The Pentagong Show

The Pentagong Show
United State of Terror: Is Drone War Fair?

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

"Go to the Devil!", Blares Pravda.


The Horror of fossil fools.


In this morning's NYT, we're treated to two stories that demonstrate the questionable news stories of the NYT, one right on top of the other:

Russians No Longer Dispute Olympic Doping Operation

The response from Pravda:

Russian Sports Minister Pavel Kolobkov questioned the (NYT's) interpretation of Anna Antseliovich's words immediately.

"Our position in relation to this situation remains the same. I assume that The New York Times has misinterpreted the words from Anna Antseliovich. I think one needs to ask her to explain what she wanted to say," the minister told TASS.

The Kremlin has also commented on the article. Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin strongly denies the involvement in the state in the use of doping by Russian athletes.
"From the very beginning, of course, we have denied any involvement of the state, the government, departments, services, or agencies in the possible use of doping by athletes," Peskov said.

The second headline:

California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won't Back Down to Trump

 In this quite extensive article detailing the stance of the 10'th largest economy in the world, the State of California's self-portrait as a leader in the fight against climate change is not only hailed as accurate, but puts California in the light of a stalwart opponent of such deniers as those being appointed to the new Trump Tower of Power elite.

Stating that, "Domestically, California has long been a leader on vehicle emissions" (which is true; only Texas spews more poisonous, polluting gases from its autos' exhaust pipes), they pretend to believe that such standards were introduced to fight against climate change (they weren't) even though they have only INcreased vehicular traffic since they were passed. Because, as there is no transportation infrastructure besides the automobile in the vast majority of the state, other than airplane travel (which is a far greater polluter per vehicular mile), their transportation sector is a 20'th century fossil-fueled fossil. So, while implying that therefore California is a leader in reducing greenhouse gases because of its more stringent exhaust regulations, the article omits the fact that the very legislation that cut down on the individual exhaust, was followed by an explosion in the number and size of the vehicles plying California's roadways, thereby causing the aggregate amount of greenhouse gases exhausted into the atmosphere to actually increase.

But, as pointed out in the last post, if it doesn't follow the narrative, it 's not deemed to be News Fit to Print. A further demonstration of which is the fact that, although the referenced article is quite long, there is absolutely no mention of the fact (one of which most of the urban Californian elites who really believe this trope are completely unaware of ) that California is the country's second largest producer and refiner of petroleum and its products, its industry leaders having lobbied heavily to convince Obama to lift the ban on oil exports that had been in place since 1973.

This allows California to become the stalwart leader of the clean energy meme while simultaneously enriching itself and filling its state's coffers with tax receipts from the export of every last drop it can squeeze out (California is also one of the leading fracking states, despite its known history of earthquakes).

So when the same newspaper that says Russia no longer disputes the doping operation of which it's accused, and you think well, just because Pravda disagrees, it is after all, Pravda, remember that it is after all, the NYT, and they have their own agenda, too, and, as the article about California shows, when the data doesn't agree with their narrative, that data is simply omitted. After all, how can being the second largest oil-producing state, one that has ensured it can now export its oil reserves until the last drop is exhausted, have anything but a salutary effect on Global Warming?

But as California's governor made clear at Copout21, even as Porter Ranch was spewing out more methane than even the North Dakota Bakken formation, whose flaring of methane is on such a monstrous scale it can be seen from space, Jerry Brown, fully cognizant of what was happening in his home State, had the audacity to  proclaim that:

"For governments to sit and do nothing, accepting 'business as usual', is unacceptable. "States should do something to reduce their carbon footprint", he urged (apparently that "something" is giving free rein to Fracking companies to squeeze out every last drop of hydrocarbons left in the ground).

He goes on to insist that:

"Tens of trillions of dollars will be wasted and the lives of hundreds of millions of people will be impacted if we don't stop the horror of burning fossil fuels and replace it with renewable energy."

 All the while knowing that, under his administration, which gave its blessing to the Porter Ranch project, the worst disaster in the history of energy exploration, had already been spewing unburned fossil fuel (a far worse horror, as it is providing 25 times the warming potential of the CO2 that would have resulted if it had actually been burned to generate energy) into the atmosphere for two months.

There seems to be a battle going on between whether the people in the Trump camp who are right-wing conspiracy theorists that claim climate change is a hoax, are worse, or the self-congratulatory Climate Change opponents, such as the hypocritical, spotlight-basking Jerry Brown, who actually believe their own rhetoric even as their lifestyle and the industry on which that lifestyle depends, flies in the face of reality as determinedly as any Hoaxer's inane belief in crackpot conspiracy theory does.













Tuesday, December 27, 2016

GWOT's New? Global War is World War.


Smooth: To cause to appear less harsh or severe than is the case.


An example of news as raw data: The Russian ambassador has been assassinated, and a plane full of Russian patriots has been blown out of the sky.

People's reaction tends to be "as if" there will now be war rather than "that" we are already at War: almost more appropriate to make-believe than to belief.  Because this War, a War that neither US citizens nor their allies, really consider to be a War at all, is a War that has been defined (by the very Nation that declared it) to be a World War, because the fine distinctions that may be made between a Global War and a World War are simply too subtle for me to discern. The word "Global", however, was decided upon for a specific purpose: to disguise the frightful dimensions and generations-long ramifications of the Bush administration's economic stimulus plan of declaring War on the entire World.

And the Global War on Terror has neither been won nor declared to be over.

 Which shines a light on why a very well-known fact, a fact familiar to journalists more than in any other profession, but one that is never mentioned, least of all by the NYT:

 In War the first casualty is the Truth.

The second is your soul, but no one really cares about losing that, certainly not  the NYT.

This quote is anything but new, and in fact dates all the way back to the Greek dramatist, Aeschylus.

No one know this better than our embedded media, which is what the western media has been for more than a decade now, which is what gave rise to alternative reporting on the internet in the first place. And is what made Jon Stewart, a comedic hack of mediocre talent, carried by a lowly rated cable TV station, Comedy Central, a highly praised place in the News firmament for reporting what he unabashedly referred to as Fake News since it didn't jive with the Real news being propagated by the rest of the media.

Because Jon lifted the curtain to show how the Ministry of Truth operates as an echo chamber such that he could show clips of the various MSM outlets, not only covering the exact same stories, but having their "analysts" all using the exact same phrases. The US may be the "Indispensable" nation it claims to be, but it is still a nation, and it's a nation at War, and nations at war do not honor the truth, they honor whatever version of the truth is good for morale, and will therefore allow continuation of hostilities. It is historically called propaganda, and it is all the American public is fed unless they take the time and effort to investigate themselves, and the tool most used for that investigation is the good ole internet.

Case in point:

Today, the NYT reported on "Advertising's Moral Struggle". Yes that's right, this "news" source is declaring that "the marketing industry is facing a moral quandary". The advertising industry! The industry wholly dedicated to deception, false representation and conniving chicanery to entice readers to spend hard-earned dollars on what they most decidedly do NOT need, and use seductive imagery, flattering depictions and the stoking of envy as the tools of their trade, and NYT is publishing as NEWS, no less, that that same Advertising Industry is in a moral quandary.

 Advertising is the Karl Rove of industry, it not only eschews morality, but brags about its lack of it, as that is its strength. Like the ratings agencies, you pay them and they will make up the most beautifully adorned lies to blanket your product with, and have no compunction whatsoever, as to what effect falling for their lies will have on your intended victims' health or well-being. How soon we forget beer and liquor ads, never mind the star of Advertising's power: Cigarette ads. Lies. Cancer. Emphysema. Shortened life span: All portrayed by the moral advertising industry as being instead, a source of popularity, pleasure, sheer spasmodic, mad joy. And all for under a dollar! Whooohoooo!

Alive with pleasure ... Dead from Cancer.


Remember Joe Camel?

Joe Camel was emblematic of what were the insidious, underhanded marketing gimmicks by which cigarettes (any product, the truth be told) are sold in America, using  slick, colorful presentations of a grinning cartoon animal churlishly intended to appeal specifically to children to entice them to take up smoking. (This verbiage is right out of the referenced article in the NYT itself).

In other words, to deceive children in order to get them addicted to a product known by government, industry, and advertisers alike, that would destroy their health and eventually lead to their premature death. Cigarettes, not marijuana, was THE gateway drug. People smoked as though they were paid to, like it was their part-time job. All thanks to the advertising industry, the industry that the NYT, reports as news, is in a moral quandary "because it bankrolls sites that are toxic to society".

How do they drudge these items up and then present them to the public as news? Well, naturally, to pretend that advertising, their only source of revenue, is a legitimate source of information. One that actually ponders the negative results their activities might have on the citizenry. LoL!!

So keep that in mind when you read the NYT: they are embedded propagandists intent on selling their paper using any scheme that they can come up with to push products that are not only harmful, but deadly, onto a public they have convinced they exist to serve its interests. It doesn't; it has an agenda:

"By and large, talented reporters scramble to match stories with what internally is often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line."

This is what happens even to a newspaper with the prestige of the NYT when it becomes a tool for the propaganda of a War-mongering elite, to which they then become beholden. Garbled news is Goebbeled news, no matter how lofty your intentions. After all, Subarus may be made with Love (LIARS!!), but they still spew death with every mile driven. That's about as "toxic to society" as you can get, and I can assure you they experience not a jot of moral quandary whatsoever ... and never have.















             

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

My Kremlin Ties.

 Kremlin Ties.
 It seems that there's a brouhahahahaha being made over the fact that both the Donald and his pick for Secretary of Scapegoat are being excoriated for having the audacity to have "Kremlin Ties". (Which kremlin they have ties with, there being a multiplicity of them, is not mentioned). The fact that the leaders-to-be of the Greatest country ... ever ... in the history of the world even unto the end of the world, (since its ascendancy marks the end of history), should have its leaders consorting with the proclaimed, Orwellian-named enemy, that other oil-rich nuclear power, is presented as an OHMYGOD! horrifific (sicsic) development, apparently means that we should all either quail in fear or turn ourselves into a rabble in arms to protest against the horrendous possibility that the US and Russia should have a rapprochement (a Detente, perhaps?).

So the CEO of Exxon/Exxoff is now going to be Secretary of State, oh my. How terrible that one of the men running things behind the scenes where he can hide from the political flack caused by his decisions should now be in a position where he has to face the music for them. A case in point being his saber-rattling over China's South Sea islands, which are little more than an ginormous oil Platform. Isn't it better that his conflict of interest is so glaring as opposed to his use of the usual hand-puppet to disguise his self-aggrandizing machinations? If we actually had any journalists left to hold his feet to the fire, definitely. As it stands, well, perhaps not.

What a world, what a world.

And all the howling coming from the failed Clinton camp fails to mention the Secretary's twice-repeated claim to the American people during the 2nd Presidential debate that the USA is "Energy Independent" a bald-faced, stupid lie that even the Wapo couldn't ignore, printing the fact that it was a lie in their fact-checking column the next day, after which it was never brought up or mentioned ever again. But importing the energy the US and its oil-thirsty military machine needs to run itself into the ground is at the very center of US foreign policy, a fact, I suspect, any former Secretary of State is well-acquainted with.

The Russians are slumming the Russians are slumming. Using what , you say? Oh, Cyber attacks?

You mean by using the internetwork that was developed by the US military, and then turned loose to private enterprise, much the same way computer technology and microchip manufacturing technology was released by the private sector to our enemies, because that's what communist countries such as China are. Aren't they? Or was it only Cuba that was our enemy? Cuba which, of all places, has been the recipient of intractable intransigence from the sole Super power, one that couldn't find any other place in the world to sequester (never imprison, since that would make them ... prisoners) their non-POW POW's, (since actually calling them POW's would bring them under the treaty obligation, to which the US is signatory, of the Geneva Conventions).

Not that I consider China our enemy, mind you, but, since the largest Communist country is not only a strategic trading partner with the US, but the strategic trading partner of the US, one to which sophisticated, taxpayer-funded technology was simply handed over in order to improve the profitability of US corporations, such as Apple Computer. Corporations which would never exist if not for the Federal Government, of which I believe the military is still a part, but that now refuse to pay taxes on their overseas' earnings. This to such a debilitating extent that the Bush administration had to grant a tax holiday in order to get them to repatriate their earnings. This leads one to wonder exactly why Russia was singled out as the enemy against whom all these multifarious industries were larded with US taxpayer dollars in order to build an information superhighway across which anybody in any country could thereby attack the US.

Because the collateral damage wreaked by turning over the government functions to the private sector are nowhere more glaring than those the USA has turned over to private industry that were previously functions of the military, such as cyber-security, the ramifications of which are the same as when any revolving door between public/private sectors are built: they leave open to the highest bidder secrets that were paid for and developed, not by the private sector which reaps the profits therefrom, but by the American taxpayer, who's now on the hook to pay for said development (and its onerous, never-ending finance charges and interest), yet has no way to collect the revenue from the very entities that became fat from it because all those fat cats pay fat lobbyists who pay fat-headed Senate and House representatives of the people to betray their constituencies.

Yet it's Russia you have a problem with?

It's like building the Emerald City and then building a road right to its heart paved with gold stolen from your own citizens, but that anyone else can then have access to as long as they lay a brick or two along the way, and then exclaiming, "Russians and commies and spies, OH My!", when they use those very instruments we ourselves have provided to them, to further their own interests.

And all this is assuming that the Russians did what they were accused of doing in the first place. But to check whether it's true we're supposed to ask who? The CIA? Are you kidding me?

The treaty President Obama recently concluded with Iran after decades of strife was necessary for one reason: the CIA involvement in overthrowing a legitimately elected leader of a sovereign State, because they believed he was too "left-leaning", and installing their own autocratic right-wing stooge in his place. And Iran never built a Super highway to facilitate, nay, practically invite, us to use to undermine their elections, as we have.

That one, and there are many more, unconstitutional interference with the election results of a Sovereign State, eventually precipitated the Iranian Revolution for which the USA has blamed the Ayatollah-so Khomeini (a cleric who would have had no power without the CIA's interference in another State's election), and the resulting Theocracy against which the right-wing now fulminates so self-righteously. Yet it is their right wing counterparts in the fifties, Allen Dulles being among the most notorious, that are responsible, not the Iranian revolutionaries, who we would today call terrorists, although they were clearly freedom fighters, for the current state of affairs.

That's the whole point of secrecy; never having to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions because you can always deny them. Kissinger called it Realpolitik, but the operating thesis is the same, They, not the ill-informed electorate, know what's good for the country (their country, not ours).

And now this nest of vipers, the same nest which fed the Bush administration false information to get us into yet another War, one that is still wreaking havoc in the world, and which thereby increased both their power and budget, while leaving the rest of us mired in intractable, unpayable debt,  is saying that the Russians are responsible for the US electorate giving the Presidency to an autocratic right-wing stooge of their own?

If they only had a heart, they'd shut up; if journalists only had the courage, they'd tell them to; if  we only had a brain we'd know they have their own agenda, and that our well-being is not on it.









Monday, December 12, 2016

COPout22's Catch22: Clean Energy is a Misnomer.


Devon Energy: Houston's flood, made possible by an atmospheric river, was just a hoax.


Hashing out what was thrashed about in COPout22, Sophie Yeo, in an article originally published by Carbon Brief, and posted on Resilience.org, briefly summarizes what was accomplished by the teams from 200 countries burning up more jet fuel to consider how to stop burning up more jet fuel.
Aghast at the election of climate-change-denier Trump to the presidency of the United States, they decided to continue their roadshow nonetheless, since, well, it's only for show anyway. Consequently, most of the time seemed to be spent on discussing where to hold the next conferences, but at some point they had to wonder where the money was coming from to implement all their high-minded ideas.

One of those things needing financing being their salaries and travel/entertainment expenses which resemble those of the Clinton foundation (which they had no problem with, considering they had all assumed, like the media, that said organization was in fact doing such a bang-up job of alleviating the Secretary's financial problems via a facade of humanitarianism). Naturally, they were delighted to find such a ready-made structure to copy in order to fund their own particular sinecures while expressing such heart-felt concern for the fate of the world.

But in our now completely capitalist world, (except Cuba. It's notable that the one country closest to fitting the environmental model needed to cut carbon emissions yet retain a rather modern lifestyle is never ever mentioned at any of these conferences, the fantasy being that the capitalist model, the one that got us into this intractable mess, will somehow serve to extricate us from it ... it however, won't, but better not say that or your place at the conference will be forfeited thereby) where do you suppose the money comes from to 'finance' these projects? The fairest and most expeditious means would be something akin to a carbon tax.

That would be a good thing, but, at least as evidenced here in the US of A, after 8 years with a climate-change-believing president, the price of gasoline is now as low as it's been for the entire century, and Americans are buying internal-combustion-engine-propelled vehicles with a larger carbon footprint than ever, at a faster clip than ever, (undoing all that good work the Bush administration did by jacking the price of oil up so high it crashed the global economy thereby decreasing the carbon footprint of the USA for the first time ... ever), specifically because the price of gas (-oline as well as natural) is so unconscionably low, yet no attempt has ever been made to put as little as a penny tax on said fossil-fuel-derived combustibles. The reason? Without affordable motorized personal transport, there is no modern life as we know it. So people will sell their own children to be able to keep driving ... they, in fact, ARE selling their own children's future for precisely that reason, either because, like Republicans, they deny climate change, or ridiculously call it a hoax (a hoax is by its very nature a conspiracy, making the President-elect of the most powerful economy in the world a conspiracy nut), or, like the Democrats, they are in denial about climate change, a subtle, but very important difference. Those paying attention to COPout22 belonging to the latter, those ignoring it completely, the former.

It has been my argument for some time now that it is actually those in climate change denial who are the more dangerous of the two groups, because those claiming it is a hoax (as demonstrated by Trump's admitting that, "There is some connectivity there") become more ridiculous as time goes on (like Marco Rubio wading out to his car through Miami's flooded streets after giving a speech wherein he called climate change a hoax), while those who don't deny it but are in denial about it, give plausible reasons for their continued blindness. But every mitigating ploy they come up with in order to ameliorate the condition instead exacerbates it as evidenced by the financing schemes that COPout 22 is trying to hammer out.

But all of their finance plans smack of Trudeau-ism:

"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has tried to balance the growth of the oil industry with environmental progress, so while he approved pipelines, he's also approved a national carbon tax".

Note that the attempt being made is not to balance the oil industry with environmental concerns, but to balance the growth of the oil industry. Not its managed decline, or even its stasis, but it's planned growth. And how does he do that? With a national carbon tax, so that the government itself is dependent upon not only the revenues it receives now, but becomes progressively more dependent on these tax receipts as time, and the growth of said industry, funnel more revenues into government coffers, putting the government's stated intentions in direct conflict with their fiduciary outlays. To see where that dynamic is heading, one need merely to recall the Deepwater Horizons disaster of BP's where their executives helicoptered off the exploding platform right before it blew up in their faces. The technology used and the players deploying it were all operating on the edge of a needle point, disregarding dangers, with our government's blessing, as they were right behind them salivating for the tax benefits.

The tax will begin at C$10 (USD$7.60) per ton in 2018, rising by C$10 per year until it reaches C$50 in 2022, quintupling the amount of leverage the tar sands operators will have over their government overseers, who will likewise be 5 times more likely to find ways to keep the cesspool of dirty-oil-derived filthy lucre from being depleted. But since Cenovus Energy and Canadian Natural Resources have both announced plans to expand existing projects, adding 50,000 bpd and 40,000 bpd, respectively, the first such expansions since the collapse of oil prices two years ago, indications are net positive that Alberta is ready to pour money into these, the dirtiest oil projects in the world, as it celebrates the OPEC/NOPEC agreement to curtail their production of cleaner-burning, less energy-intensive oil from existing wells.


That's the Catch22 the Copout22 conference never addresses, although it's in play right now, and demonstrated by Canada's plans for increasing their output as OPEC decreases theirs, is that, as the price of oil rises, the amount of it on the world market that is derived from the most polluting and energy-intensive sources rises with it. And as that price rises, it crashes economies that can't operate with such expensive oil prices. Hence, the demand shrinks crashing the price yet again and curtailing the output of the more expensive sources, as the price they can get for it can't cover the costs of extracting, refining. and shipping it. Seesaw economics.

This, together with the uptick in fracking in the USA immediately following the agreement, goes further to show the actual intentions of the world, which, (something the COPout22 attendees seem to have forgotten), is no longer the province of the Sovereign States that pretend they're still relevant, but of the Corporations which those same States have given free rein over what used to be their province. And there is not a single Corporation that has signed any of these moronic agreements, and the probability that they will follow any of them is exactly nil. The Most powerful economic entity on the planet, the US of bloody A, can't even get them to pay the taxes they owe, and yet we all feel coddled in careless complacency by the pronouncement of this council that major corporations will stop doing business as usual, but, back to those taxes again, they can never pay any taxes if their only way of making profits is by turning energy into matter ... ie manufacturing, which, as industry cuts more and more employees, burns more and more fuel to make up with computer-mechanized, fossil-fuel-generated robo-labor what used to be done by carbohydrate-fueled human labor. 

(Now, let's think about this for a second. Henry Ford paid his workers more than his competitors in order to allow them to be able to afford the products he was manufacturing (well, they were manufacturing; he provided the facility that enabled them to do so) creating positive economic feedback, it is therefore simple economics that extracting those humans from the equation, and paying the humans remaining half of the salary their older peers received, means that robotics not only ensures negative economic feedback, but any positive feedback it does provide would, by Ford's logic, and the iron law of supply and demand, mean that the economy would then dictate that the needs of the robots be met first, and only secondarily those of humans. Thus, one would suspect, we should expect the manufacture of robotic, or pilotless, cars: automobiles manufactured by robots to be driven by robots. Soon, it would matter not a whit how much demand for fossil fuels declined among humans, because that slacking off of demand by humans would be more than made up for (is already being made up for) by a concomitant increase in demand by the Brace (an amalgamation of "manufactured Base" and "race") of Robots).

And Canada is just one oil project in one country. You can look at the countries of Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, as well as the US states of Texas, California, Alaska and North Dakota, and see that, based on the loan portfolio's already on their balance sheets, on which future tax revenues, and therefore, pension liabilities, depend, that the COPout 22 conference is a boondoggle, a distraction, a mere sleight-of-hand calculated to ease the anxiety of those who realize global warming is going to make their offspring's future untenable, but ceaselessly, selfishly, inexplicably, keep having more and more children, keep pouring their money into investments to 'save' for a future that isn't possible, because to imagine a future different from the present is, despite humanity's high-flown, overblown vision of itself, beyond its capability.

Because the story that those moneys already garnered and spent years into the future tell is far different than the narrative the signers of those non-enforceable agreements would have you swallow, because they are based on agreements that actually DO have teeth in them, and those teeth are razor-sharp and ever-eager to clamp down and shred to bits any international accord that usurps their legally binding contacts to use the burning of fossil fuel to enable them to dig up more and more of those fossil fuels to then burn even more fossil fuel to deliver that fossil fuel to the place it will be burned, while, simultaneously in country after country, the mindless incineration of human bodies, referred to as cremation, using fossil fuel to burn flesh and bones to ash, continues to be a growth industry, pouring the carbon from billions of people, carbon sequesters, in a steadily increasing arc, into the atmosphere, b/making them instead into carbon pumps. This is only one of many easily halt-able examples, of needlessly venting CO2 into the atmosphere, that, even as we have learned about global warming and its cause, has only increased, with no justification whatsoever, except that we can, helping the global temperature relentlessly do the same: increase.

So as we contemplate the selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, in full knowledge that he is a known ally of the oil and gas industry, whose also a climate change "skeptic" (ie paid stooge of the hydrocarbon industries), and an expert in helping his unctuous buddies sidestep environmental law and regulation, we should remember these facts and then wonder, what about methane? Because even as the obvious contribution to its sudden rise since 2005 or so is fairly obviously co-incident with the frenetic pace of the growth of fracking in the US, Pruitt has spearheaded a fight against EPA regulations, suing the agency over greenhouse gas rules: The New York Times wrote in a Dec. 2014 article that Pruitt submitted a letter to the EPA, disputing the agency’s calculation about methane emissions from natural gas wells. A letter that was secretly written by lawyers for Devon Energy, demonstrating Pruitt’s close ties to the industry. 

But, with the emphasis on CO2, CH4's dramatic increase in the atmosphere, and most especially in the Arctic, where it bubbles up in long plumes kilometers in breadth, is rarely mentioned, despite its far greater impact on global near-term warming (over a 100-year period, it traps 29 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide). And this increase, although agriculture and animal husbandry are blamed as co-factors, is directly related to the ring of fire that's been lit all along the littoral area of the Arctic Ocean, from Russia, to Alaska, from Norway to Scotland, North Dakota to the Athabasca, these far-flung oil developments vent un-flared methane into the atmosphere where there is no one to either monitor nor complain about such emissions, and a thin atmosphere is ill-equipped to lower escalating levels, since, although uncontrolled build-up of methane in Earth's atmosphere is naturally checked by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and water vapor, as more and more of those oxygen atoms are bound onto carbon atoms, becoming CO2, the earth's atmosphere contains less available oxygen, so methane stays in the atmosphere longer and at higher concentrations. But this rapidly accumulating gas is not even on the COPout22's agenda, and even if it were, the new EPA appointee, has a pseudo-science partner in the form of Devon energy, to name just one, to spew out false data that's far more accepted than simply denying global warming. Ironic, ain't it? The same people that deny global warming can turn around and say that methane isn't escaping as fast as the EPA (which has nothing to gain by inflating the amount at which it's escaping) says it is, is somehow believed, despite the knowledge that the proponent of the false data-set is a known conspiracy-theory-addled idiot.

I just don't get this. A hoax is, by definition, a conspiracy. In any other realm, conspiracy theorists are dismissed (admittedly ofttimes unadvisedly) as irrelevant tin-foil-hat crackpots. But in the realm of climate science, they can and do regularly get appointed to high government offices, responsible for making decisions that impact the future of the entire world. In this context, holding conferences that jet people around the globe to pretend they are "doing something" to ameliorate the problem their own mindset enables, is pure hokum, and should be called out as such. Get Exxon/Mobil/ Devon, all the nationalized oil companies, including Rosneft, to this table and then perhaps something concrete will get hammered out, but until then, or unless that happens, this is just a sideshow; a circus to keep us entertained while our world is burned to a cinder.

 

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Hail Trump Triumphal.

                               
                         Among Oakland’s dozens of artist warehouses is one called Deathtrap.

The Ghost Ship of Fools gutted by fire and reported on ad nauseum.


Russian Hospital base destroyed by "Freedom Fighters". Not a word from the MSM; posted by "Faux News" sites.


 As the tempest about faux news sites goes postal, the NYT published an article excoriating a site that published material that supposedly caused an addled-brained psycho to attack a pizzeria. The journalism was yellow, the intention to inflame hysteria against faux news, which the MSM publishes on a regular basis under a different guise (although they do warn us that it is breaking, they never admit that it is, in reality, already broken), to a red hot inferno, hinting that we need a Ministry of Information. Yet some of these so-called faux news sites, working tirelessly without compensation, were the very sites that, pre-2008, were busy publishing articles and analyses detailing the real crisis threatening the economic system while the NYT, as well as, well, ALL the other news outlets in the country, had their collective noses so far up the Bush administration's ass they couldn't see beyond the foggy bottom of malodorous dung they were shoveling out for the American public to digest, purportedly for their edification, but in reality to keep them in line with the war-mongering reality of Full Rectum Domination promulgated and mercilessly enacted under that administration's tutelage, that is now so enmeshed in our foreign policy that even after eight years of Obamamama, the man who would be  President, but settled for Caretaker-in-Chief, still holds sway over our affairs of State.

Although more subtle than the lies published by some of the worst sites listed, Brietbart being among these latter, the misinformation and bias of what came to be termed the 'liberal  press' ( although it was only superficially liberal and unworthy of the name "Press") is the reason that the newspapers across the country were abandoned by their readership en masse, a phenomena still blamed on the internet, but which started long before there was any such entity.

You can find an example every day of their yahoo reportage, the latest evident today in the blurb announcing,

"Another defeat for the Islamic State as its ambitions for a militant empire buckle on multiple fronts." 

Now those ambitions are in direct conflict with the US policy of Full Spectrum Domination, which, if we had newspapers, you know, real newspapers with reporters, not just rats scurrying through the halls of power looking for breadcrumbs, would inform (oh, that's right, that's not their job, is it?, the job of newspapers in a system that has had any non-capitalist motives wrung out of it, is to sell their rag so that advertisers will pay their outlandish rates), would have objected to that term and at least explained to their readership that Full Rectum Domination is simply an overblown, propagandist invention to enable us all to feel comfortable with the fact that it is used to provide a cover for the ambitions of a militant empire. A thin veneer, to be sure, but that's all we need, because our own belief in our evangelical mission to go forth and subdue all opposition to our Superior Will is so entrenched that we don't bother to question such high-minded-sounding, but undemocratic to the bone, verbiage.

Yet, despite the fact that the very name "The United States of America" was decided upon because the founding fathers had every intention of stretching forth their power and adding to the territorial extant of the newly-won country, all to fulfill the Manifest Destiny of the fledgling nation to overcome all opposition and thereby bestride a continent, the United States has always been, and is now, an Empire. A militant Empire. One of unparalleled ambition, as evidenced by such soaring propaganda that is created to lull a populace too busy struggling to make a place for themselves in the world to bother about parsing what the actual ramifications of such a philosophy of Manifist Destiny, such as the utter annihilation of an entire way of life that had been extant on their land for thousands of years, might entail.

Yet, just as the US Constitution was crafted so as to deliberately legalize the subjugation of an entire race of men to the will of their racial superiors, building an empire on the backs of slaves while proclaiming themselves a Beacon of liberty and a fount of Freedom, so today the NYT can blithely declare that, "its ambitions for a militant empire buckle on multiple fronts", and not see the irony in those words, as the "End of History", USA!USA! Triumphalism of the 90's, following the demise of the USSR as a Ghost Ship of fools, did more to transform the militant empire of the USA than it did to change Russia. 

Because they needed communism more than Russia did, as a bugbear to scare the  populace into surrendering more and more of both their hard-earned dollars and much-touted freedom to a cadre of lobbyists in the swamps of Washington, the ability of the military to continue to siphon off more and more of the productive capacity of the country in unproductive arms manufacture, a dizzying array of alphabetic alpha-male-run intelligence agencies, and a proliferation of military bases around the globe to which the economic benefits of Army bases, long nurturing otherwise dead-in-the-water communities in the mainland,  were shut down and moved, along with that economic stimulus they once provided to US citizens, to the lands of those we would soon enough be bombing, so thus delivering economic growth to them, "the enemy", instead, as that's what filled the coffers of the heavily-invested-in-the-defense-industry American oligarchs; but all to the detriment of the American worker, and all done like a sly pickpocket, making sure your attention is elsewhere before pilfering your person, ever ready to jump back and claim himself innocent of any evil intent. It is, after all, a racket, and it ain't for tennis anyone.

But the authors of the PNAC had no intention of allowing the shrinking of the defense budget to happen. They had worked too hard during the Reagan/Bush years to:

  • End the draft, so that there would be no more Vietnam-like opposition to their Empiric schemes, as the sons of the elites no longer need worry about their own sorry asses being blown to bits in foreign lands,
  • Cemented in the ascendancy of the military via Military Keynesianism whereby not only did/does the government spending that goes to militaristic enterprises escalate decade after decade, but becomes so entwined in the real economy that any reduction in military spending creates a crash in demand, to avoid which they employed the Fed to stimulate demand by blowing a series of speculative bubbles and:
  • Use debt to finance a huge expansion in deficit spending, as then its burdens would be more diffuse. Federal spending began a debt-fueled escalation during the Reagan administration that was purposely obfuscated by issuing debt at high levels of interest that the 1% purchased with their tax-cut bonanzas, establishing a tax-free/risk-free money conveyor belt of government money, garnished from the paychecks of Americans labor, and deposited directly into their accounts, thus
  • reaping hoards of cash to, using "Free Enterprise" as a mantra, buy up and export America's industrial base to the largest Communist country in the world, China, while simultaneously claiming that all this 'defense'  spending, for which they had mortgaged the entire economy of the USA, was to "fight Communism".

So you can see how the fall of the USSR caught them with their rants down. You can search the pages of the NYT all you want, but neither Paul Krugman nor Ben Stein, David Brooks, or any other "reporter" will have pointed out this hypocrisy and scandalous legerdemain during all the decades it's been promulgated.

Thus are we now a populace so completely befuddled by how the fuck we got to this morass that we've voted to put into the  office of the Presidency of the United States a man who accused both the sitting President and his Presidential opponent of creating Isis, yet has no coherent plan, well, no coherence at all, really, to stop them, and hails from the very elite who most profited from Reagan's largess. And then the same rag that did nothing to publish the truth about how Washington was enabling the undermining of Democracy, turns on small, Onion-like internet sites and spuriously accuses them of inciting nutjobs to acts of violence, ignoring that they have been doing the same thing for years as they rail against Syria, get in bed on the attack on Libya, support dangerous saber-rattling at the sovereign Nation of Russia, and - their plum of violence-inciting mania -  provided rabid support for attacking the Iraqi people. And then, after these monstrous examples of inciting an entire population to use their overarching military superiority to launch attacks resulting in the obliteration of entire countries, they use their undeserved position of moral authority to chasten a site they claim is responsible for one single person's idiotic rampage? 

 This century has already handed so many military failures to US citizens who quail in such fear before their own military might they dare not speak a word against it, never question the lavish expenditures squandered on it, as it delivers them failure after failure, but drains US citizens of more and more of households' earning power until it will simply take everything. That's when the stage is set for what the MSM has been screaming about is another Mussolini, but it is this same MSM that has been ignoring the militarization that is so extreme it leaves everything else starved of investment, yet unstoppable because of the sacrosanct status so-called 'defense spending' has been granted by the very press we need to expose its fundamental takeover of the reins of power. The military in this country has become unassailable, and such invincibility invites corruption and the internal rot that comes with it ... it ain't called corruption for nothing. Yet we will never see the headline:

"Another defeat for the United States as its ambitions for a militant empire buckle on multiple fronts." 

Even though that is exactly what has happened over and over again in just the last ten years.

The world has surely gone mad, or at least blind, if this mindless crime (which, if there really is such a thing as the fourth estate, it most surely is a crime (a lie of omission is still a lie ... a deliberate lie)) goes uncensured, as it will. 

So there should be little wonder in the corridors of the NYT as to the outcome of the election, as it was they, using the logic they use to accuse faux news sites for the actions of a fruitcake, who were the most instrumental in enabling the very thing about which methinks the grey lady doth protest overmuch. And yes, I use that Shakespearean wording with the same tongue-in-cheek intention as its speaker does in Hamlet, because I don't believe their protestations of shock and aw-gee, for a minute. As Marco Rubio would say, "They knew exactly what they were doing".