Friday, April 15, 2016

Who would you save first?

"‘Yats’ Is No Longer the Guy" (Parry; my emphasis in red):
"Though Nuland’s phone call introduced many Americans to the previously obscure Yatsenyuk, its timing – a few weeks before the ouster of elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych – was never helpful to Washington’s desired narrative of the Ukrainian people rising up on their own to oust a corrupt leader.
Instead, the conversation between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt sounded like two proconsuls picking which Ukrainian politicians would lead the new government. Nuland also disparaged the less aggressive approach of the European Union with the pithy put-down: “Fuck the E.U.!”
More importantly, the intercepted call, released onto YouTube in early February 2014, represented powerful evidence that these senior U.S. officials were plotting – or at least collaborating in – a coup d’etat against Ukraine’s democratically elected president. So, the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media have since consigned this revealing discussion to the Great Memory Hole.
On Monday, in reporting on Yatsenyuk’s Sunday speech in which he announced that he is stepping down, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal didn’t mention the Nuland-Pyatt conversation at all.
The New York Times did mention the call but misled its readers regarding its timing, making it appear as if the call followed rather than preceded the coup. That way the call sounded like two American officials routinely appraising Ukraine’s future leaders, not plotting to oust one government and install another.
The Times article by Andrew E. Kramer said: “Before Mr. Yatsenyuk’s appointment as prime minister in 2014, a leaked recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria J. Nuland, a United States assistant secretary of state, and the American ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, seemed to underscore the West’s support for his candidacy. ‘Yats is the guy,’ Ms. Nuland had said.”
Notice, however, that if you didn’t know that the conversation occurred in late January or early February 2014, you wouldn’t know that it preceded the Feb. 22, 2014 coup. You might have thought that it was just a supportive chat before Yatsenyuk got his new job.
You also wouldn’t know that much of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation focused on how they were going to “glue this thing” or “midwife this thing,” comments sounding like prima facie evidence that the U.S. government was engaged in “regime change” in Ukraine, on Russia’s border.
But Kramer’s lack of specificity about the timing and substance of the call fits with a long pattern of New York Times’ bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan. 4, 2015, nearly a year after the U.S.-backed coup, the Times published an “investigation” article declaring that there never had been a coup. It was just a case of President Yanukovych deciding to leave and not coming back.
That article reached its conclusion, in part, by ignoring the evidence of a coup, including the Nuland-Pyatt phone call. The story was co-written by Kramer and so it is interesting to know that he was at least aware of the “Yats is the guy” reference although it was ignored in last year’s long-form article.
Instead, Kramer and his co-author Andrew Higgins took pains to mock anyone who actually looked at the evidence and dared reach the disfavored conclusion about a coup. If you did, you were some rube deluded by Russian propaganda."
"The "color revolution" world tour."

"Ukraine: One Jewish Prime Minister succeeds another" Yats played it down in deference to the Nazis - no need to rub their faces in it - but the new guy is loud and proud.

"The dark side of Guardian comments"  "End free speech and save the minorities! (will anyone really fall for this?)"  Comments are deeply embarrassing to modern 'journalism' for the simple reason that they reveal all the lies, so an excuse to stop them is required.  It's a real bitch when some stooge spends hours crafting some dodgy spin for warmongering and/or inequality and some anonymous prole shreds the thing in five lines of comment.

"Matthew Keys Gets 2 Years In Jail For 40 Minute Web Defacement He Didn't Even Commit":  ". . . there's already difficulty in figuring out what news is real . . . ."

"Michael Hudson: Pamama – Laundering Haven for War Budgets"  Hudson is always excellent:
"Well, the solution is to tax companies on their worldwide earnings. If you know that a U.S. company like Standard Oil, Exxon now, makes X billion dollars earnings, you simply rule that it doesn’t matter whether you declare these in Panama or the United States. We’re going to treat the income that you declare from your Panamanian shipping company as if it is earned in the United States, and we’re going to tax it at the U.S. rate.
However, this explains why there’s not going to be a solution to money laundering. If you would solve the money laundering problem and tax companies and their worldwide earnings, you would tax Apple on all the income that it makes tax exempt in Ireland by using Ireland as a tax avoidance center, you would take on the largest vested interests in the United States – oil, gas and monopolies.
I don’t think any politician is strong enough to attract campaign contributions from these main contributors and at the same time really push to tax them. They’re going to go after the little guy who is trying to walk through the loopholes that the oil industry created a century ago. But it’s hard to go after the little guy and the small tax evaders without catching the big fish. And the big fish are the biggest corporations in the United States.
That’s why the problem is not going to be solved. It won’t be solved largely because the United States wants to support the dollar by attracting all of this crooked money, just like England wants to support sterling by making itself the flight capital center for all of the biggest criminals in the world, from the Russian kleptocrats to African dictators and Asian money launderers.
The whole financial system basically has been criminalized in the process of being militarized, to subsidize the fact that countries like the United States and Britain have heavy military budgets. This is how they finance their military budget – with money laundering by the world’s criminal class. The byproduct is to leave the largest companies tax exempt, from Apple to Exxon, right down the line."
You can see how the really big players might we willing to throw a few rich people under the bus in order to keep the most important parts of the rigged system.

"Putin Sees U.S., Goldman Sachs Behind Leak of Panama Papers"

"BROOKINGS LAUNCHES UNGUIDED MISSILE – THE PANAMA PAPERS AS PUTIN PLOT"

"Washington Post Lies to Justify Intervention in Venezuela"  Maduro hasn't been the greatest political leader, but he seems to be rising to the occasion.

"The Curious Story Of The Chinese Tycoon Found "Chopped Up Into 100 Pieces" In A Vancouver Mansion"

"When two Israel bureau chiefs of the New York Times talked about Zionism"

A stunt to win Jew York (do we forgive him if it works?):  "Bernie Sanders Suspends Staffer for Criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu".

Avaaz:  "Duping Progressives into Wars".  Sorositis and an interesting description of the internationalist 'humanitarian' asshole class.  The best business is causing massive suffering while feeling good about yourself.

""If Erdogan and Poroshenko were drowning, who would you save first?" Vignette from Direct Line 2016"
blog comments powered by Disqus