The coke jet mystery leads to a biotech mystery...

(Note: This is not a "summarize Hopsicker" post, although it begins as one. I've published a few articles like that in the past, and am proud to have done so. But this article provides some original research into strange and important areas that Hopsicker has not yet addressed. The new stuff has to do with a very odd biotech firm.)

(By the way -- where else will you find a conspiracy theory involving a member of the Osmond family and the blood of a goat?)

I have not yet made proper note of this important story by Daniel Hopsicker. A high-level ponzi schemer named Art Nadel -- who, though not a Madoff-level operator, got up to his fair share of shennanigans -- had a partner named Louis D. Paolino. Louie's an interesting guy.

1. Louie, Louie...

Previously, Louie was best known for garbage. See here to learn about his infamous "garbage barge," which some of you may recall as the butt of many a joke back in the late 1980s. Paolino also makes Mace. Literally. [Correction: He ran the Mace company until recently.]

Hopsicker seems to have found a link between Paolino and the infamous 5.5 ton "coke jet" that has been the focus of so much attention on his site and (to a lesser degree) on this one.

The man who owned the barge was Louis D. Paolino. He received funding from Argyll Equities LLC, which also invested in the Kovar Crime family of business fraudsters at St. Petersburg FL's SkyWay Aircraft, owners of a DC9 they kept at the Clearwater-St. Pete Airport which would be busted carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine.

"The cursed cargo of the Khian Sea," as it became known, was so toxic that even New Jersey refused to accept it.

Several years ago Louis Paolino became the grateful recipient of a $6 million loan from a mysterious private equity firm called Argyll Equities LLC, in Boerne, TX, and La Jolla, CA.

It was one of only three loans the secretive company is known to have made. Another was infamous SkyWay Aircraft.

SkyWay Aircraft was a complete fraud which existed primarily to facilitate a pump & dump stock play. SkyWay had no product, no market, and no prospects.

I'm wondering why Lou borrowed money from Argyll. After all, he sold his garbage biz for a cool billion, and he makes Mace. As we shall see, it might have made more sense for Argyll to borrow from him...

2. About that coke jet...

The Kovars used SkyWay as a means to bilk investors (the company did not have a working product) and as an excuse for buying that DC9 jet which was eventually found on a Mexican tarmac with 5.5 tons of white stuff inside.

That jet had an astonishing history. It was once owned by the partner of Stephen Adams, who personally spent a million bucks on billboard ads for George W. Bush in 2000. As coincidence would have it, Adams had also once owned the Gulfstream II which figured in an even more mysterious "coke jet" incident. Michael Farkas, the afore-mentioned Adams partner, founded SkyWay -- whose illustrious DC9 spent a lot of time in a hangar owned by Bush campaign funder Richard Rainwater.

Argyll Equities' only funded three deals. Their third plunge into the world of investment banking-- after SkyWay Aircraft and Louis Paulino--was arranging a $17 million loan for a Mexican businessman, who then provided "significant capital," according to Chilean news accounts, to “Chilean narcotics trafficker Manuel Vicente Losada."

This news came out after Losada was arrested in the Chilean capital of Santiago. He had been “linked to a shipment of five tons of cocaine which U.S. drug enforcement officials in Miami intercepted over six years ago on the MV Harbour as it headed toward Guantanamo Bay.”

(The italics are ours. We were stunned.)

Why were Caribbean dopers steering a course for a highly-secure U.S. military facility?

To be specific, a Mexican industrialist named Serrano acted as the middleman between Argyll and Losada. But money is, as you know, fungible. (I think Hopsicker is wrong when he speaks of only three deals.)

Stories of this sort have led some people to suspect that companies like SkyWay offer a way for those within the American political and business elites to disguise their involvement with the drug trade. Some people so suspect. I, of course, would never say such a thing. That's tin foil stuff.

At any rate, Paolino is now suing Nadel's hedge fund. Lou says he was ripped off. He's also suing Argyll.

3. Let's look at Argyll...

Argyll is an interesting company. It is run by one Doug McClain, who, in 2008, was all of 33 years old. How does a kid get to hold such a position?

He also runs -- and here's where we get into very strange territory -- something called Argyll BioTech, as well as a firm called Immunosyn. The two firms are run out of the same office.

Wow. That's quite an impressive list of businesses for a lad of his tender years.

His partner is one James T. Miceli. You'd think that the bright young fellows capable of doing this kind of business would have figured out that SkyWay was a scam. Well, live and learn.

Argyll BioTech's relationship with Immunosyn is not clear to me. The companies are (as noted above) run out of the same office and seem to be forever trading stock with each other -- yet we are supposed to think of them as separate enterprises.

Argyll, or Immunosyn, or both, have the honor of distributing SF-1019, which, they claim, is very useful in treating MS. The FDA has yet to approve the drug. (You can also find, if you scour the web, occasional mention of the drug's potential efficacy in treating AIDS and various forms of diabetes.)

When I read about that drug, I wondered: How did young McClain acquire those distribution rights...?

My attempt to suss out an answer via Google hurled me into a strange world previously unknown to me.

4. Paging Jed Bartlett! (Maybe he can figure this out...)

A little web-searching reveals that some (claimed) MS sufferers have had some very positive things to say about SF-1019, although the treatment -- if the drug is approved -- will be expensive: $300 a shot. Yet the MS community also has questions:

I read back and found some things on SF1019. I found a lot of negative. As I read I understood that for the most part people who were commenting were frustrated because of lack of info. I have found that lack of knowledge regarding drug development and how the process works can be confusing and also make persons who are desperate for a cure find fault and look for the scams...

I agree that we need more transparency regarding drug development -- and a lack of transparency may explain why some MS sufferers view Argyll warily.

One reason for wariness: Immunosyn exec Stephen Ferrone says that SF-1019 has been in development for ten years. Who did the developing? Argyll BioTech went into business in 2006, and Immunosyn is (as far as I can tell) roughly the same age.

An accounting firm looked at Immunosyn's books in 2007 and expressed doubt that the under-capitalized firm could continue. Yet it's still here, even though, by its own admission, the company has no revenue and has received a subpoena by the SEC.

A number of people within the MS universe suspect that SF-1019 is a scam, or a "money making exercise." Go here and then follow the links, if you feel up to the task. And then you'll want to visit this blog, which is devoted to Immunosyn.

Although the author of that blog does not appear to know about the Argyll Equities connection to Skyway and other unusual entities, the anonymous writer seems more than a little suspicious.

1. The Principals of Argyll Biotechologies and Immunosyn are Being Sued, and are Being Accused of Participating in a Fraudulent Stock Loans Scheme. (In fairness, it is important to stress that being accused of something does not mean you are guilty, however the suit is certainly relevant to Immunosyn)

James Miceli, who is the CEO of Argyll Biotechnologies and Douglas McClain, who is the President of Argyll Biotechnologies and also the CFO of Immunosyn are being sued for $4,000,000 in a lawsuit that is alleging seven separate counts, including fraud, RICO, and RICO conspiracy...

Before these two principals got into “biotechnologies”, they were (and still are) players in a niche market called “stock lending” using a company called Argyll Equities, LLC. They loaned money to people who put up publicly traded securities as collateral, and this is not the first time they have been sued for fraud relating to securities collateralized loans.

Argyll, or the Argylls, get sued a lot, and not just by Mr. Paolino. (Remember good old Louie, the garbage guy? We started with him.) One of those suits derives from a previous $4.5 million judgment against Argyll Equities back in 2005. The folks who won that suit have not been paid, and they want to know why little Doug has spent so much money on his various enterprises but not on his court-mandated obligation.

The lawsuit also alledges that McClain and his associates purposely tried to move and hide funds by transferring funds and assets to Miceli’s wife and and other companies as well, both in direct violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

Hm. Maybe this imbroglio explains why Argyll Biotech and Immunosyn are two separate entities...?

The afore-linked site also calls into question the SF-1019 drug trials in Malaysia and Utah. Argyll -- or is it Immunosyn? -- says that it (they?) conducted trials of SF-1019 in the tiny town of Beaver, Utah.

Says who? If you search the U.S. FDA website (www.fda.gov) there is not a single mention of SF-1019, Immunosyn or Argyll Biotechnologies. And why Beaver, Utah? It seems odd that a miracle drug would be administered in the US by a family practice doctor in a town with a population of 3,000 people, located in almost the middle of nowhere.

How many MS sufferers can there be in Beaver?

Alan Osmond, brother to the beauteous Marie, is an MS patient whose professional-looking website extolls the benefits of SF-1019. He does not disclose that he has received four million shares of Immunosyn. Although he boasts of his prodigious SF-1019 intake (he just loves the stuff), he does not disclose the circumstances under which he was legally administered a drug not yet approved by the FDA.

Alan Osmond is now saying on his site: "Immunosyn was hit hard with these past financial times. But, I am going to test soon, a new batch that is about 20% stronger! Yes, they are still pushing forward to get it out and help us!” Testing a new batch??? 20% stronger??? Can anyone please explain how it is that Mr. Osmond is getting access to a drug that to date has no history of any type of FDA approvals, not to mention a drug that is 20% stronger??? Should someone start speaking with him about this??

By the way, Alan has an odd habit of referring to the drug as "Immunosyn," as though that were the name of the product and not the company. The main ingredient is goat's blood. I'm not kidding.

As I scan the pro-SB-1019 sites and the anti-SB-1019 sites, I get the queasy feeling that one side or the other is astro-turfing.

Attitudes are being rigged within the MS community. Either there is a conspiracy against Argyll/Immunosyn, or Argyll/Immunosyn may itself be involved in shady practices. You may judge for yourself which scenario seems to be more likely.

As far as I know, SF-1019 works. I mean, the Argyll website features some very nice stock photos of scientists and beakers and scientists doing scientific things with beakers, and it's all very impressive. No reason for cynicism there.

Still, if you had MS, would you want to fill your arm with a drug made by a brand new-ish company run by a fetus in a business suit?

Now let's say that you're an investor. Would you want to toss money at a drug company (or brotherhood of companies) that has been sued many, many times in its young life, and which has done business with some rather shadowy figures? Would your investment decision be swayed by Argyll's association with the notorious Kovars, who ran a fake company with a fake product which was pushed by fake testimonials on fake websites?

Just asking.

(I have slightly expanded this post since its publication last night.)

Zodiac

The Zodiac killer has -- allegedly -- been named. The name is not Arthur Leigh Allen. I'm glad.

Gotta admit, I was pissed off when Deep Throat turned out to be Mark Felt. Felt was everyone's first suspect, which means that he was boring. By the same token, Allen-diddit Zodiac theories are about as exciting as off-white wall paint.

We're told that the Zodiac victims were targeted, which means that we have a conspiracy theory! At least, we have something beyond the usual dull serial killer stuff. I've always felt that victim Darlene Ferrin (the "Laura Palmer" of this tale) would provide the key to unraveling this mystery. My own favored theory attracted some attention back in 2005.

This NYT story claims that the killer was one Guy Ward Hendrickson, who was an early adopter of take-your-daughter-to-work-day. He is long dead, but the daughter claims to have victim Paul Stine's horn rim eyeglasses. (They don't match.) Alas, hers is a case of recovered memory. I'm reminded of that clown who "remembered" taking part in the fabled Philadelphia Experiment after he saw the movie. As for Zodiac: I still suspect Elron.

Added note: Here's my favorite response to the Guy Ward Hendrickson identification...

He has three names. Guilty!

Or maybe not. The "daughter" has changed her story.

I don't get it

Maybe I'm anti-social, but I don't get social networking.

What is the purpose of Twitter? Why would anyone want a running commentary of my life, beyond the words that you see here? Why should anyone want to see your running commentary?

Just now, I tried to listen to the Symphony #10 of Alan Pettersson -- and after ten minutes of thunka-THUMP-thump-blort-blat-THAP-THAP, I switched over to Beethoven's Eighth just to remind myself what a tune sounds like. Did you need that glimpse of my Winamp playlist? Is your life richer for the knowledge?

Why can't a private life remain private?

I don't like other people paying attention to the trivia of my existence.

I loathe, despise and abominate situations in which I ask "Where's the maple syrup?" and the answer is not "We're out" but "What do you need it for?" Then I have to explain that I intend to place maple syrup in oatmeal -- I have justify doing a thing like that -- and suddenly there's an entire room-full of people opining on something that's none of their damn business: "You can put fruit in it!" "There's grape jelly!" "Vanilla extract..." "Brown sugar, not cane sugar..." "Here, let me look up oatmeal modifications on Google..." "You know, oatmeal is great for lowering cholesterol but you ruin it by adding refined sugars which your metabolism stores as fat and..." There's no polite way to tell this team of experts that I did not ask for their aid, that this is my fucking oatmeal, not theirs. What was supposed to be a thoughtless, capricious action -- grabbing a bowl of oatmeal -- becomes annoying when I must subject every insignificant aspect of the thing to Groupthink.

Twitter simply expands the number of people prying into your oatmeal-customization habits. Why on earth would any sane person want that?

Worse:

Twitter collects personally identifiable information about its users and shares it with third parties. Twitter considers that information an asset, and reserves the right to sell it if the company changes hands.

Which brings me to another Web 2.0 thang that I just don't get: Facebook.

Frankly, I believe the many reports that Facebook shares all information with the CIA. See here and here and here.

Let me tell you something about the CIA: It operates on a need to know basis. The entire point of Facebook and MySpace is to scream details about your life that strangers have no need to know. Why would you do a thing a like that?

Does the concept of a private life even exist anymore? Our professional porn actresses can no longer make an honest living because so many of America's daughters feel compelled to display their fellatio skills on the internet gratis. As an entire generation grows up without secrets, young people become convinced that the unshared thought is a toxin, that life is an uninterrupted broadcast of The Me Show, that snoopers need more access to more details, that a webcam should capture the magic every time someone scratches a hemorrhoid or extracts a particularly recalcitrant booger.

I disagree. Socrates got it wrong: The examined life is not worth living.

We need a Pelosi pile-up

The health care fight is far from over. Heck, it has just begun. I urge you to read Cinie today -- after which, please visit 1payer.net.

Seems President Arugula Barry Waffles’ brain, Speaker of the House, Nasty Pancakes, is whining about the overwhelming number of faxes she’s received in support of putting the option of single payer health care on the table. After 1Payer.net’s email campaign reportedly flooded Nasty P.’s office, her suckophants tried to sound the all-clear. Don’t let ‘m off the hook. They’re the ones who issued the Dirty Harry-esque, ” you feelin’ lucky, punk, make my day” challenge, daring the 59% of us in favor of true health care reform to “make them” put the option on the table, so, I say let’s come back at them with our own Die Hard-style, “yippee ki-yay, motherf*ckers,” response. Fax, email, call, and/or write all of ‘em.

Now it’s time to kick it up a notch. Contact everybody you can think of, your Congresspeople, Senators, the White House, the DNC, the RNC, anybody, everybody. Whether they’re likely to support the proposal or not, they need to know that there’s real grassroots support for it. PUMA Pac has provided links to media outlets and a form letter, too, even though I think “give us real health care reform, you poopy-headed doofuses,” works just fine.

This is one time I don’t care who’s behind what, what their motives are or who’s paying who on the downlow. Everybody needs to hear what you want, every day, all day, until they do something about it, or Nancy Pelosi cries.

I'll repeat my suggestion that you should also contact the Obamaphiles who run the major prog-blogs. Yes, I know that they insulted us incessantly, calling us "Republicans in disguise" and worse sobriquets. Let's shame them. Let's demonstrate that they are the ones closest to the GOP on this issue. So far, this Kos diary is the only responsible one I've seen from Cheetoland, and it garnered all of 14 responses. I've seen nothing at D.U., nothing on TPM...

By the way, this follow-up on 1-payer.net prints a doctor's suggestion that single-payer advocates forego mass-fax campaigns in favor of a more directed approach:

Communications to members of Congress FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS which are factual, respectful, and SIGNED are taken seriously on Capitol Hill. Other forms of communication are counterproductive. Our opponents are well-funded and their communications are likely to be well-organized and slick. Let's not imitate the loonies on the right...

This doctor is correct, to a degree. Usually, a single hard copy letter from a constituent -- kept to one shortish paragraph -- will get more attention than will an entire fax or email campaign. But in this case, it is important to demonstrate "street heat." I do not consider this particular fax campaign to be either counterproductive or tasteless.

So if you want to make the biggest impact, go here, fill in your zip code, and find out how to contact your representative. I've had good luck contacting by telephone; if you don't want to interact with a staffer, call during the wee small hours and leave a message.

But you should also keep sending those faxes.

Pet food: A serious question (Update)

Longtime readers have met my fearsome Havanese hell-hound, Bella. Ever since I found her as a stray puppy in 2001, she has been sick on only one previous occasion, after she had picked a rotted chicken carcass out of a garbage can. (That was in 2005.)

Now she is ill again -- shaking, panting, not eating, moving as little as possible. Most of the time, she simply lies down near my feet, as she is doing at this moment.

I changed her diet not long ago. For years, she has thrived on Natural Balance, Nutro and other good-quality foods, along with carefully-chosen table scraps. (I know which "human foods" to avoid.) A few weeks ago, I decided to try AvoDerm because certain websites had recommended it as a formula to improve her skin and coat.

She detested the stuff from the beginning. She has never before shown such a strong dislike for any other kibble. Until she became ill, I thought that age had simply made her picky. People assured me that her attitude would improve as she got used to the new diet. But that never occurred.

Others suggested that she would acclimate to the new food if it were mixed with the old, so I ran through the last of the Natural Balance. After that, she lived mostly on table scraps. She would eat the AvoDerm only as a last resort.

I'm still not sure that the kibble caused her present condition. On the other hand, I don't think that she could have caught something contagious. During the past month, she has encountered no other dogs and has visited no new places beyond her usual daily haunts.

Does anyone know of any recent health warnings involving AvoDerm?

Even though money is drum-tight right now, I acquired a month's supply of Nutro -- a brand that she normally loves. Alas, she won't eat even her tastiest treats when she feels sick.

Update: The vet says that she has pancreatitis. (She, meaning Bella, not the vet.) So right now Bella is on heavy pain meds, which she is enjoying very much. "So this what colors are like! Groooooovy... Hey, can you go down to Mexico and score some more of this stuff...?"

Seriously, the big issue with pancreatitis is not to let the animal eat anything for a day or two. The animal usually senses the proper course of action and refrains. That's when dumb owners like yours truly get panicky and start placing all sorts of tasty goodies right beneath the dog's nose.

At any rate, Bella should be all right within a week or so. I want to thank everyone who offered advice and good thoughts. Thanks for the attempt to hit PayPal; I'll find out what is ailing the system.

Part of the reason I wrote this post was the open up the argument to the topic of pet food in general. The argument in favor of the BARF diet is strong -- as is the anecdotal evidence. But I have to wonder if wolves in the wild really are as healthy as all that. Wouldn't they be likely to contract salmonella if they had access to uncooked store-bought chickens?

Health care

If you haven't seen it before, or even if you have, please take a look at this earlier post on single payer health insurance. We still need to keep unrelenting pressure on Nancy Pelosi.

Heed the words of Congressman Jim McDermott:

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) predicted Sunday that the U.S. would adopt a single-payer, national healthcare system.

"It's in our face," McDermott told a university healthcare group in a speech, according to the Monterey County Herald. "We can't avoid it. That's why something is going to happen."

McDermott also said that constituents and grassroots activists could significantly advance the cause of a single-payer system.

"There will be a campaign to support this from the grass roots. You need to place pressure on your congressman," he said. "They will react to people asking them, why don't you do something? There's no question people can make a real impact."

The PUMA-friendly blogs have responded magnificently. The larger Obama-obsessed blogs have not.

If you still travel in those circles -- or if you know people who do -- please do whatever you can to convey the message to the D.U. and Kos Krowds. We still need to inundate the Fax machines of Nancy Pelosi and all other congressfolk. Again and again, day after day.

Like it or not, those sites have large readerships. We need their aid.

The ideas discussed by Obama and Baucus are disconcerting and could be disastrous:

Establishment of a National Health Insurance Exchange. The Obama Plan proposes a National Health Insurance Exchange ("Exchange"), through which businesses and individuals would be able to purchase private health insurance.

Individuals insured through the Exchange proposed by President Obama would be able to keep their insurance when they change jobs, but they might be responsible for premiums if not covered by their new employer.

This scheme will accelerate transferring salaried jobs to freelance status.

The alternative is like unto it: The Healthy Americans act, which the newly Democratic Arlen Specter seems to favor. This act would function as a single bullet aimed at both your health and your wallet, because it would end employer-based coverage while maintaining a private insurance system. The proposed salary increase will soon disappear in today's economy. (Employer to you: "Take a lower paycheck or lose your job.")

Meanwhile, an individual mandate would be implemented, forcing every American to purchase one of the options offered by their state's newly formed Health Help Agency (HHA). The HHA's will have a menu of private insurance plans...

Again, this system encourages the transfer of salaried jobs to freelance work.

Private insurers already take up one-third of your health dollar: That's why Americans pay more than everyone else in the world does for health care. Private insurers are leeches. They serve no purpose.

Single payer is the way to go. But it won't happen unless thousands, hundreds of thousands of people demand it. Like it or not, we need the aid of the Obots in this crusade. Tell them to go here and learn how to do what needs to be done.

I'm not making this up, part four

This TPM post claims that Pat Robertson is praying for the spread of swine flu. But the post has no citations, and I can find no external proof of this claim. (Josh, Josh, Josh...) This "Christian" site conveys much the same message. Even though the site is an obvious parody, some DUpes were fooled.

However, a very serious Muslim cleric in North Carolina says that swine flu is Allah's punishment against "The United States of Losers." Others say that swine flu is God's way of punishing lesbians. Or maybe Mexican narco-traffickers. Or maybe atheists. Or maybe Iowans who supported gay marriage. Perhaps we're being punished for eating pigs. Which means that Asian flu (remember that?) was God's way of punishing us for eating MSG-laden Cantonese take-out, and that the Spanish Lady indicates God's serious disapproval of palella.

I'm not making this up, part three

The Bank of America -- which received $200 billion from the taxpayers because it is too big to fail, and which has fired 34,000 workers -- now wants to hire 15,000 workers. In India. The Bank of America.

I'm not making this up, part two

"Democracy is the current industry standard political system, but unfortunately it is ill-suited for a libertarian state." -- Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton Friedman. This (true) statement undermines decades of propaganda. When Miltie's system failed in Chile (where he ran the economy under the dictator Pinochet), he blamed the lack of democracy.

I'm not making this up

An Israeli health official says that the term "swine flu" is offensive. Therefore, the name should be changed to "Mexican flu" in order not to offend anyone.

Still more on single payer: Where are the Obots?

This day, I'm proud that I decided to step away from the Cheetohead horde. I'm proud to take my place with those liberals who view Obama and the current Dem leadership with a chary, cynical eye.

Right now, we have an historic opportunity for health care reform. Paul Krugman said these words a few days ago:

We’ll still have to see what the reform looks like — especially whether the public plan survives. But kudos to the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership: this is the big one, and so far it looks very, very good.

The Kossack progs have decided to let Nancy and Barry do it. But I don't trust Nancy and Barry. They've made clear that whatever they do, they don't want to do single payer.

What is single payer? Go here for the definition and the arguments in favor. Single payer is not socialized health care -- it's socialized insurance. Physicians would not work for the state. Under single payer, citizens would regain the ability to choose their care. Right now, under the HMOs, they do not have choice.

Under our present system, we pay more for health care than do the citizens of nearly every other country, yet we get worse care. Why?

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

The profiteers are a luxury we can no longer afford.

Alas, Nancy Pelosi has said that single payer is "off the table." However, a Pelosi aide privately confessed that Nancy needed "street heat" -- in other words, she wants a demonstration from the people that they really, really demand single payer.

Enter Corrente and the Confluence and Cinie and Puma PAC and this humble blog. The PUMA-oriented blogs have inundated the congressional leadership and have literally broken Nancy's fax machine.

And what of the pro-O progblogs? Where are they?

Go to DU. Go to Kos. Go to Buzzflash. Go to Americablog. Go to Huffington Post. They offer nothing. On this rare, once-in-a-lifetime occasion, they have decided to trust Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the other Dem leaders. Barry and Nancy want to toss billions at leech-like insurance profiteers who add nothing to the system. That decision doesn't bother Moulitsas, Skinner, Karlin and Huffington.

How dare they accuse us of being Republicans in disguise?

I must confess, though, that Kos did offer an interesting video on Obama's unsatisfactory health care plan -- interesting in more ways than one. In essence, FOX has smarmily edited an Obama presentation in order to convey the impression that he supports Brit-style socialized health care, even though he does not:



(Media Matters made the initial catch.)

This clip has layers of unintended meaning:

1. Even though Obama still wants to hand over massive profits to the private insurance leeches -- thereby insuring that all Americans continue pay far too much for health care -- Fox and the conservative movementarians will continue to portray the president as a socialist.

I say if you're going to do the time, you might as well do the time. Or rather: If Obama is going to wear the label regardless of what he does or says, he might as well do the right thing.

(Which he won't.)

2. The Kos Krowd seems to have no problem with the fact that Obi's real stance is a far cry from single payer.

3. In the video, Obama lies. He claims that he wants universal coverage, although he plans to achieve that goal "in a different way." But the plan he outlined during the campaign left many millions of Americans uninsured, and does little to reduce costs for the middle class.

What to do? Keep putting heat on Nancy Pelosi and on your congress-critter. Obama will not propose a single-payer solution -- but he would not dare to veto such legislation.

Those of you who still have contacts in the Obama-worshipping progrblog community -- tell those people to go here and get on board.

Single-payer reminder

I have an amazing, astonishing, life-changing article all lined up -- but I won't post it, because I want everyone visiting this site today to read the words below. After you read, act. Now is the time, today is the day to make sure Nancy Pelosi gets the word on single-payer health insurance. Call her now. Fax her NOW. Then again and again. I won't write another post until 1000 of you do your duty.

(Blackmail. It always worked for Dr. Gene Scott...)

Health care reform

Health care reform is actually possible. The Republicans cannot filibuster. For the first time in my memory, the single-payer option is viable. Unfortunately, Obama and Pelosi seem wedded to the idea of keeping private insurers -- otherwise known as USELESS LEECHES -- in the system.

Read this Corrente piece. A single payer activist has received the following feedback from Capitol Hill:

Baucus a few days ago: "Everything BUT single payer is on the table. Single payer is off the table."

Pelosi: "In our caucus, over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it's not going to be a single payer."

Pelosi's aide: "Where are the phone calls, e-mails and faxes in support of single-payer? Speaker Pelosi has been in favor of single-payer for a long time. Now make us do it."

Will calls and faxes do the trick? I'm captious, but I also believe in doing everything we can. Go here and learn how to do what needs to be done.

Inundate Pelosi's office. Demand single payer. ALL DAY MONDAY, call her office and say "I want single payer!" Then call your own representative (if you do not live in Nancy's district).

Don't let Nancy Pelosi get away with pretending that the people have not spoken. Make it clear -- to her and to history -- that if she does not put single payer on the table, she acts against the will of the people.

Meltdown notes: Beware Obama -- and the guy AFTER Obama

Scattered observations on the meltdown...

The zombie banks: Lambert has the best line of the day...

No matter how much blood you pump into a zombie, it's still a zombie.

Suicide: Depression creates depression. The lay-offs have hit males worse than females; thus, there has been a sharp uptick in male suicides. Here's one bit that annoys me:

For some men, however, talking to a therapist is yet another sign of weakness, which means that many victims of the recession -- and the economic troubles that underlie it -- have been loath to seek help.

Therapy is expensive -- a luxury that no-one in parlous economic circumstances should allow (even if offered a "sliding scale"). Moreover, it is usually ineffective. A guy who feels like a failure because he has lost his job doesn't want to field questions about his dreams or his relationship with his parents. Most counselors are smart people who mean well, but they remind me of a guy trying to use a soldering iron to plant trees. You can't do the job with the wrong tools.

Let's play the blame game: Financial Armegeddon draws our attention to a lengthy report by the Consumer Education Foundation, called "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America." From the summary:

This report has one overriding message: financial deregulation led directly to the financial meltdown.

At every step, critics warned of the dangers of further deregulation. Their evidence-based claims could not offset the political and economic muscle of Wall Street. The financial sector showered campaign contributions on politicians from both parties, invested heavily in a legion of lobbyists, paid academics and think tanks to justify their preferred policy positions, and cultivated a pliant media—especially a cheerleading business media complex.

When the states sought to fill the vacuum created by federal nonenforcement of consumer protection laws against predatory lenders, the feds jumped to stop them.

Obviously, the Bush administration wanted the housing bubble, even though pretty much everyone with any sense knew that all bubbles burst. The economy had nothing else going for it. We don't make anything anymore; free market fundamentalism transferred the manufacturing jobs to third world countries.

Cut to Chase: Chase Bank has abruptly changed the terms of their credit card loan agreements, making customers pay 150 percent more:

Then after paying half of it off, um, in December (of 2008) we got a notice that there was a change in terms, and instead of paying 2% per month which was around 400 dollars in December.

Our January payment was a 1,025 dollars, because they were requiring 5% payment. And I called to opt out because every change in terms I'd ever seen on any credit card allows the customer to opt out, only to find out that Chase Bank is not allowing an opt out on this.

Your future in Dubai: If you want to know what will soon hit America, look at Dubai.

As you know, Dubai's wealthy have built all sortsa huge shit, including the world's tallest skyscraper. You know how they did it? In essence, slavery. Peonage, or transparently disguised slavery, is rampant in that country.

Imported laborers routinely have their passports taken from them upon arrival. These workers are then given the most grueling and dangerous tasks imaginable. The workers sleep in camps surrounded by razor wire. They are fed enough to keep them alive. When the job is done, the company they worked for goes out of business, the men are not paid, and the electricity in the camp goes off.

And it's not just construction:

It is an open secret that once you hire a maid, you have absolute power over her. You take her passport -- everyone does; you decide when to pay her, and when -- if ever -- she can take a break; and you decide who she talks to. She speaks no Arabic. She cannot escape.

In a Burger King, a Filipino girl tells me it is "terrifying" for her to wander the malls in Dubai because Filipino maids or nannies always sneak away from the family they are with and beg her for help. "They say -- 'Please, I am being held prisoner, they don't let me call home, they make me work every waking hour seven days a week.'

As our friend Red Dragon puts it:

Are the rich so disconnected from the rest of the world that they see nothing wrong with the slavery going on all around them and they enjoy it? They prosper from it and they thrive on it.

Is this what happens when one becomes wealthy? You become such a rotten piece of shit that you do not care who or what wipes your ass?

Dubai is also destroying its environment:

"What I learnt about Dubai is that the authorities don't give a toss about the environment," she says, standing in the stench. "They're pumping toxins into the sea, their main tourist attraction, for God's sake. If there are environmental problems in the future, I can tell you now how they will deal with them -- deny it's happening, cover it up, and carry on until it's a total disaster."

To sum up:

Dubai is Market Fundamentalist Globalisation in One City.

The moral of the story: Dubai is our future. Dubai teaches us just how callous rich people truly are. Unchained capitalism inevitably forges the chains of slavery.

If and when Obama fails, a well-organized propaganda campaign will tell us that socialism has failed, even though socialism was never tried. We will be told -- repeatedly -- that the only solution is libertarianism, a.k.a. Milton Friedmanism. Propagandists always portray free market fundamentalism as the great untried panacea. In fact, it has been tried again and again -- and it has failed again and again.

Free market fundamentalism is not the answer -- unless the question is : What got us into this mess?

I fear Obama. But I fear the guy coming after Obama far more. I don't know his name, but I can give you his job description. He'll be a salesman. He'll be a charmer, as the best salesmen always are. I can already see his reassuring smile, I can already hear his patter, and I can already sense the scheme that lies behind the spiel.

And I know his task: Turn America into Dubai.

"Evil" Craigslist (a post that will anger many)

A man stands accused of murdering a sex worker he met through Craigslist. He also is said to have tied up and robbed another woman, also contacted via Craigslist. The accused denies the charges. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. Still, I feel certain that the perpetrator of these vile crimes will soon see the inside of a courtroom and a prison cell.

I bring this matter up in order to draw attention to an exercise in anti-logic.

The above-noted crimes have led many to demand that Craigslist owner Craig Newmark shut down the site's "erotic services" section. Newmark refuses to do it.

Newmark's comments defied a request by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who asked Craigslist to immediately eliminate photographs in the "erotic services" section, hire staff to screen images and ads that violate the site's terms of service and fine users who violate those terms.

Just how would the posting or non-posting of pictures have prevented the above-referenced crimes? (In case you're confused, we're talking about pics of the ladies offering their services as masseuses or escorts.)

Some of you may cite moral reasons when you demand an end to Craigslist's sleazy "erotic services" section. Fair enough. I don't have a problem with people who frame their concerns in those terms. At least they are being honest.

But don't pretend that you're talking about safety when you actually want to impose your moral standards on people who may have differing values.

For some reason, many still believe that personal encounters have a higher danger factor when couples first meet via computer. The opposite is true.

Computer usage can be traced. A john who meets a hooker via computer creates a very traceable electronic trail -- a factor which will probably help to convict the person who committed the crimes noted above. Anonymity on the net does not really exist -- except for the very savvy few who understand proxy servers.

Potential criminals know this. Think about it: If you were a modern day Jack the Ripper, would you seek victims via Craigslist, or would you look for streetwalkers late at night, as Jack did?

Before Craigslist, sex workers advertised in free periodicals. Were they safer then? If both Craigslist and those hard copy venues disappeared, the girls would walk the streets. Would that be safer?

I understand that, in recent years, many cities have seen a drastically reduced level of streetwalking. We probably owe that reduction to the availability of a free advertising medium.

I would offer similar observations about "normal" (i.e., legal) romantic encounters.

Many computer-phobes can't shake the idea that it is incredibly dangerous to meet someone in real life after first getting to know that person via an AOL chat room or one of those dating sites. But the use of computers automatically creates a trail, and that trail offers much more safety than women knew in the pre-internet age.

Usually, couples who meet on the web proceed to a voice chat on the phone and then to a face-to-face meeting. By the time a man meets the woman of his cyber-dreams for coffee, he has already disclosed his real name, home address, phone number and (usually) his photo. He has also opened himself to a thorough Google check. Just about the only secret he has left is his blood type.

In the 1980s, people met in bars and clubs. Was that safer? (They also met at work. Nowadays, you can be fired for dating a co-worker.)

I'm not looking to meet anyone, but if I were, I'd feel safer encountering someone on the internet than at a church social. And women should feel the same way.

Colleen Rowley blogs about torture (Plus: A bear joke)

The 9/11 FBI whistleblower makes a guest appearance on BradBlog today, and her piece is a must-read. She quotes another former FBI agent, Ali Soufan:

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions --- all of which are still classified.

We have some idea as to nature of the backfiring, as when Khaled Sheikh Muhammed "confessed" to a plot to destroy a building that had not been built at the time of his capture.

Those who allow the occasional bit of paranoid speculation to color their worldview tend to suspect that false confessions were the point of Bush administration torture. I've told the following Cold War-vintage joke before, but it's worth another recounting:

THE BEAR JOKE

The head of the CIA, the head of the KGB and the head of the Mossad go hunting in the forest. They engage in a competition: The person who bags a bear the quickest wins.

The CIA guy heads into the forest first. Using infrared scanners, night-vision goggles, real-time satellite imagery and many more high-tech gadgets, he locates a bear, stuns him with an audio-based non-lethal weapon, airlifts the creature back to base camp, and has him worked on by a team of experts in psycho-pharmacology -- who soon have the bear convinced that he is, in fact, the Empress Eugenie.

The entire process takes three days.

The KGB guy goes next. He calls in a missile strike and blows up a quarter of the forest. After the inferno dies down, he explores the fallen trees and finally uncovers the carcass of a dead bear, which he hauls back to camp.

That destroy-and-search process takes less than 48 hours.

The Mossad guy goes out. He's in the forest for about 30 minutes. Then he comes back -- holding a rabbit. The rabbit, alive, has had the crap beat out of him.

The Mossad guy triumphantly exclaims: "He confessed! He IS a bear!"

AIPAC -- the ramifications

For big laffs, check out Marty Peretz on the dropping of the AIPAC case:

The espionage that they were supposed to have committed turns out not to be espionage but rather casual talk on insignificant topics with people friendly to the United States.

The AIPAC case is "insignificant." Uh huh. Then why did former DOD employee Larry Franklin receive a twelve year sentence? Why was the "insignificant" information classified Top Secret? Why was the FBI tapping Saban -- and others? Do courts allow legal wiretaps on unimportant matters? Why did the FBI review the late Jack Anderson's long history of AIPAC contacts? Why has the FBI been probing AIPAC since before 9/11?

The FBI began its "insignificant" wide-ranging, years-long investigation of AIPAC after Franklin's meetings with Naor Gilon, an Israeli expert on Iran's nuclear capability, also the handler for AIPAC's Steven Rosen and Keith Weissmann. In brief:

The spy nest met over a period of two years, always after taking elaborate security precautions: the indictment details one meeting during which the spies switched locations three times. These guys knew what they were doing was treasonous, and rightly feared they were being followed.

Mainstream media accounts rarely discuss the precise nature of the information that Franklin passed to AIPAC's Rosen and Weissmann. The absence of specifics has allowed apologists to claim -- falsely -- that the case comes down to a few beer-swilling pals chatting about unimportant scuttlebutt. But the indictment of Larry Franklin is online, if you care to read it. It offers many clues as to the true gravity of the matter. We learn from it that Rosen and Weissman stand accused of a long history of espionage, and that Franklin was not their only "inside" contact.

I'll translate the timeline from legalese to plain English. Yes, I know that this will be ancient hat to some of you, but a refresher never hurts:

April 13, 1999: Rosen "picked up an extremely sensitive piece of intelligence" relating to terrorists in Central Asia. (That sounds like Al Qaeda to me.)

June 11, 1999: Weissman told an Israeli official about a secret FBI report on the Khobar Towers bombing. (The indictment coyly refers to unnamed "Foreign Officials." But everyone knows that these AIPAC lads were talking to Israelis -- specifically, to Naor Gilon and Uzi Arad, now an aide to Netanyahu.)

December 12, 2000: Rosen and Weissman got information from an unnamed government official about "classified United States strategy options against a Middle Eastern country." The information was passed to the media.

January 18-23, 2002: Rosen obtained classified information from another government official and passed it on to an Israeli official.

March 12-14, 2002: Rosen obtained classified information about Al Qaeda from one of his inside contacts and disclosed it to an Israeli official.

August 5, 2002: Rosen asked a DOD contact to name an important Pentagon Iran expert who might be willing to play ball. Enter Larry Franklin. Franklin was targeted; he did not simply meet socially with a couple of guys who happened to work for AIPAC. After establishing contact, Rosen told Franklin that they wanted information on seven or eight issues -- not just Iran.

February 12, 2003: Franklin gave the AIPAC boys the gist of a classified internal document "concerning a Middle Eastern country." (Iran.) This was later passed on the Israelis. Rosen and Weissman had an overwhelming interest in this report, for reasons we will soon discuss.

February 14, 2003: Rosen encouraged Franklin to seek a position on the NSC. Rosen said that he would do what he could to make sure that Franklin got the sensitive position. In other words, a promise of career advancement helped to hook Larry Franklin.

March 10, 2003: The three met at Union Station, then switched restaurants three times before ending up at an empty eatery. The indictment does not state what the trio discussed during these strange maneuvers. Sports, probably.

March 13, 2003: Rosen disclosed what he knew about the Iran document to an official at a D.C. "think tank." That would be the Saban Center -- yes, run by that Saban. (Of whom, more below.)

March 17, 2003: Franklin faxed a classified document from his Pentagon office to Rosen. This was an appendix to the document mentioned on February 12.

March 18, 2003: Rosen told a member of the media about the classified document, saying "I'm not supposed to know this." He stressed the importance of the story. The reporter apparently was Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post.

March 30, 2003: Rosen told another reporter about the document's contents.

June 24, 2004: On the phone, Weissman asked Franklin to obtain a certain document, not classified. Franklin said that he would get it from a CIA buddy. The document is, in all likelihood, the one by CIA analyst Flynt Leverett referenced here. Leverett argued for detente (if that is the right word) with Iran.

June 26, 2003: The three met at a restaurant, where Franklin passed on "highly classified" data about potential attacks in Iraq.

June 30, 2003: Weissman and Franklin went to a baseball game. A few days earlier, Weissman told Rosen about the proposed sports outing. Rosen answered: "Smart guy. That's the thing to do." I think we get the picture.

October 24, 2003: Franklin spoke directly on the telephone to an Israeli official about the internal document on Iran that had so piqued Israeli interest.

May 21, 2004: Franklin gave reporters Top Secret information about two Middle Eastern officials. This phrase almost certainly refers to Ahmed Chalabi and Manucher Ghorbinifar.

June 30, 2004: Larry Franklin was caught with a whole bunch of classified documents in his home. He began to cooperate with the feds.

July 9, 2004: Franklin fed Weissman classified defense info.

July 21, 2004: Franklin fed Weissman information about Iran's covert actions in Iraq. Franklin specified that the data was highly classified "Agency stuff." This classified material was later passed on to the Israelis and to a media contact.

In August, the FBI contacted Rosen and Weissman directly -- which, obviously, the feds would not have done if they did not feel that they had a nice, airtight espionage case.

By the way, Rosen and Weissman also lied to federal investigators during questioning. Isn't that why Martha Stewart went to the slammer?

The point should be clear: This was a spy ring. You'll read in many blogs that the Iran document was inconsequential. If so, then why did the Israelis go to such lengths to learn all about it?

Nevertheless, Obama is poised to drop the case.

Okay, so what's really going on here? What specific pieces of data caused these three men to run such risks? First, let's consult Wikipedia:

According to The New York Times, Lawrence Franklin was one of two U.S. officials that held meetings with Iranian dissidents, including Paris-based arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, a key figure in the Iran-Contra affair. These Pentagon-approved meetings were brokered by neoconservative Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, who had also played a part in Iran-Contra, and is said to have taken place in Paris in June 2003. The Jerusalem Post reported that the purpose of the meetings was to "undermine a pending deal that the White House had been negotiating with the Iranian government", specifically, an exchange of high-ranking al-Qaeda members in Iranian custody in return for a stop to U.S. support of the anti-Iranian Mujahideen al-Khalq fighters in Iraq... The Post article dated the beginning of the FBI investigation to this secret meeting, which the public first learned about in August 2003.

History Commons (drawing from a Vanity Fair article) adds the following about Franklin's meetings with Ghorbanifar and our old friend, Michael Ledeen:

While no details of the discussions that took place at this meeting are available, it is likely that, like the other two, the main focus of the meeting is the manipulation of “evidence” showing Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in order to provide “proof” that the US invasion of Iraq was justified.

Bear with me. This next bit gets tricky.

As you will recall, the AIPAC lads showed a particular interest in Flynt Leverett's let's-make-peace-with-Iran document, which was not classified. That document became the basis of an article Leverett wrote for the New York Times. After its publication, the Bush Administration said that Leverett had used classified data, even though he hadn't. In fact, the government redacted parts of the op-ed piece!

You weren't supposed to see those passages, but Keith Weissman is privileged.

Leverett did a stint on Condaleeza Rice's staff, during which time he saw a startling document about Iran, as discussed in this Washington Post article.

"I have read about this so-called proposal from Iran," Rice told the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, referring to reports in The Washington Post and other publications last year. "We had people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you,' lots of people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you.' But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, 'We're ready to recognize Israel.' .

Rice denied seeing the document, but Leverett says that he saw it, and so did others.

The Iranian document, conveyed to Washington via the Swiss Embassy, listed a series of Iranian aims for potential talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests," according to a copy that has circulated in Washington and was verified by Iranian and U.S. officials.

In the document, Iran offered to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, including possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of road maps on disarmament, countering terrorism and economic cooperation.

Ah. The road not taken...

Keep in mind that Larry Franklin hated the government of Iran, as does Naor Gilon, the guy at the Israeli embassy who was received so much secret data. One can only guess how they reacted to all of this peace talk.

Iran held out the olive branch. Iran was willing to meet the U.S. more than halfway. And -- despite Rice's protestations to Congress -- Bush did consider reciprocation.

Alas, the neocons want -- in the colorful words of a previous post -- to "bomb the mother loving crap out of Iran."

Let's repeat what the Jerusalem Post had to say: The purpose of the Ghorbanifar meetings was to "undermine a pending deal that the White House had been negotiating with the Iranian government." That deal -- Al Qaeda prisoners in exchange for withdrawal of U.S. support for MEK (Mujahideen al-Khalq) terrorists -- would have been an excellent first step toward the goals outlined by Flynt Leverett. (The MEK are crazy fuckers with dreams of conquering Tehran.)

Bush officials did indeed discreet meetings with Iranian contacts. The Americans attacked MEK camps in northern Iraq.

Michael Ledeen did not want that:

In fact, many say that the Pentagon, administered by Ledeen’s allies, has courted a weird, cultish anti-regime Iranian guerilla group based in eastern Iraq called the Mujahideen al-Khalq.

And so we now have a good idea as to the contents of that classified Presidential document on Iran -- a document which Israel considered all-important, which Rosen and Weissman risked their freedom to obtain, which apologists like Peretz now want us to consider unimportant:

Peace or war.

As simple as that. Bush was considering peace -- true peace -- with Iran. The Israelis were terrified of the very idea. They wanted war.

War may yet come. If and when it does, the history lesson I have tried to give here will not seem so very dry. And few will consider what Rosen and Weissman did "insignificant."

By the way:

The U.S. government indictment alleged that the director of research at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Kenneth Pollack, provided information to former AIPAC employees Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman during the AIPAC espionage scandal.

As we've already seen, the info flow went the other way. The Saban Center is, of course, the baby of Haim Saban, of Power Ranger fame. He's the Israeli agent who tried to get Jane Harman to pressure the DOJ to drop the case against Rosen and Weissman. This explains the FBI's interest in Saban.

Marty Peretz says that the "real scandal" is: Who approved the Harman wiretap? But we know that Harman was not the target -- Haim Saban was. So Peretz is really asking: Who dared to wiretap Saban?

The indictment charges three men with espionage. Rosen and Weissman will probably walk, while Larry Franklin does hard time. African Americans complain about cops who view "Driving While Black" as a crime. Perhaps Franklin was nabbed for Spying While Goy.

She's back on the streets

The fucking whore walks again -- and now she's whoring for a right-wing radio network.

UPDATE: To the dolts coming here from a site called "Rump Roast": First, I am not a PUMA and not a member of any other group. All categories are crap and all isms are prisons. Second, you seem to be utterly unaware of the reason why Randi Rhodes was canned from Air America. She pulled out that knife. She deserves to be stabbed with it. My brief is not feminism but fairness.

Jane Harman and the AIPAC case

I did not want to write anything further today, but the Harman imbroglio and the AIPAC case have taken new turns.

Juan Cole notes an interview with Nancy Pelosi, who says that she was aware two years ago that Harman was involved in a wiretap.

She said, “The only reason Jane was not chosen is because she already had two terms. It had nothing to do with wiretaps or Iraq.”

Iraq? Who said anything about Iraq?

The Washington Post says that the FBI, not the NSA, set the wiretap.

AIPAC: The WP says that the administration may drop the AIPAC spying case -- an outcome which WP editorialists have demanded. (Keep in mind that Rosen and Weissman leaked classified data not just to the Israelis but to a WP reporter.)

Again I ask: Why was Susan Lindauer, who was nothing more than a naive kid, charged with acting as an unregistered agent for Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- yet Rosen, Weissman and Saban will never be charged for acting as agents for Israel? Just what does one have to do to be charged with acting as an unregistered agent for Israel?

Are the Israelis now allowed to spy on us?

Those who think that Obama will take a tougher stance on Israel should draw the obvious comparisons. The Bush administration initiated the AIPAC case; Obama seems ready to drop it. The Reagan administration prosecuted Pollard. Obama is telling all modern Pollards that the coast is clear.

I agree with these observations:

In the AIPAC espionage case, the deliverer of the espionage material, Larry Franklin was found guilty and sentenced to twelve years but the recipients of this material, two ex AIPAC employees may have their cases dropped. This maybe unconformable to fathom but it seems that when dealing with potential allegations of impropriety or investigations of Israel, AIPAC, or government officials involved with these entities our government seems to bury the story, our media ignores it, until the story dies under the power and influence of political and media lobbying of its own lobbying volition.

The timing seems more than suspicious. Why did the dropping of the case follow so quickly on the heels of the Harman revelations? I'm not the only one asking:

The specific reason the story is coming out now is that my side, the critics of the Israel lobby, are about to lose a battle: it looks like the case against Steven Rosen and Ken Weissman, the Israel lobbyists charged with sharing secrets with the Israelis five years ago, a case postponed forever, is going to get dropped by the Justice Department. The lawyers who believe in that case are surely upset about this and have managed to leak one of the big truffles of their investigation to the press so as to goose the public outrage over the central issue at stake: corruption of policymaking due to the Israel interest. I don’t know that they’re the source. But that’s my supposition.

L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten, writing from the opposite perspective (he calls the Harman case "faux" and he applauds the dropping of charges against AIPAC), also sees a connection:

Now the question is: Who would drag Harman, Pelosi and Saban into this faux scandal to prevent such an exit?

"Faux" it ain't. And Saban was no innocent dragged into the Harman scandal. He's the Power Ranger who created the scandal -- and he's untouchable.

By the way, the registration of foreign agents is covered under 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. Perhaps Mr. Saban will want to read the law (especially subsection (c)). He is not above that law, although everyone seems to think so.

The history of the Foreign Agents Registration Act is quite interesting. Seems to me that our relations with Israel and the rest of the Middle East would be much improved if we went back to something like the pre-1966 standards, which targeted propagandists. Indeed, the real problems began after 1966.

Madness

Well, I did not want to write about Israel and the Palestinians today, but circumstances force the issue.

First, let's focus on how I became the unwitting trigger of a blog war. On The Confluence, a recent thread explains the mechanics of a behind-the-scenes rift.

A few writers on that site took offense at the listing of Cannonfire on the blogroll, apparently because those writers considered my advocacy of a single-state solution in Israel to be proof of the raging anti-Semitism secretly lurking within every goyish heart. The de-listing did not bother me, and Riverdaughter (chief editor and writer of that site) retains my admiration.

(In case you're wondering, she and I do not correspond in private. I have nothing to do with that site beyond the occasional comment.)

But that minor adjustment of HTML coding did not suffice to placate the rebel faction, who now view their former home blog as incurably poisoned by Cannonite cooties. They formed their own site (a good move: Don't bitch, blog!) which unpromisingly uses the sinking Titanic as its visual symbol. They then proceeded to attack the folks at the Confluence for being -- get this -- neo-conservative.

The reasoning: A former link to Cannonfire equals opposition to Israel; opposition to Israel equals anti-Semitism; anti-Semitism equals evil; neo-conservatism equals evil -- therefore, any blog which once had a link to this site is neo-conservative. In other words: Eyeballs are spherical, the world is spherical, the world is a planet, therefore eyeballs are planets. That's logic for ya.

Let's see a few more logical statements (and I mean "logical" in the Glenn Beck sense of the term):

About a year ago or so I came out and said that Tushy Obama’s Mideast policy was going to predicated on selling out Israeli security to her enemies in exchange for a Cumbaya love fest with the radical Islamists.

Let’s take a look at the recent timeline of events. First Botox Troll John Kerry traveled to Gaza so Hamas would not think that all its fundraising for the Tushy was in vain. No one really paid much attention as he’s really just a nobody puppet for Pampers now. Then he went to meet with the region's favorite doctor turned rogue nation leader Bashar Assad of Syria...

It goes on and on like that. Apparently, John Kerry is a big anti-Semite. Apparently, Barack Obama hopes to achieve political glory by selling out to Osama. After all, that is the way to win the hearts of Americans, is it not?

According to this site, Uncle Sam himself doesn't like Jews -- and vice-versa:

The United States, in its typical ignorance of the functionings of the Middle East, seems to think that it can blackmail Israel by sending the message that there will be no help on the Iran nukes front until Israel consents to a Palestinian state with a divided Jerusalem. [the folks at the Konfluence don’t seem to realize that utilizing this kind of blackmail to dictate the policy of a sovereign nation is the same neocon tactics used by George W. Shrub, but they don’t care as long as they get the results they want; a Palestinian State led by its current terror kleptocracy which means a fucked Israel...

What Tushy Obama, and his anti-Israel cabal don’t understand is that Israel does not need the United States’ approval to bomb the mother loving crap out of Iran. Israel does not need access to Iraqi airspace to bomb the mother loving crap out of Iran...

And it goes on and on like that. One more example:

Rahm is on board with his master's plan to curry Islamist favor by setting up Israel to be rocketed out of existence.

This leads to more blather about how the Department of State "perennially sells out Israel's security interests."

Well. I must say that I am surprised to learn that one of Israel's greatest enemies is the United States of America. But then again, why should this attitude surprise us? We have, after all, the precedent of the Pollard scandal -- in which Israel not only stole our secrets but sold them to the Russians during the cold war.

Our examination of this one small (and probably inconsequential) blog allows us to see the larger picture more keenly. The madness on display here reflects the insanity which has come to grip Israel's defenders.

At the Durban Review Conference on Racism, Alan Dershowitz -- whom I used to admire, believe it or not -- went completely off his coconut:

US attorney Alan Dershowitz said Monday on the sidelines of the Durban Review Conference on racism in Geneva that Switzerland's president was supportive of 'hate mongering' and that the anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu was a 'racist and bigot.'

This is Desmond freaking Tutu we are talking about.

Again, perhaps we should not be surprised. Israel and apartheid South Africa remained close allies when Tutu called for disinvestment.

Here in California, a professor named William Robinson, who teaches at the University of California at Santa Barbara, may lose his position over an email containing an attached article by a Jewish journalist:

In January of this year, he forwarded an email condemning the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The email contained an editorial by a Jewish journalist condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as well as juxtaposed images of Nazi atrocities with congruent images of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. The email was an optional read for students, intended to spark conversation by relating contemporary events to conceptual ideas discussed in class.

One week later, the ADL wrote him a letter charging him with anti-Semitism and sundry violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct (none of which were coherent claims)...

Repeat: The "offensive" article was written by a Jewish author. This led to the filing of formal student complaints which now endanger the professor's career.

The complaints are that 1) critique of Israel is evidence of anti-Semitism and 2) the Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be discussed in a class on Globalization.

Meanwhile, in Israel itself, Jewish fundamentalism -- which is every bit as obnoxious as its Islamic, Hindu and Christian siblings -- continues to infect the public psyche.

* A Jewish "modesty patrol" in a Jerusalem suburb tossed acid in the face of a 14 year-old girl who committed the crime of wearing pants.

* IDF troops refused to attend a performance featuring a female singer. (Remember when Israel was applauded for allowing women to serve in its army?)

* In some parts of Israel, women are required to sit in the back of the bus. A newspaper editor characterized a petition to change this practice as an attempt "to impose Western secular culture on us."

"Western secular culture"? A telling phrase, that. In my view, this new disdain for "western secular culture" ties into the anti-U.S. blather quoted above.

* Children's books in Israel openly promote ethnic hatred and religious animosity.

* Rabbis told Israeli troops assaulting Gaza that theirs was a holy war -- a jihad, if you will -- against Gentiles. This fanaticism resulted in the deliberate murder of civilians.

* Although Israeli apologists in the U.S. decry anyone who suggests that Israelis seek to eradicate all non-Jews in "their" land, rabbis in Israel have decided that the time has come to take off the petticoat and show what's underneath. From the Los Angeles Times:

But some soldiers say they also were lectured about a more ambitious aim: to banish non-Jews from the biblical land of Israel.

"This rabbi comes to us and says the fight is between the children of light and the children of darkness," a reserve sergeant said, recalling a training camp encounter. "His message was clear: 'This is a war against an entire people, not against specific terrorists.' The whole thing was turned into something very religious and messianic

Gaza veterans said rabbis advised army units to show the enemy no mercy and called for resettlement of the Palestinian enclave by Jews.

"The rabbis were all over, in every unit," said Yehuda Shaul, a retired army officer whose human rights group, Breaking the Silence, has taken testimony from dozens of Gaza veterans. "It was quite well organized."

By the way: How do we define "Biblical" Israel? I'm thinking of Samaria, Idumea...

* Avigdor Lieberman. Need I say more?

* Racism in Israel has segued into an open search for a final solution to "The Non-Jewish Problem":

Israel's Jewish community increasingly supports the delegitimization, discrimination and even deportation of Arabs, found a report on racism in Israel, set to be released Wednesday.

The report, to be presented at a press conference in Nazareth by Mossawa, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, states that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has clearly impacted public opinion, and warns that ideas such as population exchange and racial segregation are gaining ground. It also warns that several Jewish politicians are gaining influence based on a platform of racial hatred.

Most cases of Arab citizens injured by Jews were not fully investigated, and the attackers were not indicted in most cases, according to the report.

However, the report says Arab violence against Jews led to immediate police action, including collective punishment in villages like Jisr al-Zarqa this month.

How can one not compare these outrages -- calls for deportation, differing standards of justice, collective reprisal, open talk of racial superiority/inferiority -- to Nazism?

* As non-racist, or less-racist, secular Jews (sensibly) immigrate from Israel, the population remaining in that nation is increasingly wedded to crazed forms of religiosity.

Israel's Haredi ultra-Orthodox religious community, for example, is growing at a rate so high that it is redefining the political landscape. According to Israeli government statistics, Haredi Jews average 7.6 children per woman, almost three times the rate of the population as a whole. Of the Israeli Knesset's 120 members, 20 are ultra-Orthodox, up from five just a couple of decades ago.

Some argue that attraction to ultra-Orthodoxy is a rejection of the Western liberal tradition.

The theme sounds again: The rejection of the West.

Americans are now the bad guys -- perhaps because U.S. taxpayers refuse to pay for a new war against a perceived enemy of Israel. Or maybe it's those damned female singers we keep foisting on the world. I never knew that Britney was that big of a problem...

In short and in sum: A mania has overtaken many Jews, in Israel in elsewhere. Not all Jews are religious bigots, but all Jews are as susceptible to bigotry as is the rest of our sorry species.

The current mania parallels similar frenzies which have afflicted just about every other culture in the world at one time or another. Study the faces of fanaticism as their ghosts march past: Simon de Montfort, Savonarola, Torquemada, John C. Calhoun, George Armstrong Custer, General Phil Sheridan, Edouard Drumont, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo -- yes, Hitler and Himmler. And certainly one should include Osama Bin Laden and his band of psychopaths, even though they have, unhappily, escaped ghost-hood.

Jews may look at that ghastly list and mutter: No, not us; never us. It's not possible. We're different; we're better. We are immune from the disease that afflicts the rest of humanity.

No. They are not.

Racism, ethnocentrism and religious fundamentalism (the concepts are inextricably intertwined) are like the chicken pox: The only sure prevention is to have gone through the illness. It has to be part of your past. The disease is bad enough when it strikes during childhood -- but it's much worse during adulthood. The pox often leaves lasting scars. A bad case of adult-onset chicken pox can damage one's ability to see clearly, to stand up straight, to control the sphincter. The very worst cases are fatal.

Jews have never really confronted this "pox" before -- not on this scale. Over the course of centuries, they saw it hit others en masse, but not themselves. They thought they were resistant. In fact, they had built up no immunity.

Thus a great many Jews have now caught the human disease, and a once-handsome visage has become repellent. Temporarily, I hope. But the marks are there, and it's no use pretending otherwise.

Jews who have fallen to this pandemic look in the mirror, and they don't like what they see: Not us, not us. It cannot happen to us. That wretched, blemished face in the glass does not match the pristine self-image seen by the mind's eye. The disjunction is damning.

And so they go mad.