Tag Archives: NPR

The end, again.

Troops are rolling into Fallujah once again, under the cover of our air force and whatever deadly ordinance it’s dropping this time around. Last time, during the “second battle of Fallujah,” our arsenal included depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Fallujah was one of the first points of resistance to our 2003 invasion. U.S. forces rolled into town and set up shop in a school building. There were protests about their presence as well as their use of the facility and on April 28, 2003 and again two days later, members of the U.S. 82nd Airborne fired on the crowd, killing 17 Iraqis. (See this synopsis in TruthOut, drawing on reporting by Jeremy Scahill.) That was the start of a long and beautiful friendship.

What "success" looks like.Today, the Baghdad government is ripping Fallujah yet another new asshole. It’s worth recalling that the ISIS militants they are fighting in that unfortunate city are mostly disaffected Sunnis, the most senior of which were probably part of Saddam’s army, the younger ones simply kids with no future, like so many Gazans or West Bank Palestinians. Malcolm Nance reminds us that, prior to our 2003 invasion, there were no Al Qaida to speak of in Iraq; after the invasion, they numbered in the low thousands. It wasn’t until the utter failure of the post-invasion regime to incorporate Sunnis into society (and, yes, the arrest and disappearance of many at the hands of the Iraqi security forces) that these young people became fodder for opportunistic Salafi organizations like ISIS.

Trouble is, we don’t remember much about even our most recent wars, let alone those fought decades ago. I heard an interview on NPR today with two New York Times reporters based in Beirut, reporting on the Syrian conflict, and they suggested that the rules of war are being broken in an unprecedented way in Syria. My first thought upon hearing this was, hadn’t these people heard of, say, Fallujah in 2004? Then a few minutes later in the broadcast, the reporters said one of them had covered the second Fallujah battle. So …. were we following any rules of war worth mentioning? Do we ever? Did we in Vietnam, really? Where did the Phoenix program fit into those “rules”? How about Operation Ranch Hand?

The Syrian conflict is horrible, truly. It won’t stop until the belligerents and all interested parties (including us) let go of their maximal objectives. But let’s not pretend it’s uniquely horrible. Not when we have the rubble of Fallujah to consider.

luv u,

jp

 

Memory’s minefield.

It’s always interesting when American Presidents in particular visit nations we have destroyed in past wars. This past week President Obama traveled to Hiroshima to deliver the resounding message that we are not sorry …  repeat, not sorry …  for using the most destructive weapons in the history of mankind on this unfortunate community. He also delivered some claptrap about reducing the number of nuclear weapons, even as his administration moves forward with an ambitious plan to engineer a highly destabilizing new generation of nuclear weapons.

U.S. to mankind: still not sorry.Empire means more than never having to say you’re sorry. It mostly means never even contemplating the concept of “sorry” – an imperial value not lost on the likes of NPR, whose Morning Edition host Renee Montagne reliably informed us that “in America – the view of the bombing – though everyone recognizes this as horrific – the view of the bombing is it was done because it had to be done.” So that’s what “the view” is, eh? Thanks, Renee. Up to your usual journalistic standards.

Obama’s previous stop was in Vietnam. No apologies there, either. Though the central thrust of his mission was to announce the lifting of an arms embargo on Vietnam that has been in place since the American war began, tightened under Reagan. Obama referred to this as a vestige of the Cold War, though the Cold War was not so cold in Vietnam, it bears reminding. Interestingly, the President’s aims in Vietnam are not dissimilar from the aims of the American war itself. One of the core objectives of U.S. policy in its Indochina wars was that of keeping the region from accommodating to China so that they would instead provide materials, markets, and cheap labor to Japan – an American version of the “co-prosperity sphere” imperial Japan aggressively sought to establish in the 1930s and ’40s.

Today, the goal is … well … to have Vietnam integrated into the American-led global economic order, via the TPP and other instruments, thereby containing what our government perceives as China’s expansionism. It is, in some respects, an effort to reclaim the maximal objective of the Vietnam war, which proved beyond our reach. (I tend to agree with Chomsky, however, that the U.S. did, in fact, essentially prevail in the Vietnam war by destroying three countries and ensuring that Indochina’s crippled post-war independence would serve as a model for no one.)

The coverage of this trip has been pretty abysmal. No surprise there. Once the mainstream media has worked out what “the view” is on a given topic, there’s no point in wasting any energy on actual reporting.

luv u,

jp

Debtors and lenders.

We’re watching as the richest country in Europe (a.k.a. Germany) is pressuring one of the poorest countries in Europe (a.k.a. Greece) to accept an even deeper regime of austerity than what they have endured up to now, with massive unemployment, economic contraction, and increasing (not decreasing) debt. This is a political effort, not an economic one. Economically it makes no sense; crushing the Greek economy will only harm the Eurozone. The German chancellor is playing to a domestic constituency convinced that Greeks deserve more punishment because they are bad, lazy, corrupt, etc. That’s a deeply nationalist attitude, and I don’t know about you, but German nationalism makes me a little nervous.

Guess which evildoer the Greeks are equating with the GermansThe irony, of course, is astounding. When it faced crisis in the early 1950s, Germany’s creditors – including Greece – agreed to write off 50% of its debt and postpone the other half, allowing Germany to pay it back on a 30-year schedule. Pretty decent terms, considering how Germany acquired much of its debt … namely destroying an entire continent, killing millions, and brutally occupying much of Europe – again, including Greece. Ancient history? Only to American news outlets like NPR’s Morning Edition, where this week correspondents snickered about how Greeks see one German official as a kind of “Darth Vader” figure. (Note to NPR: does Darth Vader’s helmet remind you of anything? Is it possible the Greeks are equating the Germans more with – I don’t know – the murderous German occupiers of the 1940s than with the cartoonish pop-culture Nazi knock-off from Star freaking Wars?)

Then there’s Puerto Rico. Another debt crisis, with no sign of assistance forthcoming from its overlords in Washington. The back story on this is instructive. Puerto Rico has very little room to maneuver economically. It doesn’t control its own shipping. Goods shipped to the island from any nation must first make for Florida and be transferred to American ships before they can be unloaded in Puerto Rico. Just listen to this interview of Nelson Denis on Sam Seder’s Majority Report podcast for the full story of how this island has been screwed by the U.S. again and again. Though it sounds depressingly familiar, I had not heard this history before.

There’s such a thing as odious debt. We just need to recognize that fact and allow countries that have been skull-fucked by us and our allies to start with a clean slate.

luv u,

jp

The year in advance.

Okay, I promised domestic policy this week, but I’m going to have to go back on that for a paragraph or two. It’s the product of swallowing so much crap news over the course of the week. Just a few minutes of Latin America coverage by NPR is enough to make me want to pull my own head off. So I just want to dwell on that topic for a few minutes … don’t mind me.

One that got awayObama’s shift on Cuba is instructive in a lot of ways. For one, it is wildly popular, with something like 60% of the country in support. That has been reflected in polls for quite a long time. Second, it does help to lay bare the true nature of the relationship. Just listening to our diplomats lecture Cuba on human rights issues is enough irony to last a decade in and of itself. For chrissake, we can’t even claim to hold to a high standard on human rights even within the confines of Cuba itself!

Raul Castro has said that reestablishing normal relations would require our return of Guantanamo Bay – the only eastern-facing harbor on the island, which would be kind of useful for trade with Europe. The Obama administration has rejected that out of hand. Again … does any news organization in the United States ever examine the issue of our dubious claim on Guantanamo Bay? Nope. Too busy reporting on Russia’s heinous seizure of Crimea.

It goes deeper than that. Why have we targeted Cuba for five decades? Dictatorship? That can’t be it. We cozy up to dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and elsewhere without a problem. Human rights? Please! Here’s a more plausible explanation. We “owned” Cuba, like a master owns a slave. Cuba broke away, setting a “bad” example for the other slaves. We have never accepted its disobedience, and we have punished it grievously ever since. We’ve invaded it, attacked its people, attempted to assassinate its leaders, strangled it economically as only a superpower can, vilified it in every imaginable way.

So … the nation that innovated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 pursues the same principle on the national stage. That is the context of this new detente with Cuba.

luv u,

jp

The year (2014) that was.

It’s the end of the year, and news organizations far and wide are doing their annual retrospective clip shows. From a production standpoint they are a terrific money saver, no doubt, which would explain why the various networks seem so enthusiastic about it. This is the week when you get a distillation of the year’s worst reporting; a big ball of conventional wisdom, served up on a plate. Open wide!

NPR’s Morning Edition – as reliable a servant of empire as any imperial bureaucrat could hope for – wasted no words in putting one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts into the proper context:

You can learn a lot about 2014 by tracing the story of one man, Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader hosted the Winter Olympics proudly showing off a place that’s near and dear to him, the Black Sea Resort of Sochi. But the feeling of global goodwill there disappeared so quickly. Putin infuriated the West by annexing Crimea then he stirred a deadly conflict in Eastern Ukraine.The West imposed sanctions, and there’s been talk of a new Cold War. But at home, even with his economy tanking, Putin remains popular.

This just in from Empire News.

That’s David Greene, now Morning Edition co-host and formerly one of NPR’s correspondents in eastern Europe. Here he is joining his colleagues at all the major news networks parroting the administration line about the crisis in Ukraine, making it a story about Putin rather than a story about a decades-long conflict over economic and military policy on the continent. This is a lead-in to a conversation with Peter Pomerantsev, a Russian-born writer at The Atlantic, in which they dissect the phenomenon of the manipulative Russian leader, pointing out the appalling fact that the Russian government is (gasp!) “choreograph(ing) politics to make Putin look good.” Whoever heard of such an outrage!

They followed this edifying conversation with a story from two NPR European correspondents illustrating how Putin’s government is offering support to right-wing opposition parties across Europe, delivering funding in a way that would be illegal within the borders of Russia. In other words, NPR has made the astonishing discovery that Russia does exactly what we do in nations all around the world – sluice money into opposition groups, support opposition candidates with money and other resources, and insert ourselves into their political process in a manner forbidden by U.S. law if someone were to try it here. In fact, this is precisely what we’ve been doing in Ukraine as part of our efforts to integrate them into the European trading bloc and, ultimately, NATO.

With a long history of devastating invasions from the West, that’s a non-starter for Russia, just as Mexico’s entry into a foreign military alliance would be frowned upon in Washington. But far be it from NPR or any other major corporate news organization to report on that. That would require stepping out of line ever so slightly. Never going to happen.

luv u,

jp

How much is enough?

Israel continues to pound the people of Gaza to a pulp, bombing yet another UN school and killing many as they slept. The Palestinian death toll is nearing 1,400 as of this writing. How is our mainstream media handling this? They’re basically ripping and reading Israeli government press releases.

Outrage upon outrageToday (Thursday 7/31), it’s been all about the “sophisticated” network of tunnels through which the diabolical Hamas can infiltrate Israel at will and attack the innocent. I heard a bloodless report on NPR in which a correspondent talked about the improved combat capability of Hamas, which they argued, surpassed that of Hezbollah during Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon. “Hezbollah is watching this closely,” we’re told. Cue the fright music.

It’s no mystery why most Americans don’t understand this conflict; they simply never get the facts from their news sources. This attack is completely unjustified; it is a bald attempt to destroy any opportunity for a united Palestinian front, the prospect of which emerged over the past few months. As usual, the Israeli government is not responding to the threat of war, but rather, the threat of peace. When there appears a chance that a credible diplomatic effort might emerge, they shift the ground to military conflict, something they cannot fail at. They have the fifth largest military in the world; Hamas is a bunch of guys with guns and 10-20 pound artillery charges. Does the media report that? Never.

Take the so-called “iron dome” defense system. According to Ted Postal at MIT (who appeared on Democracy Now! this week), this system, like the Patriot Missile batteries of the first Gulf War (1990-1),  is almost certainly less than 5% effective. But the United States government and our incredibly feckless media merely accept the Israeli governments unverified claims without comment. Again, it’s rip and read — if it’s coming from the Netanyahu government, it has to be right. In the midst of all this carnage, they simply can’t resist raising Raytheon’s stock a little bit.

I could say more, but suffice to say, this has to stop. I know Netanyahu and his ministers are shooting for total capitulation on the part of the Palestinians. They may get part of their wish. But there’s no way in hell we should fail to hold them accountable for what has been a really major crime against humanity, made worse by the fact that we could pressure them to stop, and yet we won’t. We have no leverage in Syria. We do in Israel, and we should use it.

Stop. the. killing. now.

luv u,

jp

Friend of my enemy.

No, I won’t employ the convenient Yogi Berra-ism that the press has been so fond of since its coining, but I can’t help but feel like we’re treading the same ground we did decades ago during the height of the cold war. It seems like every time I hear a news report, whether on NPR or some network television outlet, there’s talk of Russia, Russia, Russia. The uprising in Ukraine is really a Russia story here in the States. NBC’s Brian Williams describes it casually as a “personal” matter for Vladimir Putin; an artifact of the ongoing demonization campaign against the Russian president, who is no saint and has dictatorial tendencies, but is not the monstrous freak our government/corporate media complex seem determined to make him out to be.

Conservative? Yep.The national corporate media conversation on Ukraine seems to center on what we are going to do about it, but the fact is, we are supporting the opposition in that country – likely not because our government has overriding sympathy for them, but because they are acting against Russia’s interests. This is reminiscent of the “conversation” that was had last year over Syria, in which articulate opinion was broadly in favor of American strikes while the vast majority of Americans were against it. Again – Russia is on the other side. (We are, of course, aligned with groups in Syria that are in a de-facto alliance with Al Qaeda-inspired militants.) In our ongoing economic/political campaign against Iran, Russia is also on the other side. Sense a pattern?

What interests me, particularly, is the fact that Putin is regularly characterized in the media as a man steeped in the confrontational ideology of the Cold War. Russia has, in fact, moved on from its Soviet past. And yet we in the United States, priding ourselves on having “won” the Cold War, have not changed our approach to the world since those dark days. In many ways, we are far more deeply entrenched in a Cold War mentality by virtue of the fact that our empire still stands, more or less, while our rival’s has disappeared. It is almost an autonomic response to Russia’s relatively recent return to international prominence that we should look upon them as rivals once again … and upon their friends as our enemies.

Of course, that doesn’t make it right. Time to dial it back.

luv u,

jp

Best forgotten.

The news media has marked the approach of a significant anniversary – that of Iran’s revolution, and it should come as no surprise to anyone who bothers to read this blog that they are leaving a lot out of the story. My main source on this is NPR, and while I don’t set out to single them out (as a news organization, they’re better than some, worse than others), they do have a remarkable capacity, by and large, to hew to the center of political and economic power in the United States. Their perception seems generally representative of that of the current administration at any given time.

History, once over lightlyAnyway, there was the usual stories about boys choirs singing “Death to America!”, the “Down with Israel” chants, etc. (Probably could hear that in Times Square if you listen hard enough.) One report I heard on NPR’s Morning Edition on the 35th anniversary celebration in Teheran made passing mention of the eight-year Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s. Here’s an excerpt:

INSKEEP: Although we should remember this 35th anniversary marks the overthrow of a ruler who was supported by the United States and who was regarded by many as very repressive.

KENYON: That’s right. Again, they see that as an official government policy, not something necessarily being generated by the American people. So they do make that distinction. And this holiday is important across the country partly because of people who want to support the Islamic revolution and also because it was followed by a long and bloody war with Iraq. And many people simply turn out on February 11 to remember the young people who gave their lives in that cause.

Given the context, you’d think it might be worth mentioning our role in that “long and bloody war”. For those who don’t recall, we – the Reagan administration, that is – sided with Saddam Hussein, providing him with substantial economic and logistical assistance, treating him as a top-shelf client, even allowing him to get away with shooting up the U.S.S. Stark during the tanker war phase late in the conflict. If Inskeep and Kenyon think that honoring the dead from the Iran – Iraq war takes people’s minds off of America, they’re smoking crack.

I don’t want to be unfair, but seriously – if reporters don’t know or acknowledge history, we are bound to repeat the bad parts again and again.

luv u,

jp

It ain’t broke.

Not that this is all that unusual, but I heard from various representatives of the Republican party and the “tea party” movement on NPR this morning. I really wonder why these right-wing types are so critical of NPR – the network is almost wholly devoted to providing them with outsized coverage. Every time they sneeze, Steve Inskeep is holding the rag. Sure, I listen to them regularly, because they have some good reporters, some good programs, and because they’re better than everything else on my upstate New York radio dial. But that’s a bit like voting for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Yeah, Barry’s a pretty lousy president; he’s just better by an order of magnitude than the object he was running against. Pretty low bar, frankly.

Low-bar radioWhat irks me, though, is the legitimization of truly extremist right-wing notions of governance (or lack of same) through what I’m sure NPR and other networks consider “balance coverage”. A brief example: yesterday there was a report on some research having to do with economic inequality and the degree to which people believe the federal government has an active role to play in addressing its effects. It was presented in the usual “this side thinks this, while the other thinks this” manner; specifically, 90% of Democrats believe the government should be involved in fighting inequality, while Republicans are evenly split. This was played as reinforcing the notion of a nation divided along party lines, but they buried the lead – by these percentages, it looks like a significant majority … maybe 60 -70% – agree that the government has an active role to play. Why the hell isn’t that the story?

The only reason why extremist tea party-type ideas significantly influence national policy is that they have an outsized voice in the national conversation. That’s why we are essentially cutting the long-term unemployed off at the knees, canceling their unemployment when there’s still three job seekers for every available job, slashing food stamps while cutting taxes on corporations and throwing more money at the Pentagon. Large numbers of unemployed people are a necessary component of capitalism – that keeps labor inexpensive and profits high. So to the free market fundamentalist, that system is not broken … it’s working just fine. And that is the point of view that will continue to drive the national conversation until, along with the tea party, Occupy Wall Street gets their own response to the State of the Union.

Color me disgusted.

luv u,

jp

Short memory

North Korea has unilaterally withdrawn from its 1953 ceasefire agreement with South Korea, cutting the emergency hotline between the two halves of this divided peninsula. The move has been roundly condemned as provocative and an indication of increasing cravenness on the part of third-generation great leader Kim Jong Un, whose government recently tested a nuclear device. As reported on NPR and other major news networks, this behavior is portrayed as almost innate, not rooted in anything other than blind aggression and dogmatic fealty to the North’s longstanding cult of personality and garrison state mentality.

All they know of us.
All they know of us.

Now, it is true that the North Korean state is an ossified, garrison state, very oppressive – a dungeon, even. I can’t defend it. But they didn’t arrive at this state of affairs without prompting. There is one thing they want: a non-aggression treaty with the United States. Because the war of 1950-53 was fought with the U.S. more than with South Korea, and that was a war of genocidal proportions, particularly for the North. The U.S. unleashed everything short of nuclear weapons on the North during that period, until no standing structures remained north of the 38th parallel. This after years of oppressive U.S. occupation of the southern half of Korea, which itself followed more than three decades of Japanese occupation.

When North Koreans talk about destruction, they know the meaning of the word. It is not an abstraction for them. After all, they share Poland’s great misfortune of being geographically located between two great powers, frequently at odds. Worse yet, they became ground zero of a growing cold war that was never hotter than it was during that three year period in the Korean peninsula. If they have nuclear weapons, it’s because they don’t want to be attacked. And if they take exception to the annual mock-invasion of the north conducted by Washington and Seoul, it is because they have a deep memory of the devastation of sixty years ago.

In America, we haven’t forgotten the Korean War so much as simply never known it in the first place, except for the dwindling number of veterans who fought there. It’s high time we stopped acting like an aggrieved empire and found a way to settle this conflict … before it explodes again.

luv u,

jp