Chris Hedges's Blog, page 443

Myanmar Military Used Facebook to Incite Violence Against the Rohingya

The social network we use to share cat photos and reports of new babies is also a breeding ground for disinformation campaigns. As Americans continue to argue over whether posts from Russian-affiliated groups influenced the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election, an investigative report by The New York Times reveals the Myanmar (formerly Burma) military “turned the social network into a tool for ethnic cleansing, according to former military officials, researchers and civilian officials in the country.”

Since August 2017, nearly 700,000 Rohingya, a Muslim minority group in majority-Buddhist Myanmar, have fled the country, mainly to Bangladesh, the BBC reported in April. The exodus started when the Myanmar government began retaliating for militants’ attacks on police posts. At least 6,700 Rohingya were killed in the first month of the military-directed violence, Doctors Without Borders reported.

However, as the Times points out, anti-Rohingya social media campaigns started years before 2017. Facebook users who attracted followers by claiming to be fans of Burmese pop stars and other celebrities described Islam as a threat to Buddhism all over the world or told unsubstantiated stories about Muslims raping Buddhist women.

The military, Paul Mozur writes in the Times, “exploited Facebook’s wide reach in Myanmar, where it is so broadly used that many of the country’s 18 million internet users confuse the Silicon Valley social media platform with the internet. Human rights groups blame the anti-Rohingya propaganda for inciting murders, rapes and the largest forced human migration in recent history.”

Facebook may have taken down the official accounts of Myanmar’s military leaders, but that doesn’t stop the unofficial accounts that provide much of the support for the disinformation. Mozur continues:

The campaign, described by five people who asked for anonymity because they feared for their safety, included hundreds of military personnel who created troll accounts and news and celebrity pages on Facebook and then flooded them with incendiary comments and posts timed for peak viewership. Working in shifts out of bases clustered in foothills near the capital of Naypyidaw, officers were also tasked with collecting intelligence on popular accounts and criticizing posts unfavorable to the military, the people said. So secretive were the operations that all but top leaders had to check their phones at the door.

Those behind the efforts spread explicit photos and fake news, much of it anti-Muslim. Sometimes they even showed photos of corpses they claimed were Buddhists killed by Rohingya.

These actions, Mozur says, “are among the first examples of an authoritarian government using the social network against its own people.”

Many of the sources for the article remained anonymous. One who didn’t, Thet Swe Win, founder of Synergy, an organization that focuses on promoting social harmony in Myanmar, said, “I wouldn’t say Facebook is directly involved in the ethnic cleansing, but there is a responsibility they had to take proper actions to avoid becoming an instigator of genocide.”

The campaign in Myanmar even used some of the tactics employed by those who spread Russian disinformation. As Mozur reports, “Three people familiar with the situation said some officers had studied psychological warfare, hacking and other computer skills in Russia. Some would give lectures to pass along the information when they returned, one person said.”

For Facebook’s part, company officers did confirm many of these details to the Times. Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity, said the company found “clear and deliberate attempts to covertly spread propaganda that were directly linked to the Myanmar military.”

After receiving questions from the Times, Facebook took down a number of accounts, with a total of 1.3 million followers, that posed as entertainment accounts but were actually connected to the military.

Read the entire report here.

Warren DNA Analysis Points to Native American Heritage

BOSTON — Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday released the results of a DNA analysis that she said indicated she has some Native American heritage, a direct rebuttal to President Donald Trump, who has long mocked her ancestral claims and repeatedly referred to her as “Pocahontas.”

The Massachusetts Democrat and potential 2020 presidential contender challenged Trump to make good on his pledge to donate $1 million to charity if she provided proof of Native American heritage, a moment that was caught on video. Trump falsely denied ever making the offer.

The analysis was done by Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante, a prominent expert in the field. He concluded that the great majority of Warren’s ancestry is European but added that the results “strongly support” the existence of a Native American ancestor.

In his report, Bustamante said he analyzed Warren’s sample without knowing the identity of the donor. He concluded that Warren has a pure Native American ancestor who probably lived six to 10 generations ago, and that it was impossible to determine the individual’s tribal connection.

Warren, who has said her Native American roots were part of “family lore,” also released a video produced by her Senate re-election campaign. In it, she said: “The president likes to call my mom a liar. What do the facts say?”

Bustamante replied: “The facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree.”

The analysis is not the first evidence of Warren’s heritage.

An 1894 document previously unearthed by the New England Genealogical Society suggested Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American, making the senator 1/32nd Native American. The genealogy group has said it has no conclusive evidence of her ancestry, and a spokesman said Monday it would not comment on the genetic findings.

However, if Warren’s ancestor had been as much as 10 generations removed, it would make that individual a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent, making her only 1/1,024th Native American, according to Blaine Bettinger, a genealogist and author who specializes in DNA evidence. Such a finding could potentially further excite her critics instead of placating them.

Warren’s effort to address questions about her ancestry and the release of the video are her latest moves telegraphing a likely presidential run in 2020. During the summer she also released a decade worth of tax returns, drawing a contrast with Trump’s unwillingness to release his own tax documents.

The moves seem to anticipate the type of criticism she might face against opponents in a Democratic primary or in a possible general election matchup against Trump.

“She is most clearly doing the things you do if you’re running for president,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist and veteran of presidential campaigns.

During a recent town hall-style meeting in Holyoke, Massachusetts, Warren said she planned to “take a hard look at running for president,” after next month’s election.

Earlier this year, the senator released personnel files seeking to dispute critics who have alleged that the former Harvard Law School professor advanced her law career with a narrative she is a descendant of Cherokee and Delaware tribes.

Warren has denied using her Native American heritage to gain any advantage.

In an email Monday to supporters, Warren said she “never expected the president of the United States to use my family’s story as a racist political joke against Native American history, culture, and people — over, and over, and over.”

In a tweet directed at Trump, Warren said: “Remember saying on (July 5) that you’d give $1M to a charity of my choice if my DNA showed Native American ancestry?” She went on to request that the president send a check to National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center.

At a summer rally in Montana, the president declared that he would give a million dollars to charity, “paid for by Trump,” if Warren takes the test “and it shows you’re an Indian.”

But when asked by reporters Monday, Trump said, “I didn’t say that.”

Warren, who grew up in Norman, Oklahoma, said her mother and father were forced to elope because of her mother’s heritage.

She faces Republican Geoff Diehl, who co-chaired Trump’s Massachusetts presidential campaign, in the Nov. 6 election.

The DNA analysis was first reported by The Boston Globe.

Winston Churchill’s Perverse Place in the American Imagination

One of the only nice things to ever result from America’s propensity for insane, seemingly pointless acts of defiance is that we wriggled free from the grasp of the British royal family. This glorious emancipation from the Commonwealth is perhaps more an aesthetic than a substantive concern. The American Revolution is surely the only revolt against British colonial rule in which the rebelling force comes across in any world history textbook as far more unreasonable and churlish than the redcoats ranged against them. And having gone to war to avoid paying taxes for the defense of their own nation, it is our founding fathers who are stained by the great shame of slaveholding, while the British were emancipating those black soldiers who joined them.

Nevertheless. For a people who have far outmatched John Bull’s capacity for unreasoning hostility and international violence, Americans should consider themselves lucky to be free from anything so humiliating as a lingering subservience to the Queen. After all, as any defender of American liberty would tell you, any such submission would be not merely uncharacteristic of the national spirit, but fatal. From the Alamo to the USS Maine to Vietnam, we thrive on a bloody, almost suicidal disregard for fellow countries, alternative political systems and basic facts. We are not a people meant to compete in the Commonwealth Games, or to pay homage to a Governor General; our leaders can barely attend the United Nations without foaming at the mouth, and that body is still situated in the continental U.S. 

So what is the deal with Winston Churchill in the American imagination? Like the inexplicable popularity of royal weddings, the British bulldog’s portly frame casts a long shadow across the Atlantic. It’s hard to imagine another historical ally of the United States who’s earned a similar reverence in pop culture or cachet among tired political speechwriters hoping to bring an audience to its feet. And while I would never, ever disparage the efforts of Gary Oldman, who earned an Academy Award for his turn as the British prime minister in last year’s “Darkest Hour,” it is a bit mystifying as to why such a thoroughly English figure would be of such compelling interest to Americans in 2018.

Ridiculous crypto-fascist William F. Buckley, who saw nothing wrong with speaking like Thurston Howell III, was fond of saying conservatives were liberals who had been mugged by reality. But what then are we to make of the reality of Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill? And who is the less deceived here?

Perhaps it is the identities of those trumpeting—and deprecating—Churchill’s example that provide some clues as to the attraction. As seen in Rudy Giuliani’s endless, spurious self-mythologizing on 9/11, Rick Santorum’s warning of a new “gathering storm” of nefarious brown people, or George W. Bush’s citation of a speech that was never actually delivered, the war-time prime minister has become an indispensable reference in the annals of Yankee politico schlock—one that evinces the kind of worldliness a speaker might just as easily acquire visiting a Heathrow airport Burger King.

Indeed, for someone so dead, Old Winston sure is present in the minds of today’s politicians. Just look at Donald Trump’s scowling, po-faced official portrait—a conscious nod to Churchill. Or listen to Hillary Clinton’s recent admonishment of the British Tories, who, having failed to censure Hungarian leader Viktor Orban’s fascist shadowboxing, have apparently come “a long way since the days of Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.”

But something curious happened last week following a far more benign invocation of Winston’s name, which nevertheless got at some sideways truths about the nature of our imperialist mindset and love affair with all things Churchillian. It started, as so many controversies do, on Twitter:

One of the greatest leaders of modern times, Sir Winston Churchill said, “in victory, magnanimity.” I guess those days are over.

— Scott Kelly (@StationCDRKelly) October 7, 2018

Astronaut Scott Kelly’s sardonic response to the disgrace of Supreme Court Justice and alleged sexual abuser Brett Kavanaugh certainly seemed laudable enough. Yet Twitter users responded angrily, not to the topical content of the tweet, but to the provenance of the quote with Winston Churchill—one of the most vicious mass murderers of the 20th century.

Even stranger for a Twitter user, Kelly apologized for the quotation, completing the circuit through which conservative rage could now flow, disgusted as they invariably are by any such effrontery. And electrifying it was, inflaming the passions of everyone from Little Englanders like Piers Morgan, to twerpy campus shouters like Ben Shapiro, to the white nationalist sympathizers at the Daily Caller. As with so many of the right’s tempests in teapots, the incident beat that same, dull note: look how foolish the sensitive, regressive left is, barking at something so inoffensive and fundamental to all that makes us great.

Lord Byron once wrote of a jilted lover, “Thou false to him, thou fiend to me!” It’s not a bad description of Winston Churchill in this situation. Given the thorough-going exaggeration of his merits, parroted by his many sycophants over the years, it shouldn’t be a surprise that his biggest defenders lack much in the way of any understanding of the man’s actual record—nor do they care about the senseless terror he enacted upon those unlucky enough find themselves his victims.

Senselessness is an important theme, looking at Churchill’s life. His WWI plan for a naval assault against the Ottoman Empire threw as many ANZAC troops as possible against the shores of Turkey, a disaster that cost his side over 300,000 lives. It also foreshadowed his contributions to World War II, specifically the invasion of Italy—an inexplicably bloody backwater theater. While Churchill promised Italy to be the “soft underbelly of Europe,” as the War Nerd pointed out years ago, there was nothing soft about ascending the rocky steps of Monte Cassino under withering defensive action.

Not that Churchill was truly animated by a hatred of the right enemies, even during his putative glory days during World War II. Like all bullies, Churchill despised and shivved anyone weaker than him, while sucking up to any potentate more vicious and iron-hearted. He was never interested in a fair fight, with anybody, a tendency he took to mystifying extremes in his war planning. And nowhere was this more clear than in his prewar sympathies toward the worst fascists imaginable.



How do we know Churchill admired Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler? Well, he wrote about it at length. As he infamously observed, “in the conflict between Fascism and Bolshevism, there was no doubt where my sympathies and convictions lay.” So admiring were the letters he exchanged with Il Duce that they inspired speculation he might be susceptible to mid-war blackmail. As recounted by Jacobin, as late as 1935, Churchill complimented Hitler’s “courage [and] perseverance,” at a time when Germany was beginning to rearm in contravention of the Versailles Treaty.

The subsequent myth-making undertaken by Churchill—of him, alone, as the sole man standing up to fascism in the dark interwar period—is not merely a lie, hatched later to launder his image. It obscures his sympathies to the same forces who would later kill so many of his constituents, to say nothing of the tens of millions slaughtered across the continent and during the Holocaust. And Churchill’s retroactive reimagining of his role as such a defender of all things decent, against the indefensible policies of Neville Chamberlain, ignores another salient point. The appeasement of Hitler was deeply popular with a British public terrified of another conflict capable of wiping out an entire generation, while Chamberlain’s successful delay of combat in Europe provided crucial time for Britain to rearm and eventually win the war.

Taken in this light, the constant, immodest comparisons of an egocentric warmonger like John McCain to Churchill are more apt than perhaps those making them even realize. Indeed, the butchers of fascist Europe were still cutting their teeth while Churchill was showing them how it was done: In Ireland, where Churchill dispatched the death squad known as the “Black and Tans” to brutalize restive civilians; in Palestine, where he did much the same to recalcitrant Arabs; in Iraq, where he urged the use of poison gas on the population; in Iran, whose democratic leader he successfully plotted to overthrow with American connivance; and, to most devastating effect, in India and Bangladesh, where in 1943 he helped starve 3 million to death, blaming this “beastly people” for “breeding like rabbits.”  

Churchill’s depravity does not end there. Take his insane plot to invade the USSR after WWII, in “Operation Unthinkable,” his vast personal debts and compulsive drinking, as well as his bizarre inaction against the death camps of the Nazi Holocaust. What is incontrovertible is that, following his leadership in WWII, the British public quickly unseated him as prime minister. And so he should have remained in his dotage, a malignant figure best forgotten.

Still, the myth of Churchill’s greatness persists despite this track record of ignominy, and the reasons why are damning. In his retroactive telling, as a man of consequence, far-sighted and wise, he achieved the ultimate aim of every rotten and amoral politician. The lust and jealousy to hold a similarly grand position of power, with the fate of whole world revolving around their individual struggle, is an urge that has united figures as supposedly disparate as Donald Trump and Barack Obama. It is this selfish and solipsistic conception of politics—one that treats any struggle as a board game upon which personal success will be staked—that is the great delusion of America’s sclerotic leadership.

But it should take careful note of Churchill’s example. Such glory only comes so long as your side wins.

 

Pressured Over Missing Writer, Saudi Arabia Lashes Out

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Saudi Arabia has threatened to retaliate for any sanctions imposed against it after President Donald Trump said the oil-rich kingdom deserves “severe punishment” if it is responsible for the disappearance and suspected murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

The warning from the world’s top oil exporter came after a turbulent day on the Saudi stock exchange, which plunged as much as 7 percent at one point Sunday.

The statement was issued as international concern grew over the writer who vanished on a visit to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul over a week ago. American lawmakers threatened tough punitive action against the Saudis, and Germany, France and Britain jointly called for a “credible investigation” into Khashoggi’s disappearance.

Turkish officials have said they fear a Saudi hit team killed and dismembered Khashoggi, who wrote critically of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The kingdom has called such allegations “baseless” but has not offered any evidence Khashoggi ever left the consulate.

Already, international business leaders are pulling out of the kingdom’s upcoming investment forum, a high-profile event known as “Davos in the Desert,” and the sell-off on Riyadh’s Tadawul stock exchange showed that investors are uneasy.

The exchange dropped by over 500 points, then clawed back some of the losses, ending the day down 264 points, or more than 4 percent. Of 188 stocks traded on the exchange, 179 ended the day with a loss.

“Something this big would definitely spook investors, and Saudi just opened up for foreign direct investment, so that was big,” said Issam Kassabieh, a financial analyst at Dubai-based firm Menacorp Finance. “Investors do not feel solid in Saudi yet, so it’s easy for them to take back their funds.”

In an interview aired Sunday, Trump told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that Saudi Arabia would face strong consequences if involved in Khashoggi’s disappearance.

“There’s something really terrible and disgusting about that, if that was the case, so we’re going to have to see,” Trump said. “We’re going to get to the bottom of it, and there will be severe punishment.”

But the president has also said “we would be punishing ourselves” by canceling arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The sales are a “tremendous order for our companies,” and if the Saudis don’t buy their weaponry from the U.S., they will get it from others, he said.

In a statement published by the state-run Saudi Press Agency, the kingdom warned that if it “receives any action, it will respond with greater action, and that the kingdom’s economy has an influential and vital role in the global economy.”

“The kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using political pressures or repeating false accusations,” the statement said.

The statement did not elaborate. However, a column published in English a short time later by the general manager of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya satellite news network suggested Saudi Arabia could use its oil production as a weapon. Benchmark Brent crude is trading at around $80 a barrel, and Trump has criticized OPEC and Saudi Arabia over rising prices.

“If the price of oil reaching $80 angered President Trump, no one should rule out the price jumping to $100, or $200, or even double that figure,” Turki Aldakhil wrote.

It’s unclear, however, whether Saudi Arabia would be willing to unilaterally cut production.

Aldakhil added that Saudi arms purchases from the U.S. and other trade could be at risk as well. “The truth is that if Washington imposes sanctions on Riyadh, it will stab its own economy to death, even though it thinks that it is stabbing only Riyadh!” he wrote.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington tweeted Sunday night it appreciated America “for refraining from jumping to conclusions on the ongoing investigation,” likely trying to walk back the rhetoric.

Meanwhile, Saudi King Salman spoke by telephone with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about Khashoggi. Turkey said Erdogan “stressed forming a joint working group to probe the case.” Saudi Arabia meanwhile said King Salman thanked Erdogan “for welcoming the kingdom’s proposal” for forming the working group.

The king also said Turkey and Saudi Arabia enjoy close relations and “that no one will get to undermine the strength of this relationship,” according to a statement on the Saudi Press Agency. While Turkey and the kingdom differ on political issues, Saudi investments are a crucial lifeline for Ankara amid trouble with its lira currency.

Prince Mohammed, King Salman’s son, has aggressively pitched the kingdom as a destination for foreign investment. But Khashoggi’s disappearance has led several business leaders and media outlets to back out of the upcoming investment conference in Riyadh called the Future Investment Initiative. They include the CEO of Uber, a company in which Saudi Arabia has invested billions of dollars; billionaire Richard Branson; JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon; and Ford Motor Co. Executive Chairman Bill Ford.

Khashoggi has written extensively for the Post about Saudi Arabia, criticizing its war in Yemen, its recent diplomatic spat with Canada and its arrest of women’s rights activists after the lifting of a ban on women driving. Those policies are all seen as initiatives of the crown prince.

Georgia Hijinks Are Part of a Larger Attack on Our Democracy

Civil rights groups have filed a new lawsuit in order to stop a statewide voter suppression effort in Georgia after the GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp—who just happens to be the state’s Secretary of State as well—led an effort to purge more than 50,000 voter registrations, predominately of black voters, from the rolls just weeks before the November 6 election.

Led by the Georgia Coalition of the People’s Agenda, the local NAACP, and other civil rights groups, the suit (pdf) seeks to halt enforcement of the so-called “exact match” rule that allows the state to purge registrations if any part of their name or other information does not match existing documents.

“Georgia’s ‘exact match’ protocol has resulted in the cancellation or rejection of tens of thousands of voter registration applications in the past,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, also party to the suit. “The reintroduction of this practice, which is known to be discriminatory and error-ridden, is appalling.”

Kemp’s implementation of the rule, as Common Dreams reported Thurdsay, was described as the “definition of a rigged system” by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue.

Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate, has said she is “deeply worried” that tens of thousands of Georgians are being stripped of their constitutional rights and Abigail Collazo, a spokesperson for her campaign, said “Kemp is maliciously wielding the power of his office to suppress the vote for political gain and silence the voices of thousands of eligible voters.”

If the full protections of the Voting Rights Act were still intact, Secretary Brian Kemp could not have gotten away with his latest voter suppression measure. –@KristenClarkeJD in @nytimes https://t.co/6RKiWRfI4e

— Lawyers’ Committee (@LawyersComm) October 12, 2018

In a tweet on Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders urged every single U.S. voter to “vigorously protest this outrageous action” in Georgia.

In Georgia, in order to try to win the election there, cowardly Republicans are blatantly suppressing the vote and denying many African Americans the right to participate in the election. Every American must vigorously protest this outrageous action. https://t.co/UyTYfJJteR

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 12, 2018

Sanders linked to an op-ed by New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg, who argues that “Kemp’s apparent attempt to rig the Georgia election shows in microcosm how democracy in America is failing.”

This outrageous attack on voting rights shows just how vital it is to restore the Voting Rights Act to full strength. Voting is a fundamental right, and we must secure it for every American.

https://t.co/iLCmDONbv7

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) October 12, 2018

According to Jay Michaelson, writing for The Daily Beast, the Republican Party continues to wield their “secret weapon” of voter suppression nationwide like a dagger and a sledgehammer, including these five anti-democratic tactics in use in various states ahead of the upcoming mid-terms:

Closing polling places in communities of color
Purging eligible voters from the rolls without their knowledge
Barring felons from voting
Voter ID laws
Eliminating early voting

As Michaelson notes, each one these tactics “alone is troubling” but taken in aggregate, “they paint an unmistakable picture of Republican efforts to hold on to power in an increasingly non-white nation by making it harder for non-white people to vote.”

The Washington Post’s Troubling Endorsement for Maryland Governor

Ben Jealous, the Democratic candidate to be Maryland’s governor, is hoping to pull off a big upset in the November midterm elections against Republican incumbent Gov. Larry Hogan. If he wins, Jealous will be the state’s first African-American governor, and just the third elected African-American governor in the country. (Other 2018 gubernatorial candidates with the same potential to break that racial barrier include Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia, who would be the first-ever black female governor if she wins.)

Those who believe in the myth of the “liberal media” might assume that the Washington Post would support a progressive who backs policies such as Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage and legalization of marijuana. In fact, the paper—the most influential news outlet in much of Maryland—seems to have an ax to grind with Jealous, and has instead chosen to support Hogan for the governor’s race. As Pete Tucker at CounterPunch (8/31/18, 9/18/18, 10/8/18) has explained, the Post has opposed Jealous at every turn.

Most of the paper’s criticisms relate to what it depicts as Jealous’s spendthrift economic policies. Last year, the Post editorial board (10/29/17) called Jealous’s education policy a “gigantic giveaway,” a promise of “free lunches” that would “blow a Chesapeake Bay-sized hole in the state budget.” In July (7/19/18), it defined the race between Hogan and Jealous as a “stark contrast” between “centrist or liberal,” questioning whether the latter’s “soak the rich” agenda was “implementable, wise or remotely bipartisan.” Jealous’s policies in support of raising teacher wages and advancing universal pre-K were called “pricey,” because they would raise taxes on the One Percent in Montgomery County, the state’s largest and richest county.

Condescension toward left-wing economic policy is nothing new for corporate media, but when thePost describes Jealous as a “coup leader” who is both “craven” and “reckless,” they seem to be out to personally demonize the candidate. The Post’s news pages (8/18/18) decried Jealous’s skipping events on Maryland’s deep-red Eastern Shore, and tsked him for dropping an F-bomb when a reporter repeatedly called him a socialist, a label he has continually rejected. The paper’s reporting seemed aimed at keeping the spotlight on Jealous’s missteps.

By contrast, the paper continues to downplay Hogan’s entanglements and liabilities as governor, including the eyebrow-raising financial success of his real-estate company—turned over to his brother’s management in a half-hearted effort to avoid conflict-of-interest issues—as well as his anti-immigrant stances and pro-pollution policies (although the Post did publish a letter from Hogan’s environmental director, who unsurprisingly hailed the governor’s record).

While these priorities sound much like the current occupant of the White House, the Post editorial board labeled Hogan a “moderate” because he distanced himself from the National Rifle Association, who declined to endorse him, and a “radical centrist” for his supposedly “anti-Trump” policies. They continue to frame Hogan in glowing terms, portraying him as “down to earth” and folksy.

As Tucker highlights in CounterPunch, Hogan never receives blame (or even mention) by the Post for any of Maryland’s problems, such as the lack of air conditioning in public schools during heatwaves. And the newspaper continually declines to ask questions of Hogan that it does of other public officials, such as whether he supports President Trump’s federal worker pay freezes—a major issue in the DC metro region—or his opinion on Colin Kaepernick’s NFL protests against police brutality. Tucker also criticizes the Post for disingenuous headlines like “Jealous Tries to Leverage Trump’s Attack on His Free College Proposal”—a framing that suggests the story is Jealous’s political machinations, rather than Trump’s opposition to a popular policy. (The headline was later changed.)

The Post’s support for Hogan and demonization of Jealous could be a big reason why some Democratic politicians in Maryland have been reluctant to get behind Jealous. However, since the Democratic politicians named are mostly no longer in office, the Post does Hogan a favor by highlighting their opinions—just as it does when it praises rather than scrutinizes him for his supposed political distance from other members of his party.

Tucker also highlights the Post’s  burial of reports on Jealous’s overwhelming support in polls from African-American voters, stories that were relegated to the back of the Metro section. On the other hand, the Post pushed a story on one poll that found Hogan trailing Jealous among black voters by a relatively narrow 14 percentage points—offering Jealous’s lack of endorsements from African-American Democrats, such as former Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett, as an explanation.

While polls are often unruly and have frequently been wrong, they’ve been used by the Post to hammer Jealous. By consistently describing the governor as “popular” (even though his policies are not), the paper inculcates apathy among Democrats, suggesting that a loss by Jealous is a foregone conclusion. While Hogan indeed does have high approval ratings, the Post’s reporting has the feel of a prophecy that hopes to be self-fulfilling.

Looming over the Post’s coverage of the governor’s race is Hogan’s ingratiating support for Amazon, the e-commerce giant owned by the world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos, who also happens to own the Washington Post. Amazon, and the paper’s relationship to it, hardly ever come up in articles about the governor’s race: In the past year, just three articles about Ben Jealous’s run for governor mentioned Amazon. This level of attention underplays just how much Amazon, and its owner, have at stake in Maryland.

Amazon has a vested interest in seeing Maryland remain “business-friendly,” something the Post considers Hogan to be. The former White Flint Mall in Montgomery County, just north of the wealthy DC commuter suburb of Bethesda, is a leading candidate in the company’s high-profile search for a second headquarters. Amazon is expected to settle on a location by the end of the year.

The relationship between Amazon and states with the potential to host its “HQ2” is different from typical lobbying arrangements. While businesses usually lobby state governments for subsidies, tax breaks and the like, it is state governments that are heavily lobbying Amazon to select their states. Governor Hogan pledged $8.5 billion in state incentives for the Montgomery location, so far the highest offer of any state (after the inclusion of $2 billion in contingent transportation improvements).

On the company’s potential relocation plan, Hogan remarked, “HQ2 is the single greatest economic development opportunity in a generation, and we’re committing all of the resources we have to bring it home to Maryland.” Hogan met with Bezos in person at the Economic Club of Washington in September.

But even if it doesn’t land in Maryland, the state already figures large in Amazon’s plans; the company operates or leases a number of sprawling fulfillment and sorting warehouses in the state, including one in Cecil County, one in Rockville in Montgomery County, one outside BWI Airport in Anne Arundel County, and three facilities by the Baltimore Marine Terminal. The company just finished building its newest fulfillment center in Sparrow’s Point in eastern Baltimore County, a location chosen after the state and county doled out $2.2 million in incentives.

All told, Amazon has received $46 million in subsidies from the state and local governments in Maryland since 2000, more than 42 other states. Considering that the company has spent only $10 million in lobbying in Maryland and given $6 million in campaign contributions to state politicians over the past 18 years, this is a healthy return on Amazon’s political investments.

Even if HQ2 doesn’t come to Maryland, there is a decent chance that it will be located nearby, with other possible sites located in Washington proper or close to the sprawling data center campuses near Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia. The metro area’s interconnectivity and its intimate relationship with the federal government mean that Amazon would no doubt become a bigger regional player, regardless of which state it actually ends up calling home.

As Amazon receives increasing antitrust scrutiny from President Donald Trump, legislators, regulators and the public at large, and continues to diversify into a wide variety of industries like groceries, media, health care and drone delivery, its interests require an ever-expanding lobbying presence. The e-commerce giant’s lobbying expenditures have exploded by more than 400 percent over the past five years, and in 2017 was the eighth-largest corporate lobbyist, and the second-largest in the technology sector, after Google’s parent company Alphabet.

Amazon also receives large contracts from the federal government, including providing cloud computing services for the CIA, while Bezos’s spaceflight company Blue Origin maintains large contracts with NASA.

While Hogan seems to fill that role, Jealous is not as certain. If he were to be elected, Jealous has stated that he would honor a potential deal made by Hogan for Amazon’s new headquarters if they decided on a location in Maryland within the coming months. However, Jealous has criticized the incentives offered by Hogan as “fundamentally bad negotiation,” and has questioned the rationale for giving a “generous tax package to one of the world’s wealthiest corporations.” One article (7/27/18) on “tepid” support for Jealous from establishment Democrats cited the fact that he “appears insufficiently supportive” of efforts to woo Amazon. What’s more, Bezos just purchased the largest house in DC, a former textile museum, while his ownership of the Washington Post anchors his relationship to the city his paper serves, as well as to Maryland and Virginia. A friendly governor in Maryland, a key part of the DC metro region, is crucial for Amazon’s continued presence there.

Perhaps the biggest red flag for the Post is Jealous’s alignment with Bernie Sanders, a longtime adversary of Bezos. Last week, Sanders pressured the billionaire into raising wages at Amazon with his proposal of the Stop BEZOS Act, which would tax companies on the amount their employees receive in public benefits.

The Post has a penchant for attacking Democrats who don’t toe the corporate line. They have gone out of their way to try to discredit Sanders on numerous occasions (FAIR.org, 10/1/15, 3/8/16, 5/11/16, 11/17/16, etc.), running 16 negative stories on Sanders in one 16-hour period during the 2016 primaries. The paper (7/11/18) described Mark Elrich, a progressive who is running for Montgomery County executive, as a “leftist” whose “anti-business and anti-development” attitudes should be “cause for concern” to voters—though it said that Elrich’s assurance that “he would embrace a decision by Amazon to locate its second corporate headquarters in the county” was “welcome.” Like Jealous, Elrich has since assured Bezos that he will not attempt to block the AmazonHQ should it land in Montgomery County.

As it does with Sanders and Elrich, the Post’s coverage of Jealous combines skepticism towards his electoral chances and dismissal of his supposedly radical policies. Disparaging the political and practical viability of such people-friendly policies as universal health care and a livable minimum wage is in the obvious interests of the billionaire class—and, by extension, billionaire-owned news outlets like the Post.

Such interests are rarely directly expressed. A media outlet’s awareness of the preferences of its owner seldom takes the form of a memo from the boss telling editors to assign stories critical of the owner’s enemies or supportive of their friends. Shrewd employees understand what kind of work makes the person who signs their paychecks happy, and direct their efforts accordingly. And savvy employers know how to hire workers who will do what is expected without being told—which is why pioneering press critic George Seldes wrote:

The most stupid boast in the history of present-day journalism is that of the writer who says, “I have never been given orders; I am free to do as I like.”

The Post does offer dissenting opinions every now and then. This week, it published a pro-Jealous op-ed, as well as a letter to the editor that decried the paper’s “loaded words” in a past report on Jealous’s relation to the Maryland Democratic Party. The paper has also published pieces skeptical of Amazon’s relocation to the DC metro area (on the grounds that it will increase traffic and housing costs, rather than opposition to the multi-billion dollar incentive plan), as well as reporting on activism against the potential to land HQ2. But this hardly balances the negative approach it has taken towards Jealous, or the praise it has showered on Hogan.

Bezos’ effect on the Washington Post’s coverage of politicians who will influence Amazon’s business plans, either positively or negatively, is hard to demonstrate with a smoking gun. What is clear is that newspapers’ editorial decisions have real impact on public opinion, elections, people’s livelihoods, corporate power, race relations, environmental sustainability and many other facets of life. The more papers are owned by billionaires like Bezos, the more potentially pervasive the billionaires’ influence.

Israel Is Captive to Its ‘Destructive Process’

As protesters continue to be killed at the Gaza border, Truthdig is reposting a July 14, 2014, column by Chris Hedges on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A new article by Hedges will appear on Truthdig later this week.

 

Raul Hilberg in his monumental work “The Destruction of the European Jews” chronicled a process of repression that at first was “relatively mild” but led, step by step, to the Holocaust. It started with legal discrimination and ended with mass murder. “The destructive process was a development that was begun with caution and ended without restraint,” Hilberg wrote.

The Palestinians over the past few decades have endured a similar “destructive process.” They have gradually been stripped of basic civil liberties, robbed of assets including much of their land and often their homes, have suffered from mounting restrictions on their physical movements, been blocked from trading and business, especially the selling of produce, and found themselves increasingly impoverished and finally trapped behind walls and security fences erected around Gaza and the West Bank.

“The process of destruction [of the European Jews] unfolded in a definite pattern,” Hilberg wrote. “It did not, however, proceed from a basic plan. No bureaucrat in 1933 could have predicted what kind of measures would be taken in 1938, nor was it possible in 1938 to foretell the configuration of the undertaking in 1942. The destructive process was a step-by-step operation, and the administrator could seldom see more than one step ahead.”

There will never be transports or extermination camps for the Palestinians, but amid increasing violence against Palestinians larger and larger numbers of them will die, in airstrikes, targeted assassinations and other armed attacks. Hunger and misery will expand. Israeli demands for “transfer”—the forced expulsion of Palestinians from occupied territory to neighboring countries—will grow.

The Palestinians in Gaza live in conditions that now replicate those first imposed on Jews by the Nazis in the ghettos set up throughout Eastern Europe. Palestinians cannot enter or leave Gaza. They are chronically short of food—the World Health Organization estimates that more than 50 percent of children in Gaza and the West Bank under 2 years old have iron deficiency anemia and reports that malnutrition and stunting in children under 5 are “not improving” and could actually be worsening. Palestinians often lack clean water. They are crammed into unsanitary hovels. They do not have access to basic medical care. They are stateless and lack passports or travel documents. They live with massive unemployment. They are daily dehumanized in racist diatribes by their occupiers as criminals, terrorists and mortal enemies of the Jewish people.

“A deep and wide moral abyss separates us from our enemies,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently of the Palestinians. “They sanctify death while we sanctify life. They sanctify cruelty while we sanctify compassion.”

Ayelet Shaked, a member of the right-wing Jewish Home Party, on her Facebook page June 30 posted an article written 12 years ago by the late Uri Elitzur, a leader in the settler movement and a onetime adviser to Netanyahu, saying the essay is as “relevant today as it was then.” The article said in part: “They [the Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

The belief that a race or class is contaminated is used by ruling elites to justify quarantining the people of that group. But quarantine is only the first step. The despised group can never be redeemed or cured—Hannah Arendt noted that all racists see such contamination as something that can never be eradicated. The fear of the other is stoked by racist leaders such as Netanyahu to create a permanent instability. This instability is exploited by a corrupt power elite that is also seeking the destruction of democratic civil society for all citizens—the goal of the Israeli government (as well as the goal of a U.S. government intent on stripping its own citizens of rights). Max Blumenthal in his book “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel” does a masterful job of capturing and dissecting this frightening devolution within Israel.

The last time Israel mounted a Gaza military assault as severe as the current series of attacks was in 2008, with Operation Cast Lead, which lasted from Dec. 27 of that year to Jan. 18, 2009. That attack saw 1,455 Palestinians killed, including 333 children. Roughly 5,000 more Palestinians were injured. A new major ground incursion, which would be designed to punish the Palestinians with even greater ferocity, would cause a far bigger death toll than Operation Cast Lead did. The cycle of escalating violence, this “destructive process,” as the history of the conflict has illustrated, would continue at an accelerating rate.

The late Yeshayahu Leibowitz, one of Israel’s most brilliant scholars, warned that, followed to its logical conclusion, the occupation of the Palestinians would mean “concentration camps would be erected by the Israeli rulers” and “Israel would not deserve to exist, and it will not be worthwhile to preserve it.” He feared the ascendancy of right-wing, religious Jewish nationalists and warned that “religious nationalism is to religion what National Socialism was to socialism.” Leibowitz laid out what occupation would finally bring for Israel:

The Arabs would be the working people and the Jews the administrators, inspectors, officials, and police— mainly secret police. A state ruling a hostile population of 1.5 to 2 million foreigners would necessarily become a secret-police state, with all that this implies for education, free speech and democratic institutions. The corruption characteristic of every colonial regime would also prevail in the State of Israel. The administration would suppress Arab insurgency on the one hand and acquire Arab Quislings on the other. There is also good reason to fear that the Israel Defense Force, which has been until now a people’s army, would, as a result of being transformed into an army of occupation, degenerate, and its commanders, who will have become military governors, resemble their colleagues in other nations.

Israel is currently attacking a population of 1.8 million that has no army, no navy, no air force, no mechanized military units, no command and control and no heavy artillery. Israel pretends that this indiscriminate slaughter is a war. But only the most self-deluded supporter of Israel is fooled. The rockets fired at Israel by Hamas—which is committing a war crime by launching those missiles against the Israeli population—are not remotely comparable to the 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bombs that have been dropped in large numbers on crowded Palestinian neighborhoods; the forced removal of some 300,000 Palestinians from their homes; the more than 160 reported dead—the U.N. estimates that 77 percent of those killed in Gaza have been civilians; the destruction of the basic infrastructure; the growing food and water shortages; and the massing of military forces for a possible major ground assault.

When all this does not work, when it becomes clear that the Palestinians once again have not become dormant and passive, Israel will take another step, more radical than the last. The “process of destruction” will be stopped only from outside Israel. Israel, captive to the process, is incapable of imposing self-restraint.

A mass movement demanding boycotts, divestment and sanctions is the only hope now for the Palestinian people. Such a movement must work for imposition of an arms embargo on Israel; this is especially important for Americans because weapons systems and attack aircraft provided by the U.S. are being used to carry out the assault. It must press within the United States for a cutoff of the $3.1 billion in military aid that the U.S. gives to Israel each year. It must organize to demand suspension of all free trade and other agreements between the U.S. and Israel. Only when these props are knocked out from under Israel will the Israeli leadership be forced, as was the apartheid regime in South Africa, to halt its “destructive process.” As long as these props remain, the Palestinians are doomed. If we fail to act we are complicit in the slaughter.

Trump Says Climate Change Not a Hoax, Could Be Temporary

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is backing off his claim that climate change is a hoax but says he doesn’t know if it’s manmade and suggests that the climate will “change back again.”

In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Trump said he doesn’t want to put the U.S. at a disadvantage in responding to climate change.

“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.”

Trump called climate change a hoax in November 2012 when he sent a tweet stating, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” He later said he was joking about the Chinese connection, but in years since has continued to call global warming a hoax.

“I’m not denying climate change,” he said in the interview. “But it could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a … millions of years.”

As far as the climate “changing back,” temperature records kept by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that the world hasn’t had a cooler-than-average year since 1976 or a cooler-than-normal month since the end of 1985.

Trump, who is scheduled on Monday to visit areas of Georgia and Florida damaged by Hurricane Michael, also expressed doubt over scientists’ findings linking the changing climate to more powerful hurricanes.

“They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael,” said Trump, who identified “they” as “people” after being pressed by “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl. She asked, “What about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?” the president replied, “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.”

Trump’s comments came just days after a Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a warning that global warming would increase climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth. The report detailed how Earth’s weather, health and ecosystems would be in better shape if the world’s leaders could somehow limit future human-caused warming.

Citing concerns about the pact’s economic impact, Trump said in 2017 that the U.S. will leave the Paris climate accord. The agreement set voluntary greenhouse gas emission targets in an effort to lessen the impact of fossil fuels.

On a different topic, Trump told “60 Minutes” that he’s been surprised by Washington being a tough, deceptive and divisive place, though some accuse the real estate mogul elected president of those same tactics.

“So I always used to say the toughest people are Manhattan real estate guys and blah, blah,” he said. “Now I say they’re babies.”

He said the political people in Washington have changed his thinking.

“This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it’s full of lies, deceit and deception,” he said. “You make a deal with somebody and it’s like making a deal with — that table.”

Maine’s Radical Universal Home Health Care Proposition

A group of progressives in Maine has proposed a radical new solution to providing medical care for an aging, rural population. Question 1, a measure on the ballot in November, proposes universal home health care for all Maine residents, to be paid for by a tax on people making more than $128,400 a year. Opponents of the proposal say that the program would be too costly; supporters say it could radically change the lives of people living with disability or serious illness.

Eligibility for the program would depend on daily needs, rather than on a medical diagnosis. Maine residents who cannot complete at least one “daily living” activity, such as bathing, cooking or walking, would be able to receive help in a variety of forms.

More than 27,000 people may be eligible for the program, with seniors making up less than half, at 13,100, according to an analysis by the University of Southern Maine. According to another study by the university, half of Maine residents older than 75 have a disability.

“I’ve never had people cry signing a petition and tell me how much something like this would have changed their lives,” Kevin Simowitz, political director for Caring Across Generations, told Kaiser Health News. The Maine People’s Alliance, a grassroots organization that works on a variety of progressive issues, collected 67,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The group has spent $343,166 in support of Question 1, according to the most recent state campaign finance data.

“In our rapidly aging state, too many seniors are being forced from their homes, and too many people with disabilities can’t get the care they need,” said Miri Lyons, a Maine resident and former home care worker and family caregiver for a child with a disability. “Home care for all will fix that. It’s a guarantee that if you need help staying in your home, you can get it.”

Two ballot question committees—Mainers for Homecare and Caring Majority—have spent $233,567 and $61,158 respectively in supporting the measure. It has been endorsed by the Maine AFL-CIO, the Maine Small Business Coalition and Justice in Aging.

Maine industry groups largely oppose the measure, saying it would adversely affect the state’s overall economy. Opponents say the measure is too expensive and take issue with the proposed income tax, which would affect the top 3 percent of people living in Maine, according to the Maine Center for Economic Policy.

“This bill is not about caring for our seniors. It’s about selling a scheme to our seniors and people with disabilities, funneling money to union bosses and driving highly paid professionals, like doctors and engineers, out of Maine,” No on Question 1, a political action committee (PAC), says on its website. The PAC receives the majority of its funding from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Bankers Association PAC and the Maine Association of Realtors.

The Maine Bankers Association PAC has spent $50,000 opposing the ballot measure. The Retail Lumber Dealers Association of Maine PAC has spent $5,000 and Restaurateurs for a Strong Economy has spent $500 in opposition, according to state campaign finance data. The National Federation of Independent Business Maine PAC has spent $4,000 against the measure.

No on Question 1 has spent $58,791 against the ballot measure. The group’s treasurer, Diane Johanson, formerly was a lobbyist for the Maine Tourism Association, which opposes the measure as well.

Mike Tipping, communications director for the Maine People’s Alliance, said that large donors such as the Maine Association of Realtors and the Maine Bankers Association PAC profit when the elderly have to move out of their homes and into nursing homes. He called the spending against the measure “absolutely disgusting.”

Critics say that Question 1’s emphasis on pay for caregivers, as well as a stipend for family caregivers, is too costly, but supporters say a raise for caregivers is crucial.

“I work full time and make eleven dollars and fifty cents an hour. Starting pay at my company is minimum wage. I rely on food stamps and Section Eight to keep my son fed and housed,” said Maddie Hart, a home care worker in Maine quoted on the Maine People’s Alliance website. “My work is challenging, dangerous, and skilled. Home care workers deserve to be paid enough to support our families. This referendum will help get us there.”

“I think it makes common sense to make sure that elders, veterans and disabled folks can stay in their homes,” Peter Vondell, a disabled Marine veteran, wrote in the Sun Journal. “No one wants to live in a dismal, sterile medical facility, I know I don’t.”

Bernie Sanders: Trump Adviser’s Climate Denial is ‘Dangerous’

Appearing on ABC‘s “This Week” just moments after President Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser and noted Wall Street stooge Larry Kudlow dismissed a new United Nations climate report showing that the world must cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 to avert global catastrophe, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the White House for its “dangerous” rejection of climate science and slammed Trump for working hand-in-hand with Big Oil to make “a bad situation worse.”

“The comments a moment ago that Larry Kudlow made are so irresponsible, so dangerous that it’s just hard to believe that a leading government official could make them,” Sanders told host George Stephanopoulos after Kudlow—a fervent climate denier—accused the U.N. of overestimating the severity of the climate crisis.

“What the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said is that we have 12 years—12 years to substantially cut the amount of carbon in our atmosphere or this planet, our country, the rest of the world, is going to suffer irreversible damage,” the Vermont senator continued. “We are in crisis mode and you have an administration that virtually does not even recognize the reality of climate change and their policies, working with the fossil fuel industry, are making a bad situation worse.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders says we are in “crisis mode” on climate change and Larry Kudlow’s comments “are so irresponsible, so dangerous that it’s just hard to believe that a leading government official could make them.” https://t.co/iDWHZE9l1L #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/b3vmo7TjV5

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 14, 2018

Far from taking even the smallest steps toward mitigating carbon emissions and developing a clean energy system that is necessary to avert planetary catastrophe, Trump has worked relentlessly during his first two years in office to free massive oil and gas companies to unleash dangerous pollutants at home while undermining international efforts to confront the climate crisis.

Asked about the IPCC’s dire assessment of the next several decades if immediate, ambitious, and systemic action is not taken to drastically reduce carbon emissions, Trump appeared to indicate that he has never heard of the IPCC.

“It was given to me and I want to look at who drew it,” Trump told reporters. “You know, which group drew it, because I can give you reports that are fabulous and I can give you reports that aren’t so good.”