyalist, had previously offered the president his services as an assassin. Another coincidence.
My own theory of Chappaquiddick
(I add these words some hours after writing the bulk of this piece.)
Consider this scenario: At the party, Mary Jo Kopechne found a chance to tell Ted Kennedy that she had important information pertinent to the death of either JFK or RFK. She could have learned something about the death of JFK from her former roommate, Nancy Tyler. Or she could have seen evidence in the RFK case.
In public, Kennedy always supported the Warren Commission, although there is reason to suspect that he was privately curious about alternative scenarios. At any rate, he would have considered Mary Jo a reliable witness -- not a conspiracy crank.
Fearing political damage, he would not have wanted to discuss such a matter in a public place. Impetuously, he yanked her out of the party to talk the matter out during a drive. Conversely, it might have been Mary Jo who asked to discuss the matter in private. The car provided the only privacy.
It is inconceivable that Mary Jo would leave her purse at the party if she were going back to her room, even for a romantic liaison. But if she were going out for a ten-minute drive, then the inconceivability factor lessens, although leaving the purse behind still seems odd. Perhaps she thought that they were going to talk for only a minute or two in a parked car. Perhaps she was surprised when he turned on the ignition. (He would have wanted to go for a brief drive because he would not have wanted anyone to ask "What were you two talking about out there in the car?")
Picture it: Two people driving at night in a remote location, discussing high-level murder conspiracies. Maybe Mary Jo said something about being afraid for her own life.
Even before the party, Kennedy might have been feeling paranoid -- or justifiably fearful. Although most accounts put Ulasewicz on the Island on the morning of the accident, there are those who insist that the hulking Nixon henchman had been tailing Kennedy for some days before. No-one questions that Nixon was always obsessed with the Kennedys. No one questions that the Plumbers (as they came to be called) spent a lot of time spying on the senator. I think it is very likely that Nixonian spies tipped their hand and were "made." In a remote locale, it is not easy to spy on someone without being seen.
Conceivably, the spies intentionally let Teddy know he was under surveillance, just to get under his skin. Perhaps they did damage to his car. Schoolboy pranks -- with psychological consequences.
Remember, we are talking about a man who had already lost two brothers to assassination, and who had barely survived an airplane crash that was never fully explained.
So once again, I ask you to picture the scene:
Two people who feel that they have good reason to be fearful, two people who think that they are being watched everywhere they go, are driving around in the dark, in the middle of nowhere. That's why they go down Cemetery Road. That's why they go down Dike Road in the "wrong" direction. They aren't heading back to either person's hotel -- in fact, they aren't going anywhere in particular.
In this paranoid and hyper-alert state, they encounter Deputy Sheriff Huck Look. If the driver of Kennedy's Oldsmobile seems suspicious to Look, imagine how Look must seem to Kennedy.
Kennedy suspects that Look might be one of "them." The senator hightails it down Dike Road, traveling at 20 mph -- not a monstrously high rate of speed, but rather too fast for that stretch.
Thinking that he is being chased, he turns onto the bridge a second too late. The accident occurs.
He tries, and fails, to rescue the girl. He doesn't tell Markham and Gargan why he and Mary Jo were driving around.
Exhausted, he heads back to the hotel, where he wrestles with the problem of what to tell the police and the press. He certainly doesn't want to tell the public that he let paranoia get the best of him. More importantly, he's not sure whether he should reveal the story that Mary Jo had told him -- a story that we can only guess at. (She may have only begun.) He knows that it would look terrible if the public hears that someone with information about a Kennedy conspiracy died while in a car driven by Ted Kennedy. If her information was suggestive but not probative, then Kennedy would look foolish for allowing himself to be worked up into such a highly anxious state.
After dawn, he goes to the cops with the story that he stuck with for the rest of his life.
This reconstruction explains the lingering enigmas -- in particular, the "purse problem" -- as well as any other. My theory -- which is hardly exonerative -- may be about the effects of paranoia, but is not itself conspiratorial or sensationalistic. I freely admit that evidence is lacking. The only witnesses are now dead. Permalink
Thanks for running through some little known scenarios.
One critical question is whether Sen. Kennedy could have possibly escaped that car at all. If not (and many people have said it was impossible, including local police on the record), then a) he wasn't in the car at the time and b) he wasn't driving the car at the time. Which would narrow down the possible scenarios, and definitely rule out the official story.
One author noted the impact damage to the windows inside and MJK's bruising to infer that she must have been in the driver's seat at the time the car hit the water.
Tony U supposedly arrived at the island just as the car was being discovered by authorities (i.e., some hours later than the incident). But perhaps he was there before, as early as before the incident, as some have argued.
Did you mean to suggest he was there for the whole event, or just that he arrived there as per the official story?
XI
posted by Anonymous : 6:02 PM
Two people know what happened that night and both have passed on. The haters will to continue to spew their lies and the fools will continue to believe them. God help us all.
posted by MrMike : 8:09 PM
Beer run gone horribly wrong? Mary Jo along to go into the liquor store so Kennedy wouldn't be recognized?
posted by MrMike : 11:22 AM
Good article... During the many years I was married, the family I was in were directly involved with the Shadow Government also called in the Chicago area as The Combine. Their function within this criminal system put them in an upper level and they had many opportunities to learn details about prior situations, such as what had been happening to the Kennedy's.
With what I know and from what I'm reading in the news each day, it's clear the Shadow Government is being surfaced and areas of it are being torn apart. Considering this, I would look forward to hearing details later that will surface many truths about many questionable situations from the past, including everything about the Kennedy's. Perhaps at that time, I'll feel comfortable with explaining what I know as well. Many people are going to be very surprised when this comes out.
Marty Didier Northbrook, IL
posted by Anonymous : 11:39 AM
MrMike, the greatest hatred in this historical case is from those who take the official story as written in history and (possibly falsely) confessed to as true by the man and draw conclusions of EMK's character from it. Which isn't actually foolish, or originally based in hate per se, but the way most people handle historical events they are not involved in to know particular details.
Then there is the group that hears the official and confessed-to story, finds it implausible, but given what EMK was willing to admit, thinks the truth was probably worse than the official story.
Both of these positions are quite reasonable, and both result in a negative assessment of EMK's character that some may call hatred, sure. Others might call it a justified revulsion against the man based on these purported facts.
It's hard to exculpate EMK unless one goes to a conspiracy theory, and then, indeed, the public reading those is at the mercy of whatever unknown hidden agenda there may be in those alternative stories. And some of the alternative theories make it worse for EMK, not better.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 1:53 PM
It just seems like the most likely scenario is that Kennedy had a few drinks - wasn't blotto but enough to impair driving.
And when a man his age and a young woman go out driving, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what going on. She was a devout Catholic? I am sure she was. Lots of devout Catholic girls get mixed up with married men.
He made a mistake and someone died. Kennedy made a lot of mistakes in his life - like endorsing Obama.
I don't think the Kennedys were monsters but they were rich and reckless with women and booze. This is all fairly well documented in sources a lot more reputable than any Cannon cites here.
posted by Chris in Texas : 7:22 PM
I've been known to leave my purse behind, when I want to be certain that I have a reason to return. Back in the days when young ladies worried about their reputation, such tricks allowed them to control the progress of the evening.
If Mary Jo wasn't drinking that night, then there is a good chance that her purse was left behind intentionally. IF that's the case, then whatever she perceived herself as doing with Ted, she wanted to make sure that it wasn't an open ended engagement. Not only does she have to go back to get the purse, she has to do it before the party is over.
I've always thought someone was on the bridge. Someone that scared Ted so thoroughly that he hid out for several hours. I don't believe that he was afraid to facing the public over Kopechne's death. I just don't.
Although I was about 22 years old when this happened, I never followed this story much. Why? It was plain as day to me that the truth would likely never be known. There is just so much time in one's life and so many mysteries and ironies.
This incident happened not much more than a year after Martin Luther King was assassinated and Ted's brother Robert was assassinated.
By my reckoning there's much more truth to be discovered in a place like this than in playing Sherlock Holmes games.
OK Joe, this is only on-topic for previous posts. But the Sunday Times are now covering the Israeli connection with the boarding of the Arctic Sea. Some of it's reported second-hand, but they're basically saying the Israelis intercepted a weapons shipment by force and then allowed the little Russians to take the glory.
Exactly who in Russia was involved in the shipment, and what relationship they have with the Kremlin, remains unclear. Going through the English channel is a bloody long way round to get from Russia to Iran. I guess you are probably wondering about a possible BB involvement by now. So am I.
I think I was right to suggest that the Swedish Bostrom article on the organ trade was retaliation for the attack which happened in Swedish waters.
This Daily Telegraph article supports my other contention too: that the Estonians etc. who are currently detained in Moscow are purely patsies.
Peres went to Moscow the day after the Russian navy boarded the ship off Cape Verde. It was obvious that the shipment contained serious quantities of serious weapons when the crew, 'hijackers' and 'investigators' were brought to Russia on huge military transport planes.
posted by b : 2:36 AM
He left her under water for how many hours? She tried and struggled to breathe for how long?
posted by kittycatt : 9:44 AM
kitty: He tried to rescue her immediately. Many times, and at no small risk.
Despite what you have read, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that she died of drowning fairly rapidly -- well, as rapidly as one dies of drawing.
But Joseph, the car was submerged in water for how long? 10 hours, 12 hours? He tried and obviously failed to rescue her. Now, would you or I or anyone, in any situation, conspiracy or not, leave a person in that situation for that long without trying to get help? The answer is no, if you are a human being with a functioning heart.
posted by kittycatt : 2:16 PM
I think we already stipulated that the delay was indefensible, as Kennedy himself has said all along. Did you read what I wrote?
You know, though, it occurs to me. Maybe the whole thing has a simple answer:
"Joe, Paul, I thought I told YOU to call the cops...!"
That would explain why he seemed so nonchalant at breakfast until his friends showed up.
Since the day I learned about it I have questioned EMK's behavior that night. Joseph, your theory about Kennedy being distracted by his own paranoia is original and fresh; lori, your remarks about the purse are illuminating.
I can not believe a man would leave a young woman to drown inside a car while he walked past four houses, while he had his friends drive him across the island, while he swam the 500-foot channel--especially not when he had to know it amounted to the political assassination of his presidential hopes.
Surely somebody on the island knew where to get scuba gear.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Kennedy did not call for help because he knew Mary Jo was already dead (perhaps she had been drowned before the car even hit the water), because the truth of the matter would never be believed, and because his children had been threatened.
posted by Anonymous : 9:29 AM
My understanding is that MJF did not die from drowning, but from asphyxiation, per the coroner/medical examiner's finding.
This would require that she got to a bubble of air trapped in the topmost part of the automobile (the rear, as it went in head first), and used up the oxygen there by breathing, until no oxygen was left, only carbon dioxide from her exhaling.
This adds the element of an extended and horrifying period of knowing she would likely die to the mix.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 1:07 PM
There was no autopsy. No Coroner's report supports anything but drowning. The air pocket claim comes from Regnery author Leo Damore.
"Damore also gives weight to the views of John Farrar, the diver who was called to extricate Mary Jo's body from the crashed vehicle. Farrar maintained that it was likely an air pocket had allowed Mary Jo to survive for a number of hours after the accident and he based his statement on his knowledge of the tides, his experience as a scuba-diver and the position of Mary Jo's body before it was retrieved from the car. This statement led Damore to conclude that Mary Jo had not drowned but instead suffocated. He accepted Farrar's description that the buoyancy of Mary Jo's body indicated she had not drowned. Farrar also commented on the small amount of water that had been expelled from Mary Jo. He never considered the possibility that water was expelled during the body's extrication from the vehicle.
There is no credible scientific evidence to support the theory of suffocation — a theory that eventually became accepted by many writers and leading newspapers in the United States and abroad. However, authors James E. T. Lange and Katherine DeWitt Jr. in their excellent study of the accident (Chappaquiddick, The Real Story 1992) proved, by examining previous drowning cases, that the buoyancy of a body indicates nothing — some bodies float, others sink. They also showed how Damore was mistaken about the tides.
Furthermore, Markham and Gargan did not observe any movement by Mary Jo when they attempted to rescue her. If she had still been alive it is reasonable to assume she would have assisted her rescuers in their attempts to get her out of the car. And three of the car's windows had been forced in, making it unlikely that an air pocket would have been trapped, especially as the strong current would have filled the car quickly with water. And Gargan said Mary Jo was dead when he and Markham made a second attempt to rescue her at around 2 a.m. or so. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Mary Jo was still alive in the car for anything but a brief period of time after the car entered the water.
And if an air pocket had indeed been present, medical opinion has demonstrated that Mary Jo would have succumbed to hypothermia in the strong and cold Labrador currents, probably within an hour. Even if Kennedy had alerted rescue services by telephone, there are compelling arguments presented by Lange and DeWitt that they would have arrived too late to save Mary Jo. Only a Coast Guard rescue helicopter could have saved her within the time available, Lange and DeWitt argue.
It is also reasonable to assume that had Mary Jo been alive shortly after the car hit the water she would have made an attempt to escape rather than wait for help. As a young athletic woman and a swimmer, she would not have waited for any length of time to be rescued."
Was a Christian convert threatened -- or brainwashed?
Sometimes the brainwashing is just so transparent.
Right now, many media voices, especially the right-wing bloggers, seem transfixed by the tale of 17 year old Rifqa Bary, a formerly Islamic girl from Columbus Ohio who converted to evangelical Christianity. Young Bary was born in Sir Lanka, although her family now seems very Americanized. (Some news accounts spell her name "Rifka.") She ran off to Orlando, Florida to be with something ominously called The Global Revolution Church, run by Reverend Blake Lorenz, whom she met via Facebook.
Now, in a tableau that plays right into one of the memes favored by right-wing paranoids, Rifqa claims that her Islamic father wants her dead. Murdering an apostate daughter would be considered an "honor killing," or so she would have us believe.
Her father denies that he ever made any such threat.
Also before today's hearing, Rifqa's father spoke out for the first time on national television to "Good Morning America," saying his daughter's claims are completely "not true" and that she is being manipulated by people in the Christian community.
"I don't believe my daughter would say this," Rifqa's father, Mohamed Bary, told "GMA." "She's completely being coached -- I mean trained, influenced by these people. It's so sad."
The Barys blame the girl's actions on the Lorenzes and believe the Lorenzes coaxed her into claiming the honor killing, though they admit they would prefer if their daughter was Muslim.
"She is free to practice whatever she believes in," Mohamed Rifqa said. "No problem. She can practice in my house. I have no problem.
"We love her. It's our daughter. She being a Christian doesn't mean she's not my daughter," he said.
The Lorenzes have so far not commented on the accusation that they have coached the girl. Their refusal to speak with the media is, in my view, suspicious.
Which side is telling the truth? A big clue -- perhaps the only clue we really need -- can be found in this early statement from Rifqa:
The teenager, in a sworn affidavit, claims her father, Mohamed Bary, 47, was pressured by the mosque the family attends in Ohio to "deal with the situation." In the court filing, Rifqa Bary stated her father said, "If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me!"
Keep in mind that this is a court filing. Anyone (even a young person) swearing to an official statement will try -- or should try -- to reconstruct the actual wording of a quote, as opposed to offering a loose precis.
Question: How likely is it that the father would have uttered the phrase "If you have this Jesus in your heart"?
That kind of locution -- "Accept Jesus into your heart," "allow Jesus to enter your heart," "bring Jesus into your heart" and so forth -- is often uttered by evangelical Christian pastors and writers. The phrase is not so common among other types of Christians. You might hear a Catholic say such a thing every once in a great while, but Catholics do not use that terminology routinely. (They have their own set of stock phrases -- many of which are in Latin, which is way cool.)
Would a Muslim speak of letting Jesus into one's heart? Hardly!
Moreover, in evangelical fiction -- I'm thinking of Jack Chick comics, Christian TV historical dramas and similar propaganda -- it is pretty common to have "heathen" villains use the phrase "this Jesus." The words are usually given to Roman emperors and swarthy Eastern potentates. As in: "Wazir, my counselor, tell me: Who is this...Jesus? Why do all the slaves speak of this worker of wonders?" If you really want to do the line justice, you must include a long pause between "this" and "Jesus," and you have to sneer broadly as you utter the Name of Names.
The phrase "this Jesus" has also become part of evangelical argot -- see here and here and here and here. Evangelicals are especially likely to use the phrase when they try to convert darker-hued non-Americans. The term is not much used outside of fundamentalist circles.
So it's pretty clear to me that Rifqa's father did not say those words. Rather, his daughter ascribed to him the kind of line that an unintelligent writer of Christian fiction might have put into the mouth of a Muslim. It's not something that a Muslim actually would say; a Muslim might more plausibly speak of kufr (infidelity) and haraam (unlawful).
Alas, most evangelical preachers are so caught up in their own alternate universe that they cannot understand that the rest of the world does not use their patois. They remind me of the stereotypical American in Europe who becomes furious at Eye-talians who refuse to speak English like normal human beings.
Further evidence:
Rifka has spoken of her native Sri Lanka as though it were an Islamic nation. It is not. Sri Lanka is primarily Buddhist; Hindus are also well-represented. There is a good amount of interaction, synchronism and even conversion among these traditional Sri Lankan faiths. Nevertheless, Rifka spoke as though honor killings were common there. That's not true: Fazli Sameer, a native of her home town of Galle Fort, writes that the Muslim women in that area are considered very liberated -- they do not take the veil -- and "honor killings" simply do not happen. (Although it is true that many Buddhists do tend to resent Christian proselytizers from overseas.)
So tell me, my good Wazir: Just who is this...Reverend Blake Lorenz?
Recently God gave Blake a new call to share with the church, Israel, and the Gentile nations that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. After 24 years as a United Methodist pastor and evangelist, Blake retired from the Methodist Church in obedience to Jesus Who told him to separate himself and serve only Him. This led to the founding of Global Revolution Ministries and Global Revolution Church, based in Orlando, Florida.
He recently started a television ministry to proclaim his eschatology. I think we should all get the picture by this point. Falwell, Robertson and LaHaye are now old, while Swaggart, the Bakkers, the Crouches and Haggard all fell into scandal. Lorenz obviously hopes to replace them. Rifqa is his ticket to national fame.
Incidentally, the primary internet voice pushing this story has been Pam Geller -- Randroid, blinkered Israel-worshipper and unrepentant "birther." If Pammikins says that the sky is blue, you may safely presume that it has changed color.
Permalink
Islam holds Jesus to be a prophet, or messenger of God, along with Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, Noah, and others. In particular, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى `Īsā) is described as the Messiah, sent to guide the Israelites (referred to as the "Children of Israel" in the Qur'an, or banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl (gospel).[247] According to the Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be God's final revelation, Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid him in his quest, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles. These included speaking from the cradle, curing the blind and the lepers, as well as raising the dead; all by the permission of God. Furthermore, Jesus was helped by a band of disciples (the ḥawāriyūn). Islam rejects historians assertions that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, instead claiming that he had been raised alive up to heaven. Islamic traditions narrate that he will return to earth near the day of judgement to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl (lit. "the false Messiah", also known as the Antichrist) and the enemies of Islam. As a just ruler, Jesus will then die.[248]
Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim, as he preached for people to adopt the straight path in submission to God's will. Islam denies that Jesus was God or the son of God, stating that he was an ordinary man who, like other prophets, had been divinely chosen to spread God's message. Islamic texts forbid the association of partners with God (shirk), emphasizing the notion of God's divine oneness (tawhīd). As such, Jesus is referred to in the Qur'an frequently as the "son of Mary" ("Ibn Maryam").[248][249] Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as mubārak (blessed) and `abd-Allāh (servant of God). Another title is al-Masīḥ ("the Messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although it does not correspond with the meaning accrued in Christian belief. Jesus is seen in Islam as a precursor to Muhammad, and is believed by Muslims to have foretold the latter's coming.[248]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
so much for the "this"
posted by leloup/France : 11:17 PM
No matter who said what,we all know "honor" killing is ALIVE and well. Uf the young girl is truly afraid,it's for a good reason.
posted by Tina Tequila : 5:04 AM
Tina, some Muslims are maniacs. But not all. Some Christians and Jews are maniacs. But not all. The girl's family seems quite non-maniacal to me. Not sure if I would say that about Lorenz.
I agree the father does not look maniacal, just sounds exasperated. However, I find it interesting that the mother did not speak if women in his home are as liberated as he claims. The mother speaking would have given us a clue as to whether her daughter would use direct eye contact to the camera or not. As far as the reference to Jesus in your heart, it would make sense that a Muslim would say this, if the now converted Christian daughter had used this first when speaking to her father (was she uttering this phrase before she left home?).
Joseph, the boys do see somewhat "americanized" (i.e., typical teenager unkemptness and longer hair) but oftentimes the boys are afforded this cultural leeway while the girls are expected to abide to the cultural norms. I would guess the pic was from a school picture and it is telling that she is not wearing a headscarf in it.
I'm still reserving judgement yet.
posted by Anonymous : 11:27 AM
Joseph, this may not be an either/or situation. both the dad & the minister could be completely round the bend. in the 1980's I lived in a suburb where there were two honor killings. if a girl or woman stands up to her family for whatever reason and is afraid, her fear needs to be listened to and taken seriously.
posted by emmag : 1:04 PM
I hope she is not returned to her father. She is obviously afraid for her life, whether justified or not. She's 17. In less than a year she's an adult and can go where she pleases. Can't she file to be an emancipated minor?
I agree that Pam Geller is nuts. I'd do her though.
You may have seen this video on Corrente. But if you haven't seen it yet, catch it. The people who made this video wanted to interview Canadians who had complaints about their system -- but no complainers could be found. I dated a Canadian girl once -- she too was hearing-impaired -- and I have (as I've mentioned in previous posts) witnessed their health care system first-hand. Very impressive.
My favorite line in this video: "Trying to achieve health care reform incrementally is like trying to jump across a chasm in two steps."
Support for the Canadian-style single-payer plan, HR 676 (which is not the Obama-favored plan) is growing. Here's a columnist in St. Louis Today:
For those folks who want a simple bill and a simple plan, I recommend John Conyers’ HR 676.
Actually, that would be the reform I prefer. I support single-payer, government-run health care. I don’t think anyone needs to get rich by denying health insurance claims or canceling policies after an illness.
But there's a problem: Backtracking Dems. From The Hill:
Of the 12 serving House members who co-sponsored Rep. John Conyers’s (D-Mich.) single-payer bill (H.R. 676) in the last Congress but not in this Congress, four have indicated they will vote no on a single-payer bill to be offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).
The four members are Reps. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), David Scott (D-Ga.), and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).
“It’s a whole new ballgame,” said Baca spokesman Mike Trujillo. “[Baca] supports a public option and not a single-payer system at this time.”
In an interview with The Hill, Scott said, “I support a public option. It’s an excellent compromise and the best vehicle to garner enough votes to pass….Single-payer isn’t going to get the votes. A public option is the best shot we have to lower costs and provide coverage to most Americans.”...
...Reps. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), and James Moran (D-Va.), all previous co-sponsors of a single-payer bill, but not co-sponsors this year, did not comment for this article.
What caused the switch? Perhaps loyalty to the president -- in which case, Barack Obama instantly becomes the person most responsible for deep-sixing true health care reform.
Or -- and this is a theory I've mooted in the past -- the sticking point may be the sorry state of our overall financial system. The insurance industry buys half of all corporate bonds. Without those bonds, corporations will not muster up capital to expand. No bonds, no expansion, no jobs, no recovery. The insurance industry also owns a lot of that highly-iffy commercial real estate paper.
Permalink
The two arguments against single payer, putting all those insurance company clerks out on the street and who will buy corporate bonds? With the money saved from lowered health care costs, Joe and Jane Sixpack could invest for their retirement instead of relying on Social Security payments. As to unemployment, if the suits at Big Insurance could employees would be out on the street in a heart beat and the pencil pushing sent to India as soon as technology allows. Also, the people that make that argument, were they as concerned about all the auto workers laid off when parts manufacture went to the Third World? I doubt it. The health insurance cabal could provide supplemental policies, the kind that when they welsh on paying for a procedure you won't die.
posted by Anonymous : 6:05 AM
I'm not sure Joe or Jane Sixpack will do that.
Please understand that I am not offering "potential financial meltdown" as an excuse to hold off on single-payer. Rather, I'm wondering if "meltdown" is the secret reason why Obama and the congressfolk have turned against single-payer.
If so, I wish they would discuss the matter openly.
I wonder if the insurance industry is really kept alive as a "make work" scheme -- as is NASA. If so, it may be best to put people to work rebuilding the infrastructure or building electric cars. As for the bonds -- well, the gummint has already picked up the tab for so much else, what's another shrimp on the barbie?
I'm just curious about what Canadians would do if this "third-world country" got single-payer health care like theirs and they needed a procedure done that they had to come to the US for? Where would they go then? I much prefer our "third-world country" to any on this Gods green earth...thankyouverymuch! :)
Lonni
posted by Anonymous : 10:35 AM
Joseph, What you are saying about the insurance companies role in the big picture of our total economic structure may well be the best theory I have heard for the lack of any reform in health care over the past few decades. However, a functioning and responsible government can plan and execute a step by step re-organization if not all at once but over a period of time. The problem with American Government is the same as the problem with the American Economy, that is, greed and retention of power at any cost and the hell with consequences at least until the consequences are looking them in the eyes. On a related subject, don't hold your breath for any appologies from anyone in politics (politicians only appologize when they are caught with their pants down)or any prominant entertainers ( they only appologize when it gets them more publicity) or anyone in any form of media (most are in the business of mouthing the talking points handed to them by their bosses or book publishers or whatever raises their ratings) or anyone who is anyone in the business community (none of them wanted reform and change anyway and if Obama turns out to be their best shill, what do they have to oppologize about?). That leaves the public at large who voted for Obama. They might feel cheated or betrayed but they aren't so concerned about appologizing to anyone, if anything, they might feel so dejected and turned off that they just go back to not voting and not caring (Hillary/ Obama/Democrat/Republican, they are all the same). Oh, and for all those anti Hillary blogs.... what I have been reading lately ( in comment sections ) is that if Obama gives up on the public option, it will be the last straw and he (Obama) will in effect split the Democratic Party and that they will turn to third parties instead (appologies to PUMA's has not been offered as a possible remedy). As for me, I don't fit in any of the above categories. I am thinking about just getting the hell out of Dodge before all hell freezes over. beeta
posted by Anonymous : 11:36 AM
And what procedure would that be Lonni? Don't hold us in suspense. While you're at it convince us that it's a procedure that insurers wouldn't consider "experimental."
posted by Zolodoco : 11:59 AM
I don't think the insurance industry's predominance in the percentage of holdings of various kinds of financial instruments is a factor.
They hold those predominant positions because they have the most money to invest-- money which the industry obtains from everybody else. That doesn't mean they perform a similarly predominant role in the purchase of NEWLY floated stocks or bonds (which is what startup entrepeneurs or expanding businesses need). There is a robust secondary market we call 'the stock/bond market' wherein old issues of stocks and bonds, for which the companies issuing them were paid and spent/invested the money long ago. This market functions mostly to provide liquidity to such investments, so that those buying them can readily sell them at predictable prices if they need to.
And that function is by far the vast majority of the market trading. NOT absorbing new issues, which are always a tiny fraction of the total such issues still extant in the world (all that have ever been issued, and not subsequently retired).
In fact, an insurance company needs investment grade instruments, so the insurance industry would never buy startup penny stocks, pink sheet companies, or NASDAQ initial offerings, nor bonds issued from any but the blue-chip top credit rated companies (where no job growth occurs, and where any capital investments are likely to be placed overseas).
These days, the more established companies do not so much issue new stock as aggressively buy and then retire stock (in an effort to work the supply/demand curve to boost the stock price to the inurement of the management's stock options).
And the most needy companies chose to take on large-scale new equity partners which are usually not domestically based, but the fewer and fewer parties with sizable liquid capital, such as sovereign wealth funds, Kuwaiti oil billionaire types, maybe a Warren Buffet here and there (the exception). That is, they do not go to the market to gain subscription to the amount of stocks required to be issued (because such a sizable rush of new issues to the market here would crash the stock price).
XI
posted by Anonymous : 12:19 PM
"I am thinking about just getting the hell out of Dodge before all hell freezes over."
Joseph, I've been a lurker for a long, long time, and I'm also a Canadian, so I hope you'll forgive me for delurking and responding to "Lonni" Lonni, the video was a reflection of individual Canadian opinions in response to the onslaught of American Political and media slandering of the Canadian Health system. The respondants did no more than respond to the slander, and if I recall correctly, they did not call Americans third world, they called the lack of health care third world. Can you deny that? Secondly, By and large, most Canadians do not go to America to get procedures done. There are some, for sure, and our health system covers some of the costs (not all) and that is the risk of our folks coming south. It's a big bonanza for your health corporations, so do you honestly think that if indeed you got single payer, your system would refuse to treat paying customers from other countries? And BTW, the door swings both ways. Our specialized hospitals do not turn Americans away although they do charge them (unless they qualify under special funds like the Herbie fund, in which case Canadian people pay for the no resident treatment through mega donations). Lonni, I believe the point of the article was that justification of your current system by tearing down your closest neighbour and biggest trading partner was not a good idea because, while we Canadians are a tolerant lot, we take so much then we bite back to counter the terrible misinformation that is being perpetrated upon the American public. If you wish to remain in the situation that exists today, so be it, but honestly, as long as your medical system is for profit, they will never turn a patient, who has money or insurance, away, regardless of country of origin. And that will not change should your populace decide to adopt a single payer or public option. Your country and mine are very dependent upon Corporate bucks - mine is just a bit more regulated than yours. As long as there is money to be made, these guys don't give a darn where that money is coming from. Hope I've responded in a civil and lucid manner. HT
posted by Anonymous : 4:16 PM
Lonnie, as a Canadian I have never heard of a Canadian going to the US because the care was better there. The main reason Canadians use American health care is if we get sick or have an accident while visiting your country - and we get back to Canada just as quick as we can! Who wants to pay those exorbitant prices when we get HC paid for?
posted by Anonymous : 4:29 PM
I'd like to know what these procedures are myself. They must be quite rare and exotic.
I'll say this: When my Canadian ladyfriend had a gallstone problem, we hopped a plane to Vancouver pronto. She didn't want to fly in pain -- but she would not have wanted the work done in America, even if price were not an issue.
The big secret why Obama and his krewe are against single payer is all the campaign donations would dry up. If someone asks me who I donated to I truthfully tell them Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, and every other back stabbing Democrat that takes big insurance bucks. Part of that 30% "administrative" cost built into my premium is what the insurance suits give to congress to make sure Single Payer never happens.
posted by MrMike : 8:37 PM
Yes, some "Canadians" like Celine Dion or very rich families will go to the US to get the best care money can buy, but most ordinary Canadians would run back to Canada to get healthcare here. For old Canadians who spend their winters in Florida, getting sick there is their nightmare.
Even if our system is not perfect and the cost have been increasing, no Canadian, unless they are millionaires, would wish to exchange their healthcare system for the one in the US.
The US has the best health care in the world if you're very rich and can afford to get the VIP treatment at the Mayo Clinic.
posted by Mr. C : 8:46 PM
Lonni also conveniently forgets to mention the numerous Americans who are forced to go to Mexico for dental care and prescription medications, or the growing numbers of Americans going to third-world countries (primarily India) for operations they can't afford in the U.S. and also for elder care, which is cheaper and, apparently, more compassionate over there.
Google "medical tourism" and you'll find a wealth of information about Americans going overseas but almost no mention of anyone coming here for healthcare.
Anecdotally, when I lived overseas the place everyone wanted to go to for serious procedures was Germany, not the U.S. Germany was seen as the Holy Grail of medical care. Don't know if that still holds, but an American friend of mine had her first child--who was premature--in a German hospital and said the standard of care there was almost awe-inspiring.)
posted by DancingOpossum : 7:23 AM
Jeralyn at Talk Left was another one who drank deeply of the Kool-Aid, going from Obama skeptic to full-blown idol worship right after the primaries, and evincing furious disdain for anyone who criticized the Lightbringer on her threads. At one point she even declared that anyone who spoke ill of The One would be banned from posting. Fortunately, BTD -- who was, in his own words, a "tepid" Obama supporter -- maintained his dignity and allowed the disgruntled to post on his threads as long as they kept it civil and on topic. At this point, the "disgruntled" are so numerous and so vocal that they overwhelm Obama supporters and it's almost like pre-primary days over there.
posted by DancingOpossum : 7:30 AM
I think I posted that comment to the wrong thread -- I meant it for the Apology list. Oops.
posted by DancingOpossum : 7:31 AM
I'm a Canadian and our Health Care system is great! Could it be better? Sure, just like any organisation or infrastructure could be better. But that doesn't mean what we have now is bad. Far from it. It's just that we will always push to improve our services.
Also, our clinics rock. You don't need an appointment. Just go during open hours. And it's literally next door, usually where drug stores are located.
I didn't even know what Health Insurance was until I once thought about going to the States and getting my passport. I couldn't believe my ears. To me, it seemed like a throwback to the dark ages to have to get Health Insurance, and the cost!!! OMG!!! It's ridiculous. Americans won't know how good single payer is until they have access to it. If Americans had single payer, they would all love it. Even those that oppose it most today.
posted by MrX : 11:21 AM
Yes, most Canadians love their healthcare system, and are very proud of it. The Canadian media loves to crow about how cruel and uncivilized the American system is in comparison. Sure, they occasionally complain about wait times, but always secure in the knowledge that've got things way better than those barbarian Americans down south.
The reality is that really, they don't know any better. I lived in Canada until I was 30 and have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade. I have good insurance here, and can say with complete confidence that my care here is infinitely better than what I had in Canada.
For every anecdote describing awesome care someone received in Canada I can provide an anecdote of a friend or relative who waited an excruciatingly long time for care or was denied care altogether. The truth is that rationing is inevitable; without it the cost of universal care is prohibitive.
Of course, some type of healthcare for everyone is better than some people having none. People who have good insurance now need to realize that their quality of care would deteriorate dramatically under single payer.
A friend to this blog -- he may identify himself by name in the comments, if he wishes -- seemed miffed by my decision to embed the trailer to Michael Moore's new movie. My correspondent compiled a list of prominent "lefties" who should apologize for the events of 2008, and Moore tops the chart:
And how ironic is it that the guy who made "Capitalism:A Love Story" pimped HARD for Obama in '08?
Don't know if this is Michael Moore's apology (or is it mea culpa?) for doing that (I'm going to see his film regardless) but Joseph if you're truly going to start a list of "Supposedly Liberal/Progressive Celebrities With CDS Who Owe America An Apology For Believing The Hype About Obama" (or something like that) then you SHOULD start with:
1. Michael Moore - STILL can't believe he fell for those ridiculous lies about Hillary back in '08 and made NO attempts to actually do research on & disprove them.
2. Keith Olbermann - I know I know he's basically a corporate tool (mainly thanks to debunking by Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler) so why bother with him anyway? I thinks it's because mainly he's still seen as one of the very few fair minded liberal/progressive guys in the MSM (even if that image is false?) Still he did pimp hard for Obama back in '08 and I feel he owes America an apology (whether Rachel Maddow does too I'm still thinking over...)
3. A lot of A-List Bloggers - I just wish people would name WHO they are on this one ya know? Other than people at DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground and Buzzflash it seems like nobody on our side is willing to call out by name other supposed A-List bloggers who blindly pimped for Obama. I could at least name Oliver Willis as another uncritical Obot blogger that I used to like but he was never called out by anybody (not even you Joe.) What's up with that? Is there a "code of silence" among bloggers on that deal?
4. Amy Goodman & Pajamas Media - This is the hardest example of Obot devotion that I have a hard time trying to convince people of. But I think Amy did pimp hard for O on her Democracy Now! show back in '08 (and if you still don't believe me please try searching for Amy on a blog called ThirdEstateSundayReview.blogspot.com) Pajamas Media I think is supposed to be a fair minded lib/prog/dem media group who went deep into the tank for O back then as well (maybe O payed their fair minds to go on vacation?)
5. Drs. Cornel West & Michael Eric Dyson - This one is real hard for me to admit as I'm African American and a fan of their literary work but both went blind for O back then too.
6. Tom Tomorrow - He NEVER 100% came out for O (and even critiqued O a few times) but maybe he could be the Poster-Dude for CDS? "Hi, my name is Sparky The Penguin and I have CDS - Clinton Derangement Syndrome" - "Hi Sparky."
7. Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert - Both are usually WAY smarter than the MSM and do better research on politicians on their shows than the MSM does too but both fell hard for O back in '08 - there's no question about that.
8. Bill Moyers - Another VERY hard one to admit to because I've been a fan of TV & Book work for so long. But Bill didn't investigate on O like he should've and should be called out and on it too.
9. Stevie Wonder - Perhaps the hardest one for me to admit because I'm a fan of his music. Maybe I could cut him some slack because he's a musician but still his endorsement of O was a big disappointment to me.
10. Melissa Etheridge - Think she'll tour with supposed ex-gay Rev. Donnie McClurkin for an "Obama Will Bring Us Together" tour in the coming years? Think any of her gay fanbase will turn out for it?
11. TONS of Hip Hop Artists - I can send you many MP3's of Hip Hop MC's imploring the youth to vote for O simply 'cuz he's black & male - too bad NONE of them would've done tracks for Cynthia McKinney.
12. Oprah Winfrey & Some women of ABC's "The View" - Oprah was the biggest MSM celebrity endorser for Obama - no question about that. As for The View Whoopi Goldberg, Sherri Sheppard and Joy Behar should be called out - all of them should've really done a better job of informing their mainly female viewing audience about Obama. Even my Mom (who loves the show) stopped watching them (briefly) back then too.
I could also mention whoever put Obama & the title "THIS is what Feminism looks like" on that issue of Ms. Magazine but since I don't know who's in charge of that so I really have nothing to add here. And I guess we could put smart lib/prog muckraker journo Greg Palast on the list too?
In follow-up missives, my correspondent mentioned others who should offer mea culpas: Randi Rhodes, Donna Brazile and Howard Dean.
Can you name anyone else...? (Incidentally, I'm inclined to take a forgiving attitude toward some of the people on this list -- especially Stevie Wonder.)
Permalink
This is interesting because I was just going to post an idea I had to see what you thought.
I think it would be fascinating to have a day of accountability about how the various democratic bloggers behaved prior to the election-those for sanity and Hillary and those demented and for Obama.
There could be a live debate between representatives of the two side on some forum-say AAR-where both sides have to justify there behavior.
What do you think of the idea?
posted by Snowflake : 8:41 AM
A "which side gets to say neener" debate? I love it.
Hell, don't stop at Randi-- the whole lot of the "progressives" on radio owes an apology, from that mental midget of the morning airwaves, Stephanie Miller, to that schmuck Ed Schultz, and even Thom Hartmann was a daily lying sack of shit for all of primary season. We were barely into the spring of '08 before I permanently stopped listening to all of the above.
Joe, you're asking for something that virtually doesn't exist. No one calls a press conferecne or sends a mass mailing to "apologize" for being duped, for supporting a candidate whom they mistakenly thought was anti-war and anti-greed.
At best, some of these people will eventually say they were mistaken; more of them will say they are disappointed. But none will apologize in the public, explicit way that you ask for. That's an unrealistic and unhelpful insistence.
Millions of voters who fell for the hype still share your values and hopes, and they can be allies in the struggle ahead. Indeed, the forces of good, no matter how you define it, can't prevail without re-enlisting millions of these people. Any army whose recruitment poster calls for publicly administered self-humilation is going to be outnumbered and defeated.
I won't say "move on," because the phrase is tainted, but we've got t move forward, and fast.
posted by Trojan Joe : 12:32 PM
Full Disclosure: I sent Joseph the list. What I also should've suggested to Joseph before he posted my list was that he put a link to his "Tomorrow rewrites yesterday" post (from 12-23-08) on my Tom Tomorrow entry. So Joe can you still do that please?
Oh and I forgot one more person for the list:Mark Crispin Miller (oops and maybe Bill Maher?)
I was thinking of adding Sen. Bill Richardson to the list but I just didn't think he was that big of a celebrity compared to Michael Moore, Keith-O, Oprah and the rest.
Also Joseph - IF Snowflake makes this live debate actually happen and she invites you to debate on it will you accept her invitation?
Snowflake - So if this live debate does happen WHO do you think will be on the Pro-Obama side (other than maybe Kos himself?) Do you really think anybody else from DailyKos or DemoUground or Buzzflash or even Oliver Willis will show up to debate you and maybe Larry Johnson? Oh and fwiw what is AAR?
Again thank you Joseph for posting the list. Chris
posted by Anonymous : 12:35 PM
Let’s not forget the pretend feminists at Robin Morgan's Women's Media Center who worked relentlessly to trash all things Clinton. Oh deary me, healthcare is an issue that impacts the lives of women and children and Obamarahma is selling us all out??? I'm sure they just want to slide on by under the radar now. But the world needs to know who these people are and start connecting the dots.
posted by emmag : 12:49 PM
IMO, Moore "pimping HARD" for Obama makes perfect sense if you stop and ask yourself "Who stands to gain?" By setting up a new "straw man" (Dems, Obama) Moore guaranteed himself a LARGER audience which in turn would guarantee him a big profit. Now, Repubs would actually consider going to one of his movies since it wasn't just "Bush bashing"... Think about it. Michael Moore knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
posted by Anonymous : 12:49 PM
Matt Taibbi, Dan Savage, Tom Hayden, Kim Gandy, Ellie Smeal, Nancy Keenan,every "feminist" blogger, every "progressive" blogger, all of Hollywood. I think any woman who didn't support Hillary in favor of The One should apologize x2 and forfeit their right to use or be addressed as Ms..
Joan
posted by Anonymous : 1:51 PM
Uhm.. You guys are aware that Oliver Willis is dead, right?
Thanks for this list! Michael Moore was a huge disappointment to me, as he (almost) gleefully threw Hillary under the fake-racism bus. I used to love some of his work but since his cowardly Clinton trash-talking behavior during the primaries, he's lost a lot of my respect.
I can't think of many more to add (& agree with the majority of people already listed ), though I'd probably throw in Bill Richardson. He's always struck me as a schmoozy opportunist & perfect TeamObama kind of person.
Oh ya, *Edwards* (hypocritical Hillary back-stabber extraordinaire).
Also, another musician: Ani Difranco. I was totally shocked to see Ms. uber-feminist-lefty... trash Hillary & support Wallstreet's favorite golden boy. Wonder's never cease!
posted by Anonymous : 2:15 PM
Don't forget Robert Scheer over at Truth Dig and Arriana Huffington and everyone at her blog.
posted by Anonymous : 2:36 PM
After thirty years of hard political watching and reading, I quit watching all television "news" shows geared toward politics, and for a time, after the disgraceful Palin "interview" by Gibson, even quit the network news.
Big O (Oprah) had more impact than any other endorsement I think. Most disappointing? To me, I think Maher. I used to love his shows. Now I can't watch.
I don't think we'll ever get close to an apology but it is always instructive to remember who the idiots are as we move forward and try to replace all the miserable cretins infesting D.C.
Never going to get an apology from the people who most deserve to hand it over: the prog collective. Or the other group that does: CIA.
posted by tqp : 3:36 PM
How about Taylor Marsh? She would top any list I made. And then I would go for Bill Richardson. Jon Bon Jovi. Anyone who campaigned and raised money for bambi.
posted by Anonymous : 4:40 PM
"I for one am not ready to apologize for voting for Obama. But ask me again in a couple of years."
This post does not strike me as demanding apologies from every-day voters, who decided to go with the Democrats versus Republicans in the last election. I know many good-hearted Hillary supporters who had to search their souls, grit their teeth & follow Hillary's recommendation of sticking with Democrats in the general election, even though it was a very painful affair.
The apologies are demanded of (so-called) progressive & leftist big-wigs in media/political/entertainment/activist corridors of power....who not only abandoned their leftist roots, in favor of Reaganlite.. but had the audacity to throw Hillary & supporters under the bus using fake-racism propaganda, sexist crap, political intimidation, & sometimes outright physical threats to achieve their goal of installing the next chosen prince.
It is one thing for Michael Moore to support Obama, it is quite another for him to go beyond simple difference of preference & actually promote & sustain bullSh*t race-card tactics with the Clintons. He & other big-name "progressives" like Edwards, Huffington, Pelosi...etc effectively destroyed Clinton (& viciously attacked/alienated many loyal liberals) based on dirty politics.
Apologies to many people (including intrepid bloggers like Joseph C. & TC crew) are definitely due but there are no real allusions that they will be received.
posted by Anonymous : 4:47 PM
gary @ 3:09
I also voted for Obama, and I don't feel the need to apologize either. I did so without much enthusiasm, felt I needed to do my part to ensure it wouldn't be close enough for the Rs to steal it again!
All of my liberated, middle aged female friends who bought into "Hillary is a bitch" and "Obama is a so dreamy-cool and my teenagers love him" crap without blinking and should have known better.
By the way, Melissa Etheridge has a great voice, but she doesn't speak for any gay people that I know. She's very earnest, but kind of a simpleton.
posted by Anonymous : 6:23 PM
4. Amy Goodman & Pajamas Media - This is the hardest example of Obot devotion that I have a hard time trying to convince people of. But I think Amy did pimp hard for O on her Democracy Now! show back in '08
OH YES SHE DID. No doubt about that. I was a devoted viewer of DN back then. The Barry love light started to shine bit by bit and then went high voltage the day in March when Amy allowed some paid Obama shill to completely sandbag Gloria Steinem. It was unwatchable ever after. I still haven't gone back, I can't. Amy is too smart not to know what Obama was and is, so WTF? If she was so for him, I have to believe , like Moore, she NEEDS a Bush 3 in the white house for her business.
Other wise the big money wanted Obama (McCain wasn't GOP enough for them )and the little cultural boats must follow...so I guess they convince themselves they just love " who they must love...got me.
The View resisted for awhile, then overnight, they became Barry heads... guess they got the memo
guys are aware that Oliver Willis is dead, right? posted by Buddhist with an attitude : 2:03 PM
In response to Buddhist with an attitude: no Oliver Willis is very much alive & bloggin' - check the following link for proof: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Maybe you're thinking of Steve Gilliard? Steve was a great African American Lib/Dem/Prog blogger (like Oliver Willis *was*) who died a few years ago but his friends continued on as the GroupNewsBlog:
http://www.groupnewsblog.net
I think most of the bloggers at GNB liked Obama and happily went blind for him too - maybe because they thought Steve would approve? Personally I don't think Steve would've liked Obama as he REALLY didn't like Black Conservatives like Michael Steele. Seriously I believe that if Steve were alive & healthy back in '08 and did some digging into Barack's background like most smart lib/dem/prog bloggers should've I don't think he would've supported him in ANY way.
The main reason I called out Oliver Willis on my list was because he was (and I think still is) one of THE BIGGEST online blog supporters of Bill & Hill and the Clinton era presidency. Seriously Willis's online love & support for Clinton was maybe 2nd only to that of Bartcop.
Bart was the FIRST big time supporter of Bill & Hill that I visited on the web - and yes he also had a hard time supporting Hillary in '08 and got MANY nasty e-mails from Obama supporters just like Joseph. And to see Oliver turn into an Obama-bot was another big disappointment to me. NOTE: Bartcop was still firmly in the Hillary camp in '08 but promised that if Obama got the nomination that he would support him and 'ol Bart kept his word but I still like and visit Bart way more than I do Oliver's site now.
Here's another one for the list: Roger Waters from Pink Floyd. I'm not sure he was THAT crazy about Obama but he did have a serious case of CDS for sure. Also wasn't Rosie O'Donnell another big Obama supporter too?
And finally FWIW: I don't expect to get ANY apologies from anybody on anything. In the world today it's simply not considered a cool, ladylike or gentlemanly or even human thing to do. Most people that I've talked to think that ANY apology for anything is instantly 100% insincere.
Go figure. Chris
posted by Anonymous : 7:58 PM
They couldn't possibly apologize enough. --Sophie
posted by Anonymous : 8:01 PM
Don't hold yer breath waiting. As for Obama's failures, it's because we didn't clap hard enough.
posted by MrMike : 8:03 PM
Sad to say Barbara Ehrenreich glorified Obama and wrote a screed in The Nation claiming among other things that Hillary Clinton was a rightwing religious fanatic, a member of Joshuas Army. The rest of The Nation writers were just about as reality based. Apparently a proud Nation tradition. They villified Gore in 2000. Their new ad slogan could be "from those wonderful folks who brought you George Bush and Barack Obama!
posted by Diane : 10:34 PM
Re: Oprah. I feel bad for her. Because I think she figured it out about midway through 2008 and really regrets having staked a large portion of her reputation on a corrupt, no-talent plant. Yes, I know that doesn't excuse her keeping silent about what I believe she knows about him, but I'm willing to give her something of a pass because I don't think there's any context for her entering into a public debate about Obama's FUBARing of the nation (at least not until mainstream media has taken him to task and it will...soon). Most of her audience has no idea what's really going on, and wouldn't believe her.
Oprah hates it when people abuse her generosity, or do anything to tarnish her name. I'm pretty sure that when it hits the fan for the president, she will be first out of the box to apologize.
posted by tqp : 11:08 PM
tqp said... Re: Oprah. I feel bad for her. Because I think she figured it out about midway through 2008 and really regrets having staked a large portion of her reputation on a corrupt, no-talent plant.
Oprah and Obama have moved in the same Chicago circles for 20 years and it wasn't by chance. Believe me, Oprah knew all about Obama...( and if she did not , just put it down to her very poor judgment. After all, she pushed Dr. Phil on to an unsuspecting America even before Obama! )
But the upper crust, of which Oprah is a proud member, wanted Barry and wanted him very badly, exactly because Obama is a corrupt, no-talent plant...and tool. Oprah is no lamb.
Taylor Marsh was very pro-Hillary throughout the primaries and only backed BHO after he was nominated. She did become very defensive about her support for him on her site and I left. But she always backed HRC prior to that.
I nominate NPR and Mara "The Liar" Liason, their Sr. Political Propagandist oops Correspondent.
posted by Anonymous : 6:26 AM
I don't have the energy to stay mad at everyone in the media who supported Obama. I do remain angry at everyone who resorted to unfair smear tactics and false cries of "racism."
Taylor Marsh is an interesting case. I was a regular on that site.
When I first went there in Jan of '08, she was such a Reagan Dem( and proud enough of it to call herself such,) that I sometimes wondered then if her blog was a stealth McCain site! She was very much " principles before party" then. Her posts at times sounded pre Puma.
What was stocking in TM's quick turn around, besides the hyper speed, was that she had lavishly trashed Obama before hand. She was not on the sidelines waiting to see who would be nominated the Dem candidate. She was in there showing up his faults and belittling him just about every post. Then, Taylor became a Super Stepford Obot without missing a beat.
Marsh's ticket to fame was, she was for Hillary and very welcoming to her supporters when most of Left Blogastan was bat shit crazy hostile to Hillary and her supporters.
Someone promised money and told her the writing on the wall ( I guess) and while TM seemed to change over night to Obama's greatest fan,there was signs for a while before hand that she would go where the greatest return for Taylor Marsh would be found. I don't blame her for that...everyone has to make a living.
However her commenter's were very pro Hillary( and the best part of the site imo) and we left her to the mercies of the paid Axlrod trolls, ( who she had allowed to attack regulars as she was turning ). And I wondered if in a ego deluded moment, Taylor had promised the Obama team she could bring her pro Hillary posters along? Posters did praise TM to the skies and even vigorously fund raised for her site. But if Taylor really thought the bulk of her posters were going to throw over Hillary for Obama, she could not have read many of the comments.
Taylor Marsh was a case where it didn't take alot $ to being her over and it seems to also to underline how total was Obama's Inc take over of the media etc. There wasn't any air left for even little fishes like Taylor to resist it.
The idea is not to apologize-it is to inject accountability into the media. People should have to justify the accusations and promises they made in the primaries. If they can't then they are admitting they are just reckless liars.
We could break it down into topic areas-the economy, civil rights, the war, the prisons, spying, trade, etc.
posted by Snowflake : 7:30 AM
Also Kevin Drum, Steve Benen, Digby and the folks at Orcinus. Clinton supporters were banned from their blogs and CDS was permitted in their comments. Uncritical Obama praise was common in their posts.
posted by Anonymous : 7:31 AM
How did Chris Matthews escape this list?
posted by Anonymous : 7:37 AM
I don't have the energy to stay mad at everyone in the media who supported Obama
Indeed Joe, but at best, they stood around while others resorted to unfair smear tactics and false cries of "racism" and said nothing.
I'm no longer mad at them until I'm expected to trust them again...nope, no can do.
They are either easily paid off or idjits... and I just can't take them seriously again. But that is the current state of the media and its paymasters. If you want a job, you must jackboot with everyone else...okay, but again, it's impossible to take them seriously now.
Anonymous said... How did Chris Matthews escape this list?
7:37 AM
lol!Good question. Well I guess because no one expected anything but base whoredom from Matthews in the first place and for a very long time now. This is the guy who had a bad, a spittle soaked case of Bush man crush for many years after all.
When Matthews's leg " tingled", that should have told anyone not brain dead, that Obama was the candidate of choice for the top .999 % and GE, way over McCain. CM's limbs don't tingle for anything less.
Indeed. It wasn't just a case of 24/7 Barry love, but of viloent savaging those who would even meekly question Obama. Somehow they could juxtapose praise for the Light bringer along with the most vile attacks on non believers...and it seemed the attacks was where their hearts were.
Apparently a Light bringer also brings darkness and we are to forget their wallow in it. But forgetting , much less forgiving, is sometimes not a decision one can make. After a certain line is crossed, it's often out of one's hands in a way.
The list Joseph posted is brilliant. And I agree with everyone on it. And Amy Goodman was among the worst. 3rd Estate has that down pat, how she pimped Barack and I can't even watch her show anymore. But in the comments, there seems to be confusion and maybe it's me. I thought the list was about people who attacked Hillary to pimp Barack. I loathe Taylor Marsh but she was on Hillary's side until after Puerto Rico (end of primaries). Robin Morgan wrote "Goodbye To All Of That II" which was in Jan 2008 and was about supporting Hillary. Both Marsh and Morgan pimped for Barack hard after the Democratic Party primaries but they supported Hillary during them. So maybe I'm misunderstanding the list but I don't see how either woman suffers from CDS.
posted by Eddie : 9:07 AM
I sent Joseph the list and came up with the title so I guess I should clarify more on some things:
1. I didn't put Tweety on my list because I never thought Chris Matthews was either a Liberal or Progressive Celebrity. Searching for Matthews at Bob Somerby's blog at The Daily Howler should convince you of the same. 2. I think I should've changed the title of the list before I sent it to Joseph. That's because I could've sworn that Moyers, Stewart, Colbert, Wonder, Etheridge, Winfrey, Goldberg, Sheppard and Behar and some others on my list all LIKED the Clintons before (& after?) Barack got (or maybe I should say stole?) the Dem nomination. SO really maybe I should've left the "CDS" part off the title?
Moore liked Bill & Hill too but he did have his probs with them (see his book Downsize This! & DVD The Big One for more details.) 3. Other people to consider for the list?:
a. Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy (RIP - but didn't he side with Barack later in '08 too?) b. Bruce Springsteen & Pete Seeger - both played his inauguration right? c. The Black Eyed Peas - their leader Will.I.Am wrote a tune for Obama too right? Or maybe I should've just mentioned them with the other Hip Hop acts at #11? d. Whoever wrote, directed & starred in the "I Got A Crush On Obama" video - Don't know how big a celebritiy whoever wrote, directed &/or starred in that video was but they should be called out. That was one of the WORST videos to support any Dem candidate ever. I always wondered what Michelle Obama thought of it and why she put up with it.
Chris
posted by Anonymous : 12:50 PM
With regards to Taylor Marsh, I agree with a lot of what Annie says, but the one thing I absolutely hold against TM is her absolute ruthless attack on Pumas and the Puma movement. She went from writing extensively about how Hillary's supporters were hardening their stance, and how there would be a backlash, to crucifying us for doing just that. I have never seen anyone change that abruptly in my life. It was Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde in real time. And she still has no use for Pumas, she considers us closet Republicans, un-patriotic, etc. I've gone over there twice since the election, and the tone has not changed at all, so I guess she still thinks we are all pariahs.
posted by Anonymous : 3:40 PM
I won't forget the Obama campaign, not from being driven off DU by the "you're a racist if you say ANYTHING bad about the One" crowd to the worst intra-family political warfare. True story: My own mother stopped talking to me after being taken in by my niece into the zombie movement. Obama's own site had a page telling grandchildren to use their special powers over their grandparents to get their vote. Can't ever know for sure, but in this case I swear that is what happened. I'm just getting my relationship with my mother back as the koolaid wears off. To date, no apologies.
posted by Anonymous : 5:17 PM
Mark Crispin Miller definitely belongs on the list, since he nearly bust a gut surmising that Hillary "stole" NH during the primary...then again, he's a 9/11 "scholars" dupe, so what can you expect from the likes of him?
I think Mark "Ofluffer" Karlin of Buzzflash deserves special honors, too...since he creamed his pants over meeting Brand Zero at the Chicago barber shop. He's the lowest of the belly-crawlers. Unforgivable stupidity and disloyalty to the "reality based" crowd he was supposed to serve.
posted by Zee : 10:04 PM
posted by Anonymous : 12:50 PM
Since I didn't go back to Talyor's after I left on June 3rd, I didn't realize she trashed Puma like that. But having gone though her 180, such a thing would make sense in TM land. How better to impress her Obot overloads than by slamming the very group that made her name? I mean, what other angle has she got to hawk?
Don't forget Taylor was in the porn business. She knows how to try to please. What she really thinks about anything is anyone's guess.
It was Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde in real time.
Indeed.
Sorry about your Mom. That must of been painful.I find my obot family members now pretend all that shit never happened either. Apology? For what?Seems that kool-aid had a dose of milk of amnesia in it.
I agree Etheridge is a simpleton and really I can see where the rockers of a certain age were terrified of being thought of as "old" ( i. e. their actual age ) and so ran to Barry.
Also it's a matter of who produces their records. If the cooperate office wants Barry, they will make that known to the artists
Again, what these people actually thought about anything is any one's guess
I want an apology from ALL OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE ONE. On their knees, heads bent, tears flowing. Oprah, Amy, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING FAUX FEMINIST (and that would be all of them), Catherine MacKinnon, Katie Couric, the list goes on and on just name every single woman with access to the media EXCEPT for a few (and you know who you are Geraldine my shero).
It was our chance--a chance for women to grab the golden ring, make our dreams come true, change the world for the better, and instead of simply saying YES we bent knee and sucked cock. again.
FUCK you all. And as far as the men go big surprise that you used your power to diminish a woman who says no and means it. Hillary reminded you all that women with power are not sexy to men because powerful women can say no.
Well, I said no and I meant it. NO. Count me out as ever pledging allegiance to Democrat again. I am firmly independent and would vote for the devil himself if it meant we could take down the Obama Administration and every single person involved.
Naomi W. is sexualizing the burkha, Obama wants to talk to children about responsibility, and people who are speaking out AGAINST the power grab called Obama's health care reform are called crazy. Yep, things have changed all right. FOR THE WORSE you fools....
On judgment day may you all get what is coming to you--that would be enough in my book. Would NOT want to be ya!
Facebook was asking me to list all my relatives today. I like Facebook. I post once a month or so. Today I talked about the fire. But I can see where these social networking tools are a goldmine for the intelligence agencies. I mean, why the hell would they want you to link to your relatives?
Sometimes this backfires in interesting ways - one of the VPs at the company I work for insisted that all of his direct reports get on Facebook. One of them was recruited for a new (and much higher-paying) job by a long-lost former colleague within a day or two of getting an account.
