What Happens when Quisling Gives Up?

The News: Commenting on the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas's pre-emptive resignation, Danny Alayon, Israel's Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, commented, "We don't interfere in others' internal affairs... But it is evident that Israel and the United States are interested in a Palestinian leadership that is responsible and pragmatic." Not interfering, of course, Israeli president Shimon Peres called Abbas a day before his announcement and tried to persuade him to change his mind. Haaretz reported him as telling Abbas, "If you leave, the Palestinians would lose their chance for an independent state."

The Note: It is evident that Israel and its tag-along are interested in a Facade that will allow the de-facto annexation of the West Bank under the pretence of supervised Palestinian autonomy pending some eventual hologram of statehood. Ersatz Palestine within Eretz Israel.

Endless negotiations with a Steppinfechit, a Quisling, a propped-up nobody, is the slow but convenient "road map" to this end. The alternative would be another frank military onslaught which would expose to the world the murderous kernel of zionism. And what then? Who would play the counterpart? Surely somebody; someone depraved enough to assume the mantle of Quisling of Rubble. Doesn't sell very well, does it ? No no... the strategy is too risky. Better an abetting Abbas who will play Israel's game of drip drip drip until the world tires of the whole damn affair and let's Israel have the whole matzoh.

No doubt, there are those in Israel -- in the General Staff and on Jew-Only Roads -- who relish this turn of events. This Land is My Land is their Marseilles. But cooler, craftier heads will be racking their brains figuring out how to massage the denouement.

The contours are obvious. After having made it impossible to negotiate, the wail will go up that Earnest Israel has no one to negotiate with on the Perfidious Palestinian side. Anyone who wants a foretaste of what this song will sound like has but to listen to Bibi's self-commiserating aria at the U.N. "We have tried, and tried and tried, but what can we do....?"

The only thing more nauseating will be the sounds emanating from the inner partner on Israel's couch.

.

Diplomentia

The News: According to BBC News, Hilarity Clinton "warns" Afghanistan's new leader (the ol' Karzai) that he will have to do more to stabilise the country.

The Note: ROFL *&!?%*?#@? Is she nuts or is this Washington's New Comedy Hour?

Face It ....

Headline: "Face it -- the GOP Doesn't Really Matter When it Comes to Health Care." (truthout.org)

Comment: Yeah -- the Demorats are bought well enough.

.

Qui Quibus

The News: Not within 24 hours of President Obama's decision to down-grade America's forward based missle defense in Czecho-Polakia than the New York Times ponders "Now, the question is whether Russia will do more to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons." [ here ]

The Note: Well... the quibus of the matter was sort of obvious, but the Times might have waited for a tad more decentish interval.

Anyone who believed the prior administration's claim that America's forward based defense in Eastern Europe was directed at protecting Paris from Persia is probably one of those person who also believes you can get "new growth" hair from a spray can. Clear and explicit NeoCon doctrine has always called for the encirclement and constriction of Russia. That's what Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkestan were all about. Certainly the Russians weren't fooled.

The only people fooled by the claim that the missles in Poland were aimed at "defending" against missiles in Iran were the New York Times and the gullible intelectufools who slurp their thought from the Times' trough.

This is not to say that the USA and its backer doesn't fuss about Iran. It does, obsessionally. It is simply to say that the forward based defense perimeter (to use NeoCon jargon) in Eastern Europe was directed east not south. Duh.

Now comes Obama, "improving" relations with Russia, dusting off the ol' Clinton-Albright pogey bait of NATO cooperation and what not. As a sweetner Obama downgrades (but does not entirely remove) our eastern defense shield. Okeee... quiz of the week: quid pro quo?

What do we need from the Russians? Help in committing geo-political suicide in AfPakistan? They are already gladly providing that. Trashing hardware contracts with Venezuela? For Venezuela, Richard, for Venezuela? Nah... all the big boys peddle armaments; the price is too much. Disuading Russia from rocking with Brazil, India and China to the tune of "It's our party and we'll laugh it we want to" ? Nah.. the payoff is not enough.

So what's left?

Assuming supposed cold-war realities, from an American point of view the trade off is actually pretty insane. We give up an assumedly needed deterrence against real Russian missles in order to protect ourselves and our "European partners" from non-existent, long range Iranian missles?

Qui quibus quod quoque qui quae quo?

Amusing, really.

©Barfo, 2009
.

Obama's Neo Trickledown

The News: At last, Fauxbama gave his Health Talk to the Nation, the details of which can be found here:

The Note: One perhaps might sigh that at last the farce is over. Alas it has only just begun. Aristotle suggested that a good place to begin anything was at the beginning, and so to understand the villainy of the farce we begin by asking: what is insurance? 

Insurance is a contract for remuneration in the event of a condition. I pay Company money now in consideration of the Company's promise to pay me should a specified event occur; for example a storm that sinks my spice-ship to the Orient. I fear the event might happen; the Company calculates that it will not. If the event does not happen we are both happy. If it does, I am happy to be covered.

It makes sense to insure against anomalies that might happen, not only strikes of lightning and car crashes but arguably, if one is young, against strange illnesses. However it makes no business sense for a company to insure against something that will happen, such as old age and terminal diseases. The concept of insurance was not designed with conditions certain in mind.

To be sure, from the insured's point of view, it makes little difference. He's paid premiums for something that will happen, the only unknown being when. Depending on when, he will usually receive at least the future value of what he paid in.

But from the Company's point of view the certainty of the pay-out event is a disaster, for obvious reasons. As a result medical insurance companies protect themselves by not insuring those who need coverage most and by dumping those who do when they are sick.

"Not insuring" is not limited to those with pre-existing conditions, it includes not insuring high risk people and anyone over 65, the age at which more people start to fall seriously ill. "Dumping" includes anyone who has purchased insurance at all.

This "off-loading" of contractual obligatons is perfectly legal. U.S. law allows it. It is simply government backed theft by fraudulent pretences. It is State supported cruelty.

Obama understands full well the depraved villainy of this "system". He talked about it in his speech.

The problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died

He knows, as he said in February, that medico/insurance costs "cause[] a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds" and that "by the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes." He knows that "[i]n the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more Americans have lost their health insurance." He knows that we are the only nation on earth that allows for such a system and he knows that it is nothing less than a callous, diabolical depravity.

"These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The only question is how."

Discarding a "single payer" system like that in Canada, Obama went on to say

"I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months."

Is he fucking nuts or is he simple a smoothy for the crooks? The paradigm of insuring against what will happen is economically illogical and fundamentally insane. That is precisely why insurance companies are not in the business of insuring those over 65. This "remodelling" cannot work because it makes no sense. The only "building" that can be done is to paper over a putrid and festering evil.

The only way to provide health care to all is to spread the costs among all. And the only way to spread the costs among all fairly and reliably and affordably is to take the profit motive out of the equation. Nothing else makes sense. Nothing else can be "built upon".

But building on rotten timbers, Obama now proposes to require everyone to buy into a system that is fundamentally criminal and evil. In return "it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition." Well duh... that's pretty tautological isn't it? If everyone is required to purchase insurance it pretty much follows that all insurance companies must provide it. It does, only the proposals never actually required the insurance companies to provide anything at all.

It was actually unclear whether the prohibition against pre-existing condition denial applies to those who already have insurance (as per what he said in congress) or also applied to those looking for insurance (as per what was posted on the White House web page.)

For the sake of argument, we can assume the more charitable hypothesis, and that it will apply to everyone. We can also assume that once you have insurance "it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most." In other words, gallopping to the rescue Obama promises that "insurance" will really mean "insurance" once everybody is required to buy "insurance". Rejoice! The Second Coming is nigh.

For those who somehow loose or still don't have insurance, Obama proposes a "new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers." Furthermore, "all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned." -- i.e. they will have to actually provide "insurance" as opposed to engaging in outright theft by false pretences. Wow!

This wonderful exchange will not take effect for four years, so don't get sick before then! And if you still can't afford these assumedly lower priced plans, the Government will pitch in and help you with "tax credits". One way or another the insurance companies will get your business.

But will they want it? Comparing plan element 1 with plan element 2 reveals a curious anomaly: while all of us will be required to purchase insurance, insurance companies will only have an "incentive" to provide it. Nothing in these proposals required the insurance companies to offer anything. The president continued,

"I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business [duh!] They provide a legitimate service [gag] , and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors [awww...]. I just want to hold them accountable [whew...]."

As for the public option?

"an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance..... " "it would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects" and "we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up" even though "a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight."

Do they not teach math at Harvard? Since when is "a strong majority" anything close to 5%? A public option formed around a 5% pool and limited to premiums it collects will not be able to afford to mow your damn lawn. If, on the other hand something close to a strong majority of Americans do sign up for it, the option will do more than "keep the insurance companies honest" it will put them out of business.

As for this key and controversial "option" Obama's speech offered nothing but shuck and jive. So that at last, at least, we've seen some ethnicity. But the problem with bullshit is that there is no telling which way it will slide. Is it a Trojan Horse aimed to penetrate Republican stonewalling? Or is it a sop to "the majority of Americans" that will be hedged about by all sorts of conditions (e.g. "for those who cannot afford") and shrouded pixie dust ("it could provide a good deal for consumers.")?

We should take Obama at his word that "the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it" and that he sees the Public Option as a means towards this end and not a true alternative per se. In other words, it is not really an option at all, but simply one of several "incentives" to end insurance company abuses.

The way to end insurance company "abuses" is to criminalize them and start handing out Three Strike sentences to scum bags that CEO these criminal outfits. It is perfectly possible to use insurance companies as an administrative mechanism for delivering health care. I believe that is the system Germany uses. But the way to achieve that is to directly regulate what they must and cannot do: prescribe coverage standards, set premiums and put limits on profits. Instead, Obama hopes to "incentivize" these criminals with a variety of non-compulsory "mechanisms"

It is nothing short revolting. This is the same free-market, incentive approach that just handed a trillion dollars to the very culprits that caused the global recession in the hopes that they would "start lending again." And as Obama's very speech last night admitted, six months into the fattened bottom line, those scumbags haven't lent out a dime. They have simply pocketted the money and closed their doors. We are now to believe that insurance companies, the biggest and vilest theives of all are going to respond to a bunch of "incentives" the most serious of which will have to be "self-supporting" and won't take effect for four years in any case?

In four years the Republoscum will be in c:ontrol and the public option will be on par with a Wisconsin dairy cooperative.

I wish I could believe that Obama is trying to sneak true reform past the corporate criminals and their craven whores in Congress. But everything he has done thus far indicates otherwise. The essence of Obama's political economy is simply Neo-Trickledown

Classical, laissez faire trickledown is based on the proposition that allowing private enterprise to pursue its own interests without hinderances will produce sufficient collateral benefits for society as a whole to justify the absence of regulation. As Alexander Pope put it, "Self interest and social are but the same."

Of course, no system, howsoever liberal, has ever practiced pure laissez faire. At all times, governments have promoted and encouraged enterprise by a variety of fiscal and legal devices: patents, copyrights, licenses, monopolies, easy credit, favorable loans, tax credits and lower tax rates. But aside from certain exceptional situations -- as the vast grants of land parcels to railroads -- most of these devices have fallen into the category of stimuli; and given the conditions at the time, even the land grants to railroads could arguably be regarded as a stimulus.

Obama's Neo-Trickledown crosses the line into outright gifts whereby the public collectively or as individuals pay hard cash in the trillions to private corporations in the hope that this hand out will incentivize them to trickle a little more back our way. In fact, the trillions dumped on the banks were given virtually without conditions, on a one page signed request [here].

This is fiscal insanity. This is worse than robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is robbing yourself on a prayer of receiving back a pittance. But at least we know what Fauxbama is about. Hope is on the way! Indeed.

©Barfo, 2009
.

Surf's Up in the Economy!

The News: "U.S. companies cut more jobs than forecast in August and boosted their workers’ productivity the most since 2003 in the second quarter, signaling employers are seeking to cut costs further even as the economy stabilizes." (Bloomberg)

The Note: This like saying, "Hey! Surf's up!" as hurrican Jimena rages swirling destruction on Baja.

We've always wondered what "productivity" meant. Like most people and, indeed, like most econ textbooks, we've thought of productivity in terms of efficiency: widgets cranked out per hour. Indeed, "productivity qua efficiency" is a standard Capitalist Mantra -- the "build a better mouse trap" saw. The notion foisted is that a "vibrant free market economy" will replace inefficient home spinning wheels (which take six months of gyrations to come up with a wool blanket) with moden mechanical robo-looms (which can turn out a ton of blankets in six hours. ) This is why capitalism is such a magical and wonderful thing.

But how is this productivity actually measured? Does the US Bureau of Labor Statistics send out inspectors with stop watches to time and measure the nut-tightening prowess of a robo-arm and compare it with Charlie Chaplin's frantic efforts taken as a sort of "base line" ? That would measure efficiency, no doubt, but, given the size and complexity of our economy it would be extremely labor intensive and time consuming to conduct such studies on a quarterly basis. Is this the way productivity is really measured? Nooooo. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics puts it this way:

"Productivity is a measure of economic efficiency which shows how effectively economic inputs are converted into output.

"Output per hour of all persons—labor productivity—is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process.
"Unit labor costs are calculated by dividing total labor compensation by real output or —- equivalently —— by dividing hourly compensation by productivity.

"That is, unit labor costs = total labor compensation / real output ...,

"Thus, increases in productivity lower unit labor costs while increases in hourly compensation raise them."

In other words "productivity" which started out as having something to do with "efficiency" ends up having everything to do with "costs" -- and in particular "labor costs" -- or "worker compensation" as in dollars per hour or retirement and health care benefits.

Sooooo... the headlines really read

"FEWER JOBS CREATED THAN ANTICIPATED & THOSE WORKING ARE EARNING LESS"

Rejoice sucker.

For more accurate measurements and nuances see Statistics Canada
.

Grossartige Angebot

The Note: Last week one of our editorial barfsters joked in a chat channel that Israel had offered to freeze settlement construction "around Ramallah and in Beit Krap" for six months if the U.S. agreed to certain desired intelligence sharing and gave Israel the ol' wink wink to bomb Iran and trigger a global depression.

The News: The details of "pending progress" toward a Middle East peace deal were leaked today. According to press reports, Israel will temporarily freeze construction on settlements in exchange for the U.S. taking a much "harder line" against Iran, including an embargo on oil exports.

.

New Taze First Policy Urged

The News: The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) announced a new Taze First policy, today. Under the new policy, officers will routinely taze suspects first prior to asking questions or investigating complaints. "This new policy will facilitate and protect officers in the discharge of their duties, by insuring that civilian contactees are rendered into a complaint and forthcoming state of mind, " NAPO president, Tim T. Knee, said. Knee explained that since taser jolts are considered "non-lethal" and cause only "safe, temporary discomfort", there is no reason not to use such a harmless procedure in light of the benefits to safe and effective law enforcement.

The announcement came in the wake of the much publicised arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Gates was arrested this weekend on his own front porch on the basis of an anonymous tip that a black man was trying to force open the front door. Gates was in fact trying to unjam the lock. Once inside, police showed up on his front porch and demanded that he come outside. Gates in turn demanded their badge numbers. He stepped outside showed them his identification and was immediately arrested on a charge of being "tumultous". Gates has since accused the Cambridge police of racist profiling. Charges were later dismissed and Gates was released from custody with apologies for the regrettable misunderstanding.

"None of this would have happened," Knee said, "if Gates had been tazered first and questioned second."

Operation Stuff n Feathers

The News: The mudia reported today that the U.S. Marshall's Office had "rounded up" 35,000 "fugitives" in this year's Operation Falcon. One was thus led to surmise that our Homeland Security Teams were vigilantly hard at work making us ever safer.

The Note: However the numbers did not add up. Without so much as a blanch, ABC News reported that the total included 433 persons wanted for murder and 900 gang members. And....? Well ABC didn't provide details as to the 33, 667 "others".

So, we googled on over to the U.S. Marshall's page on Operation Falcon where we found out that the number also included 2356 persons wanted for sex crimes and 10, 525 drug offenders and 1, 677 weapon's offenders. As usual it turns out that ABC was not so much reporting as regurgitating from a Govmint Press release.

But that still left 19,118 person unaccounted for. Were our valiant and vigilant Homeland Security guards sweeping the country coast to coast dragnetting petty thieves and such social threats as felony failure to pay parking tickets?

It was unclear. The Marshall's press release also informed that 47,000 warrants had been cleared. Assuming this referred to arrest warrants, these are cleared when the person to be arrested is found and locked up or when it turns out that the person arrested already did his time and was no longer really wanted except that no one bothered to update the database. So, it seemed likely that the 35,000 "fugitives" included a sizeable number of poor dumb fucks that were rousted up in the wee morning hours, hauled off to jail only to be released several days later when things got "cleared up."

It also appears that the 35K figure most probably included a pot-pouri of miscreants guilty of things like theft, joyriding and felony failure to pay a parking ticket.

So, the good news is that, no, the U.S. did not add another 35,000 to our bulging 2 million (sic) prison population. It added only about 15,000 of which 4,33 were murders and no more than 2,300 were serious sex offenders as opposed to gropers, streakers and sex offenders who failed to register on release.

The bad news is that the government is trying to razzle dazzle us with the idea that we are safer the more people we "round up".

Wow!! Look at them figgers, Marge. Way ta' go. I hope our marshalls can beat the record next year. The more the safer, is what I say.

When we start thinking this way, we will have managed to lock ourselves up in a continental prison

Not that we aren't already well on the way. To put things in perspective. The total population of Stalin's Gulag on a yearly basis varied from 510,307 (in 1934) to 1,727,970 (in 1953). [gulag] The total annual population of Nazi Germany's camp and prison population from 1933 to 1939 hovered around 35,000. So the mudia's headlines could have read:

U.S. Marshals Round Up in One Month the Total Prison Population of Nazi Germany.

Still in the bad news department is the latent fact that virtually all of these 11,000 so-called drug and gang arrests were dragnets in Black and to some extent Hispanic neighborhoods. What Operation Falcon is really protecting us from is small time black, street corner drug dealers. The figures betray the game. The U.S. Marshall's FAQ sheet, proudly announces that this years sweep netted, $ 320,000 in money and other forfeited assets.

Do the math. That's $3.20 for each and every "drug offender" -- not including the occasional $50,000 SUV. Not only that, but the Marshall's web page proudly shows Our Team, valiantly storming Fortress Shack.


Ah yes! The word's of William Pitt come to mind. "It's roof may leak, it walls may shake, but all the Kings Horse dare not breach the threshold of the poorest cottage in the land."

Ah well. Not in America's Sicherheitstaat. No... in the 22nd Century, the Govmint bulldozes through slums and minority neighborhoods, scooping up petty drug offenders and then turns around and tells all the rest of us how safe it is making our lives.

©Barfo, 2009

The Ghost of Slim Pickens Rides Again.

The News: Going on a charm offensive (yes indeed!), Hillary Clinton presented her Russian counterpart with a symbolic gizmo outfitted with a "reset" button. The smiley-faced idea was to say: Kiss, kiss; let's make up. Alas, Our Team at Foggy Bottom mistranslated "reset" using the word "peregruzka" which actually means "overload".

The Note: And this time the Russian president really is named "Dimitri".

.

Analogy or Confession?

The News: “ Asking why oil companies are interested in Iraq is like asking why robbers rob banks: because that’s where the money is,” said Larry Goldstein, director of special projects at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit that studies energy economics. (New York Times)

The Note: So that was it, eh?

.

A Curious Frog on the Pond

The News: Reporting from Vienna on the Austrian elections [ link], BBC interviewed Andreas Moelzer, the right wing Freedom Party's candidate after a speech in which he complained about "asylum seekers who never go home, scrounging foreigners and an overcentralised, meddling Brussels." Moelzer told BBC that "the claim by his political opponents after his party ran an advertisement opposing Israeli entry to the EU, that the Freedom Party is anti-Semitic" was "nonsense…"

The Note: Uh....what was that again? Opposing Israeli entry into EU? The geography is a tad off, isn't it? Apparently not. According to the European Union's official site,

"The Action Plan concluded with Israel helped give new energy and focus to EU-Israel relations. Its objective is to gradually integrate Israel into European policies and programmes. Every step taken is determined by both sides and the Action Plan is tailor-made to reflect Israel’s interests and priorities as well as its level of development." [link ]

Whew!!! Well that's a relief. I was worried that the EU would do something stupid and manifestly racist by tailoring steps to suit European interests.

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, signed in 1995 between Israel and the then members states of the European Union established "an association" between the members states and Israel in order " to establish lasting relations, based on reciprocity and partnership, and promote a further integration of Israel's economy into the European economy." To that end, the agreement promoted free trade, political coordination and security cooperation between the Jewish European Outpost in the Middle East (JErOME) and EU member states.

Well now... BBC may have been prophetically jumping the gun. The Euro-Mediterranan treaty doesn't quite provide for "union" .... but then again neither did the Treaty of Rome.

Left unclear was why Algeria, Tunnis, Morroco, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey were not invited as well. Are not they too frogs around the pond?

.

Palestine Peace Process Dead

The News: Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu met with President Obama to "discuss moving the peace process along". Obama said that Israel must seize the moment and quickly resume peace talks with the Palestinians with the agreed upon goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Obama said that serious negotiations would be possible only if Netanyahu ordered an end to the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Obama accepted a linkage between settlement of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the normalisation of relations with Iran, although it was not clear in which direction the linkage ran. In response, Bibi told Obama to go to hell.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Netanyahu said, “We’re ready to do our share, we hope the Palestinians will do their share as well.” Israel, he said, had no wish to govern the Palestinians who should govern themselves "except for a handful of powers that could endanger Israel." He was ready to start negotiations immediately. Palestinians "will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state" but that done he could "envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side."

The Note: In case Bibi hadn't noticed, Palestinians and Israelis are living side by side -- except it isn't a very nice side by side. But of course Bibi had noticed, just as he most surely noticed that under the present arrangement Israel retains a "handful of powers" that protect its security ... and a handful of settlements...and a handful of roads... and a handful militarized security belts .. and a handful of acquifers... and a hand on all building, water and use permits.

What Bibi's Blather intended was to razzle-dazzle an infintely stupified public with a sound-bite vision of Bambi in the forrest. Awwwww, Bibi ... he has such a good heart in the right place! Once again Israel proves its infinitely earnest desire for peace. And furthermore, it's the only real democracy in the middle east. And Jews are such plucky desert bloomers!

But, in case anyone had forgotten, this little Bambi believes in Greater Israel ... a jewish homeland from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. Everyone in Israel knows that and it is impossible to believe that any Jew living outside Israel does not know that. Bibi's Vision of "side by side" means on one and the other side of the Jordan River.

To be fair, Bibi, has appears willing to give up a lot of what he wants. We should give him heartfelt credit for the incredible sacrifices he -- and through him -- the Jewish People are willing to make. Unlike his foreign minister, Avidor Lieberman, Bibi never insisted on deporting West Bank Palestinians to the East. At least implicitly, his post-meeting remarks indicated a willingness to accept an arrangement where, except for a handful of powers, the Palestinians govern themselves in situ in the the three or four Arab enclaves in the West Bank, plus Gaza, minus Greater Metropolitan Jerusalem. Bibi's willingness to recognize the statu quo is such an astonishing act of good will and sacrifice for the sake of peace, that it borders on latent anti-semitism to evem siggest that Israel also [ ! ] stop building Jew-Only settlements in the West Bank. What next? A demand that the settlements be dismantled? It is totally unacceptable to demand such a thing of people who have suffered so much throughout history.

Faced with these magnanimous offers is it really too much to demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish State? Jews certainly deserve their own homeland to the exclusion of others As Gershon Baskin wrote in the Jerusalem Post (18 May 2009) "Israel is the state of the Jewish people in the same way that France is the state of the French people... and Iran is the nation-state of the Iranian people... [and Germany is the state of the Deutches Volk....]" ooops, OOOPS. Strike that last part.

Actually, Iran is not the state of any singular ethnic or religious group known as "Iranians" but incorporates into a geo-political entity a number of distinct ethnic groups including Kurds and Iranian Jews. The French people likewise encompass peoples of different races, different ethnic roots and different religions, including French Jews. If Israel is the place for Jewish people the way France is the place for the French people, I am sure French Jews will be delighted to hear that they are not French and do not belong in France anymore than Palestinians belong in the Jewish State and should be deported East to their homeland in Israel. Baskin is simply engaging in typical Zionist double talk whereby "jew" is a flexible category that means whatever it has to mean to make a particular argument.

The fact is that Israel is not officially a state soley for Jews (howsoever defined). Twenty percent of Israel's citizens are not Jews and U.N. resolutions also grant Palestinians who were dispersed from Israel at its creation the "right of return". The fact also is that the ruling Jewish majority in Israel has used every artifice and device to turn Israel into a de facto "Jewish State" where the Arab minority is politically and economically neutralized. What Bibi therefore wants is for the Palestinians to officially recognize the Zionist end-lossung of a Jewish Homeland and thereby renounce any right of return to their homes and lands in what had been Palestine.

The Bibi/Lieberman policy is no different from Nazi Germany's policy of creating a heimatland for all Volksdeutscher the world over. To be sure elements within the Nazi Party worked up a lot of racist blather about blue eyes and ear lobes, but in actuality all it took to prove that one was an "ethnic German" was proof of descent from someone with a German name who had been born in some historically German land. It helped if one spoke German but neither that nor any relgious qualification was required.

To be fair, a primordial right of association would seem to allow birds to flock together based on whatever feathers they choose. If left handed Albinos or Transgendered Leather Life Style persons want to form their own countries, so be it. God be with them. The Greeks certainly did not begrudge the Amazons. What they cannot do, however, is disposses, discriminate, degrade, deport and/or kill others who fall outside their chosen self-identification category. When the Nazis did that they passed over from tolerable self-love to intolerable hate of others.

It is hardly to be expected that the Palestinians will accept Israel's offer of a Ghetto-Bantustan Palestinian Homeland. They are hardly going to be taken in by Bibi's call for a "process" leading to some kind of "eventual homeland" after he ridiculed the Annapolis Declaration's call for a "process" leading to some kind of eventual "homeland," after he opposed the Madrid Protocol's call for a "process" leading to some kind of eventual "homeland" and after he outright repudiated the Oslo Accord's plan for a "process" leading to some eventual "homeland". Even the abject and acquiescent Abbas, President of the Palestinian West Bank Council, cannot accept and has rejected Netanyahu's demanded "vision" of an eventual peace. That being the case, the Israeli-Palestinian confict will remain unresolved, talk or no talk. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not resolved, everything else is beside the point.

Netanyahu's call to "broaden the circle of peace" -- i.e. for regional Israeli (Jewish)-Arab negotiations is an attempted end-run around the Palestinians. The aim is to play off Arab fears of Iran so as to get the Arab regimes to sell-out the Palestinians and ally themselves with Israel against Iran. That done, and now that Iraq has been reduced to rubble, Israeli hegemony over the Middle East would be complete.

What Bibi's Blather about standing together against "terrorism" and our "common foes" reflected was an attempt to sell Obama on his plan on the basis that "our hegemony is your hegemony" ergo the United States should help Israel keep Iran at bay, the Arabs in line and the Palestinians down. Obama wasn't buying. It's not that Obama doesn't want to turn the Islamic Crescent from Turkey to AfPakistan into a compliant U.S. protectorate; it's rather that he thinks we can entice Iran into subordinating itself without running the unthinkable risks of Bibi's High Noon style diplomacy. For Obama, coopting Iran requires getting the Palestinians to sign off on some Quisling Statehood that's just a little more dressed up than the self-annihilation Bibi demands.

The two were at loggerheads, so Bibi is off to the Hill to see how many chips he can call in.

©Barfo, 2009

.

A Debate Not Needed

The News: Amid much controversy, President Obama gave a commencement address at Notre Dame University where he called for a vigorous national debate on abortion.

The Note: Good God no!! The last thing this country needs is another consuming debate on abortion. The issue is intractable. It cannot be solved reasonably because there is, as yet, insufficient data as to when the foetus becomes a sentient human being with all essential faculties -- although science is close to answering that question. Alas, even given a rational basis for making decisions as to when and under what circumstances there exists a human life warranting legal protections, the consensus will be torn asunder from all corners by religious and philosophical irredentism.

No. What the country needs is a debate about our concept of society and the mode of production we need to adopt in order to provide social justice and an ecologically sustainable economy. We need to debate issues such as whether education should be the pathway to debt and whether illness the occasion for reaping profits. We need to debate whether we want to live in a militarized police state or whether, as a nation, we have something more to offer the rest of the world than being tuff and kicking ass. We need to debate the difference between living with one another as opposed to living next to one another.

There are many things we need to debate and abortion is not one of them. A person interested in producing fundamental social change would not call for a distracting debate over an emotionally charged issue beyond resolution or consensus. In fact, one might very well think that such a call was little more than an intended distraction aimed at preserving the statu quo.

.

Famous Headlines

The Headline: "US Steps up Pressure on Pakistan to Do Something about Taliban"

The Note: This reminds me of another famous headline. ""President Taft sends Wire to Capt. Smith urging he contain the Flooding."

Idiots.

©Barfo, 2009

.

What Ahmadinejad Really Said

The News: With virtual unanimity, the western world press reported that Iranian president Ahmadinejad had been "booed" during his address to the Durban II racism conference in Geneva, Switzerland and that his rambling comments had triggered a "mass" walkout of delegates. Most of the reports did not bother to print Ahmadinejad's speech in any significant measure other than to state that he had "attacked" Israel and "denied the Holocaust."

The Note: It is truly amazing how the western world press simply lies through its teeth. As anyone can see from the Youtube clips on the net, Ahmadinejad was applauded by the delegates and if there was booing it was directed at the U.S., U.K., French, German and Polish walkouts.

Ahmadinejad did attack Israel and what he scored as the zionist colonial agenda. But he did not deny the genocide of European Jewry and in fact implicitly admitted it by stating that that tragic event had been misused as an excuse for oppression of Palestinians.

Most of the Iranian president's remarks were not directed at Zionism, but at a post-world capitalist world order which he criticised as oppressive, unjust and not in accord with humanitarian principles or God's will for Man. He called for abolition of the Security Council veto held by the so=called "great powers". The official text of the remarks are [ here ]

©Barfo, 2009
.

U.S. proves it is still Tops in Escalating Things Beyond Control

The News: During negotiations for the release of a pirate-held hostage, U.S. Navy Seals attacked the pirate vessel, killed three pirates and freed the Capt. Phillips who had given himself in ransom for his crew. Back home, the media waves were filled with cheering, boasting, grunting and various forms of chest thumping in the celebration of the country's daring, toughness and invincibility.

The Note: Great. The U.S. has now managed to escalate another asymmetrical situation which it will not be able to win in the end. But we can delight and bankrupt ourselves blowing up and laying waste to yet another region of the world.

©Barfo, 2009
.

An At Risk Nation in Need of Prophylactic Intervention

The News: Police in the UK have "identified" 180 school children as "potential" Islamic extremists. The Association of Chiefs of Police (ACPO) denied singling-out any particular ethno-religious group, explaining that the teacher-parent-community detection programme provided "safeguards to identify young people who are at risk of violent extremism. It also creates a way for the police, local authorities and community to work together to identify those at risk and then refer them to the relevant agency for help." (Guardian)

The Note: The Association of Chipmunk Acorn Crackers (ACAC) has identified 60 million UKers as being at risk of tyrannical totalitarianism.

©Barfo, 2009
.

We are Nuts and Proud of It.

The News: A BBC news analysis claims that Israel now has a new military doctrine: "go nuts" once and your enemies will fear to strike again. "In the face of enemies who have opted for a strategy of attrition and attacking from a distance, Israel will present itself as a 'crazy country', the kind that will respond (albeit after a great deal of time) in a massive and unfettered assault, with no proportion to the amount of casualties it has endured."

The Note: Well now; I suppose that when you've gone bonkers you can always save face by claiming it to be a "policy choice". But Jews I personally know, meet in chat channels, or whose articles I read in the press have all stated that Israel has careened off the deep end. And when one sees "settlors" raving to television interviewers that God gave them the land they are stealing and that they have a "right" to deport and "drive out" the non Jewish inhabitants, it is clear that the war of attrition and acquisition is being waged not by Palestinians but by Israelis.

©Barfo, 2009

.

Chavez punishes Corporate Criminals with Expropriation

The News: Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez has ordered the expropriation of food producer Cargill's rice production facilities. Under Venezuelan law, certain staple foods, such as rice, must be available to ordinary citizens and are therefore subject to price controls. Cargill, a trans-national U.S. corporation which produces oil, rice, wheat, pasta, milk, margarine and coffee, sought to avoid the price controls by dedicating 90% of its rice production to exempted rice and by mislabelling the prices on controlled rice. A shortage of affordable rice was the inevitable result. Calling Cargill's action a bald-faced violation of law, Chavez ordered the summary expropriation. Chavez also warned another rice company, Alimentos Polar, to get its act in order and not to "play the clown." Polar purchases state-subsidized rice at low prices which it then falsely repackages as "special" rice, exempt from price controls, and sells at four to five times cost. Chavez warned that the Government would not tolerate such chicanery.

The Note: The "trouble" with Hugo Chavez, the New York Times intones [here ] is that his government's "investments" in public welfare aren't subject to "transparent" accounting. Tsk. Tsk. A true hand-wringer that -- which is why the Times has diligently informed the U.S. public on the plundering-tactics of U.S. companies abroad. As previously reported, [here] Cargill, Arthur Daniel Midland, Tyson, Conagra, Birdseye and other U.S. transnationals have taken advantage of "free trade" to undercut local producers and once these have been destroyed to stick it to the further impoverished locals. This social criminality delights NAFTA shills, like Eduardo Porter, the New York Time's resident tio taco liberal, who "packages" the destruction of Mexico's peasantry as a "win-win" situation. False packaging seems to be a Yankee predilection. Meanwhile, in the land of hucksters and cheats itself, the New York Times reports that executives of Countrywide, the mortgage company that triggered our happy-world sub-prime crises are back in business buying up foreclosed properties for pennies on the dollar with government assistance. Another "win and win" stituation, no doubt.

©Barfo, 2009
.

Pope to Take on Greenspan

The News: In an address to diocesan clerics within his bishopric, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the Church has the duty to present a reasonable and well-argued criticism of the errors that have led to the current economic crisis. This duty, he said, forms part of the Church's mission and must be exercised firmly and courageously, avoiding moralism but explaining matters using concrete reasons that may be understood by everyone.

Referring to his forthcoming social Encyclical, the Pope presented an overview of the crisis analysing it at two levels. At the macroeconomic level, the Pope said the present system was grounded in selfishness and idolatry of wealth. Here the Church must make her voice heard - nationally and internationally - in order to help bring about a change of direction towards a political economy based on self-sacrifice and concern for the needy. At the microeconomic level, individuals would have to "alter their ways." (Vat. News. Serv.)

The Note: It is not altogether radical to assert that the Church has a mission to critique political economy. She has done so before. What would be radical is a criticism that went beyond "moralism". One is left to wonder what sort of economy the Pope has in mind that would base itself -- systematically -- on self-sacrifice and concern for the needy.

©Barfo, 2009
.

An Occasion for Focus

Item 1: Emmily, a cash-register clerk for Kaiser's supermarket in Germany was fired, after 31 years on the job, for allegedly stealing $1.50 in return bottle coupons. The Labor Court upheld the dismissal calling Emmily's action an "irreparable breach of trust." One politician called the court's decison "barbaric" while the Governor of Bavaria said he did not understand "how a cashier can be fired because of €1.30 while managers who lose billions can keep their jobs."

Item 2: Meanwhile, 60,000 GM workers across Europe staged walked outs in Germany, France, Spain, Sweden Austria and Hungary, in protest against GM's plans to close plants. The workers want GM subsidiaries to be split off from the Detroit parent company. Germany union leader, Walter Hubel, excoriated GM for technical incompetence. "They have built models with the aerodynamics of a barn door and the weight of a small tank," he said. Frank Walter Steinmeir, currently Number Two, in the Merkel coalition government, said that "GM has long earned good money with Opel. It would be obscene were they now to throw away European factories like a squeezed-out lemon."

Item 3: Union and anti-globalists are also planning demonstrations in Germany under the slogan "We're not Paying for Your Crisis." Spokesman Alexis Passadakis demanded that those who profitted from the economy that caused the crisis should be required to fork over 5% to 20% of their gains. He denied that worker had had it good under the Greenspan Good Years. "The majority of people have not earned much from the boom -- instead they have had to deal with restraint in their wage agreements. The rich, on the other hand, have seen strong increases in their wealth. So it is only fair that they should pay extra duties" Passadakis also said that no public funds were adequate to "bail out" the trillions in toxic assets held by banks. He argues that the only solution was to let the banks go bankrupt then put them under public control and then recapitalize them.

o0o

It appears that class-consciousness is on the rise again, at least in Europe. The question remains, Why was it dormant for so long? The answer, it seems to me, is that "class-consciousness" is a state of mind that exists only when the belly is empty. Trickle down works, at least so long as there's a trickle. And this, after all, makes a certain amount of sense. As they say, "Why go looking to borrow trouble?" But when trouble has come knocking on the door, then it's a different matter. The present economic catastrophe, at least provides the occasion for people to focus attention on the systemic problem.

The second question also remains, Why are US/American workers so utterly cow-like? It cannot be said simply that it is due to their having been bought off with an easy, goody-filled life, because European workers were also bought off. So why aren't U.S. workers taking to the streets?

©Barfo, 2009
.

Union Strives to Create Lumpen Proletariat

The News: Ford Motor Company and the United Auto Workers union reached deal today that granted the Company discretion to "fund" its retiree health care fund with stock instead of cash balancing its "liquidity needs" as it saw best. "The modifications will protect jobs for U.A.W. members by ensuring the long-term viability of the company,” the union’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said.

The Note: Pathetic. It is perfectly true that health care costs are a major burden to U.S. enterprises. The solution is National Health Care which lightens the burden for all by spreading the costs and eliminating insurance company profits from those costs. Instead, Gettlefinger, who is apparently devoid of class consciousness, is grateful for the chance to turn his union members into an organized lumpen proletariat.

I think we should bring back petticoated aristocrats. I mean, aristocrats created jobs for chamber-pot carriers, footmen, stable boys and bedroom boys. Without aristocrats there wouldn't be any good jobs for the rest of us.

©Barfo, 2009
.

What a Difference

The News: President Obama gave his first press conference today, in which he discussed his approach to solving the economic crisis and touched upon policy changes with respect to the Middle East.

The Note: What a difference forthrightness and intelligence make.

©Barfo, 2009

.

The Things We Teach Ourselves

The News: An Ohio man was sentenced to 16 years in prison for disciplining his children with cold showers, dunking and making them wear a dog shock collar. Judge Timothy Campbell said the case sounded "like something from Guantanamo Bay."

The Note: Our Guantánamo Bay?

©Barfo, 2009
.

Jews Demand to Dictate Church Doctrine

The News: Seeking to heal the rift with so-called “traditional” Catholics, Pope Benedict annulled the excommunication of four Lefebvrist bishops, among them Bishop Richard Williamson who had allegedly denied that millions of Jews were gassed as part of a deliberate Nazi policy.

The Pope’s action “provoked outrage” (NYT) and drew criticism from self-appointed “Jewish groups.” The Anti-Defamation League claimed that lifting William’s excoummunication “undermines” Catholic-Jewish relations. ADL director Abe Foxman stated that the Pope’s action “sends a terrible message to Catholics...that there is room in the [C]hurch for those who would undermine the [C]hurch’s teachings and would would foster disdain and contempt for... Judaism.”

Rabbi David Rosen director of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations urged the Vatican to “reiterate” its “unqualified ...condemnation of all and any Holocaust denial.”

Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center warned of a “political cost” to the Vatican. In a thinly veiled threat of blackmail, Samuels added “I am certain as a man who has know the Nazi regime in his own flesh, [the Pope] understands you have to be very careful and very selective.”

The Note: The instantaneous and furious reaction of the Jewish-Zionist establishment bespeaks the theologico-political agenda they are pursuing. All cultures are founded on a fundamental myth or epic which defines the contours and course of a civilization. The agenda being pursued by the Pope’s outraged critics is none other than to supplant “The Holocaust” as our defining myth. This is not, as some claim, a gambit for money, but rather for power.

At the outset, let it be stated what ought not to be an issue: that the Nazis pursued an aggregate of policies designed to ethnically cleanse territories under their control and to ‘segregate out’ undesired elements from German national life. These policies resulted in “substantial” fatalities among the target groups and, therefore, qualified as genocide pursuant to current definitions under international law. All the rest is “detail” of either a prurient or historically useful interest, depending on the particulars at issue. (Fn-1)

But what also ought not to be at issue is any man’s right to question the prevailing historical narrative. The accusation that Bishop Williamson has “denied” the “Holocaust” is decidedly not an historical accusation but simply an accusation of blasphemy!

The science of history is not physical science. History is an account of conduct and events which are attested to by writings, statements, and circumstantial evidence involving few hard “measureable” facts. History -- or more precisely historical accounts -- are always being re-examined and revised in light of new discoveries and new methodological approaches. The charge that someone “denies” an account is a fundamentally anti-historical accusation.

Those who make the accusation, are never very clear which part of “the Holocaust,” exactly, it is forbidden to question. “Holocaust” -- which strictly speaking means “firestorm” -- is not an historically accurate term. During the world war, millions did die in firestorms, but virtually none of these victims were Jews. The victims of firestorms were primarily Germans and Japanese. The Jews cribbed the word as a rhetorical and dramatic label for their own devastating experience. As thus used, the term stands for a cluster of assertions and images which we are presented as orthodox historical fact. But that orthodox historical account has itself been repeatedly revised by the “non-deniers” and “non-revisionists” themselves. ( Fn-2 )

The epithet of “holocaust denier” is nothing more than a cry to stir up and let loose a legal or media lynch mob. Unfortunately, it usually works. But when the New York Times reports that Williamson “said he did not believe that six million Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers,” it has to be asked which part of the blasphemy is objected to? Is the Times asserting “holocaust denial” consists in denying that six million Jews were gassed? That would be interesting because no one --- absolutely no one -- has ever claimed that six million were gassed. In fact, virtually no historian accepts the six million figure in any case. The Jewish historian Raul Hilberg’s last estimate was 5.1 million and some estimates go as “low” as 3 million. So what exactly was the bishop’s sin?

The bishop’s sin was reading the Leuchter Report -- a 1988 study by a chemical engineer who advanced a number of technical and forensic arguments as to why gas chambers could not have existed. Needless to say the report provoked polemical “counter-studies” (as well as assaults on Leuchter’s credentials and motives), most notably the 1998 Van Pelt Report. However, the sheer voluminousness of Van Pelt's report bespeaks the complexity of the issue. One does not need 1117 pages to prove something that is supposedly "self-evident".

The importance of the polemic is that the existence of killing gas-chambers would provide strong circumstantial evidence of a program of genocide and one, moreover, that would seem to have been particularly targetted at Jews. The problem is that there is only circumstantial evidence of this circumstantial fact. People like Abe Foxman can grow wroth all they want and can heap endless invective on their victims, but the facts to date are far more uncertain than they -- and their propagandists in the press -- would have one believe.

At the Nuremberg Trials (the full records of which are still not fully available to the public), the existence of gas-chambers was presumed almost off-handedly. For example, Justice Parker’s opinion indifferently adopted Commandant Hoess’s estimate that 2.5 million were “gassed” at Auschwitz and Eichman’s (hearsay) report that 6 million Jews perished “of which 4,000.00 were killed in extermination institutions.” As stated, neither the totals nor the gross breakdowns are accepted today. ( Fn-3 )

The latest judicial examination of the issue took place in 2000, in the suit for libel brought by historial David Irving against Deborah E. Lipstadt, who had accused Irving of being a “holocaust denier”. Although Justice Gray, ultimately gave judgement to Lipstadt, he acknowledged the validity of Irving’s contention that there was “little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans.” (Opinion, § 13.75) Gray’s opinion makes clear that both the numbers of deaths attributable to killing and the actual existence of gas chambers is fundamentally a question of interpretation and not fact. (Fn-4 Excerpts)

But if the question is one of interpretation, what is left to “deny”? Are people to be branded (and in the case of Germany) prosecuted because they disagree with the self-officialized interpretations of Abe Foxman and the Weisenthal Institute? And if so, how is this different from an Inquisition?

The whole question of Nazi occupation and racial policies, and their conduct of the war in the East, is an extremely complicated topic that is virtually inseverable from the entire question of Nazi ideology and rule. Further complication arises from whether we adopt a juridical or sociological mode of analysis. While the existence or non-existence of “gas chambers” is a significant detail it is by no means sufficient to answer all questions or paint the full picture.

Undoubtedly bishop Williamson was in over his head; but so too are bimbos in the press that blather inanely about the sheer perversity of “denying that six millions were gassed.” Hilberg has conceded that the “six” million figure is “symbolic.” Is gassing “symbolic” too? Were there just “some” prototype gassings or were they carried out on a mass scale? Was Auschwitz a labor camp (as the presence of industrial factories would suggest) or was it a “killing centre” -- how much of “factory of death” is symbolic too? How much historical symbolism and how many "dramatized accounts" are wrapped up in a metaphorical label?

To be fair to the bishop, none of this was anything he was out and about sermonizing. As a Tridentine Catholic, Williamson holds to some archly-conservative views on a variety of topics that run counter to any number of currently prevailing truths and orthodoxies and which will no doubt provoke modernists of all stripes. He can claim no immunity from fair debate on the merits, on account of his cloth. But that is not what this is about. What has been raised is not a debate but an accusation of neo-blasphemy for having dared to question an asserted truth about "the holocaust".

A look at the video interview shows that the remarks in question were something he had said years ago in Canada. These were dredged up from the past by the interviewer who was evidently sniffing about for copy. Williamson was clearly taken off guard and made the tactical mistake of answering off-the cuff from memory, which led him to make what seems to me to be the further mistake of quoting Leuchter’s estimates of deaths at Auschwitz for the total number of Jewish fatalities in the war. Nevertheless, his broader point was that “as far as” he had “understood the evidence” as weighed by experts there was “no direct evidence” of a “deliberate policy” to gas Jews. If they changed their conclusion, he would probably change his. Those remarks were not that far removed from Justice Gray's findings as to the paucity of direct evidence on the issue. [Bishop Interview ]

But in the end, what of it? In the end, the whole brouha boils down to no more than that a bishop had read and was convinced by historical interpretations advanced by people who seemed to him be experts in their field. Big deal.

Far more telling is the reaction of a holocaust establishment that seems intent on hunting down every “denier” as ruthlessly as Eichman “scoured” Europe for Jews. Is Williamson to be haled before some Weisenthal Tribunal and punished for reading the wrong book?

In the end, the Jewish/Zionist establishment doesn’t really care about Williamson. He is simply the bait in a larger game. According to Foxman, the the Pope’s action allows room in the Church for those “who would would foster disdain and contempt for... Judaism.” This is nonsense, but telling nonsense.

The Pope did not reinstate Williamson and the others because they had supposedly “denied the holocaust” -- he reinstated them as an matter of rapprochment within the Church among Catholics. This no one else's business. It is not for Abe Foxman to say who should or should not be incorporated into the Body of Christ.

Neither Williamson’s statement, much less the Pope’s action, in anyway foster “disdain of Judaism” -- even if he had known of remarks made by Williamson years ago. Foxman’s leap from “gas chambers” to “Judaism” is so utterly illogical that one is left wondering if he believes the two to be the same. He does. As Gilad Atzmon writes:

"Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the German born Hebrew University professor, was probably the first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new Jewish religion. 'The Holocaust' is far more than historical narrative, it indeed contains most of the essential religious elements: it has its priests (Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, etc.) and prophets (Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and those who warn about the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has its commandments and dogmas ('never again', 'six million', etc.). It has its rituals (memorial days, Pilgrimage to Auschwitz etc.). It establishes an esoteric symbolic order (kapo, gas chambers, chimneys, dust, Musselmann, etc.). It has its shrines and temples (Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum and now the UN). If this is not enough, the Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive economic network and global financial infrastructures (Holocaust industry a la Norman Finkelstein). Most interestingly, the Holocaust religion is coherent enough to define the new 'antichrists' (the Deniers) and it is powerful enough to persecute them (Holocaust denial laws)." [Article] [Fn 5 Holodays]

Rabbi Rosen’s demand that the Vatican issue “unqualified ...condemnation of all and any Holocaust denial.” is nothing other than a bald and bold attempt to dictate the Church’s doctrinal magisterium.

Precisely because it would be absurd for the Church to go about condemning historical accounts of this and that, any such action by the Pope would ipso facto elevate the issue to a doctrinal level. Given the fact that the Church does not even condemn denial of Christ’s Divinity and Resurrection, Rosen’s demand is nothing less than that the Church adopt a new and higher object of devotion and that it accept the Suffering Jew as the New Lamb of God.

©Barfo, 2009
.

A Good Caesar

The News: Moving swiftly to undo the most notorious tyrannies of the previous regime, President Obama issued executive orders scheduling the close of Guantánamo prison, prohibiting secret CIA renditions and forbidding harsh interrogation techniques. Obama also cancelled Bush/Cheney secrecy acts designed to keep their official papers under seal.

The Note: The president's action cannot but be welcome. However, the question remains, Why were our institutions so incapable of resisting the clear tyranny and shameful thugishness of the neocon administration? Why was Congress so cowardly and supine in face of acts which undermined our liberties and appalled the world? Why did the Supreme Court cowtow and grovel like some trembling satrap before supposed presidential "prerogatives"? Obama's orders today are like those of the "good Caesars" of yore who released the falsely imprisoned, remitted unjust penalties and burned the secret reports of informers. But none of these welcome rectifications restored the Republic. The rule of law is not restored by the acts of a man.

©Barfo, 2009

.

Anguish & Shame

The News: Another Israeli "precision bomb" supposedly "targetted" at combatants only, again managed to slaughter more civilians and more children, this time the daughters of Izz el-Deen Aboul Aish a gynecologist who had worked in one of Israel's main hospitals before he was imprisoned without leave in the Gaza Ghetto pursuant to the Israeli imposed "blockade". In an audio-cast that will not be shown on the AIPAC and Zionist controlled US media, Israeli television broadcast Aboul Aish's desperate cries for help and anguished utterances of grief,

"My girls were sitting at home planning their futures, talking, then suddenly they are being shelled," he said in a voice shaking with emotion. "I want to know why they were killed, who gave the order?"

The Note: The doctor's cries are almost unbearable to listen to. But equally of note is the look of unease, disquiet and shame that slowly overcomes the Israeli broadcaster. This is what it looks like when conscience makes contact with synderesis. It is more than we will see on U.S. television, whose anchor-people float adrift on a dead sea of moral indifference masquerading under the rubric of "news neutrality". They would do well to remember Dante's observation that between heaven and hell lies the land of the neutrals despised equally by those above and those below. And we would do well to remember that although these anguished cries are the direct result of Israeli barbarism, they are also the result of the psychotic cunning of the American Jewish establishment and the prostituted cowardice that pervades Congress. We would do well to remember, that all vintage is always trampled out eventually.

©Barfo, 2009

[Reuters report here]

Besmirching the Law

The News: As half the world has read and seen, a young black man was shot point blank in the back by a transit police officer in Oakland California. The transit officers -- dressed in the now usual flak gear -- had detained four youths for rowdy behaviour on a train. The four were kept seated against the wall on the ground while the officers "investigated." A cell-phone video taken by a passenger on the train showed Oscar Grant, hands up front, being told to lie face down on the ground. Grant complied whereupon Johannes Mehserle, 27, pulled out his gun and shot him in the back. The victim died shortly thereafter.

Mehserle immediately resigned from the force, thereby immunizing himself from having to answer questions during any internal investigation. As a (now) ordinary citizen, Mehserle can invoke his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. Meanwhile, the local District Attorney's Office announced that it was proceeding with a thorough investigation into the matter in order to decide whether or not to charge Mehserle.

Outraged Blacks took to protesting, during which three were arrested and charged forthwith with resisting police officers.

The Note: The incident illustrates, yet again, the lawlessness of the cops and the utter bankruptcy of the US criminal (in)justice system.

There can be little doubt that rancid racism pervades US police forces. Blacks are routinely harrassed and brutalized by cops beyond whatever may be necessary to enforce the law. But the underlying and more important point is that, in doing so, cops show themselves to be a law unto themselves. This in turn points to a still yet greater evil: the prostituted corruption of the justice system that is supposed to supervise the police.

By statute, police are given special license to carry arms and use such force as would otherwise be prohibited to the rest of us in most situations. But license is not the same as carte blanche. An officer's use of force must always conform to limits and standards set by the force and, ultimately, to the mandates of the law.

Police have always resisted any notion of supervision. They have resorted to the excuse that determining whether force was properly used in any situation requires a specialised expertise that "ordinary" people do not have. The analogy used is that it requires a military man to judge military tactics. There is some merit to the argument, but not nearly as much as cops would pretend. As much as they may want to para-militarize themselves, civilian law enforcement is not war and involves far simpler and ordinary considerations. Ultimately, the plaint that police conduct should be investigated internally is simply a demand to be the judge of one's own case -- a claim that has always repugnant to the univerally fundamental notions of justice.

But it is precisly that repugnancy that politicians and the judiciary have connived to perpetuate. Across the land, every attempt to set up citizen-oversight boards has been watered down to the point of meaninglessness. A host of privileges, exemptions and procedures exist to embarrass any serious investigation by third parties. Mehserle's self-immunization is an example.

Certainly every ordinary citizen should have the right to refuse to answer police questions. But Mehserle was not an "ordinary" citizen. He was a special licensee and agent of the state. He undertook a special oath to uphold the law and he was granted a variety of benefits in exchange for his commitment. The idea that a police officer could unilaterally abrogate all his duties and undertakings simply by walking away from them is offensive to fundamental notions of responsibility. Certainly Mehserle could shield himself from investigation for events that took place from and after his resignation; but it is sheer repugnancy to law to say that he can shield himself ex post facto for events occuring before his resignation. And yet a debased law allows precisely that.

The trump card in the argument for police self-patrolling is that local district attorneys will exercise ultimate oversight and will bring criminal charges when appropriate. But the present case illustrates what a farce that argument is.

The unfortunate fact is the most district attorneys, far from regarding themsleves as custodians of law think of themselves as no more than the legal arm of law enforcement. The cops handle the case up to the court house door, the prosecutor takes it on from there. But that is not correct. Obviously, police and prosecutors must collaborate; but they do not do so as equals or as team-mates. Over and over again the highest state and federal courts have said that a prosecutor's paramount duty is to the law and to see that justice is done. A prosecutor (as all attorneys) is an officer of the court not a law enforcement officer. Disgracefully, far from hewing to their fiduciary duties to the law, most prosecutors act no better than water boys for th team.

Again, the present case serves as an example. The local District Attorney had no problem arresting and charging three protesters who were said to have assaulted crowd control officers. And yet, that same office announced it would take two or more weeks to investigate the shooting incident. Baloney. With a video showing one man shooting a prostrate man in the back, there isn't a prosecutor in the land who would not be at clerk's desk at eight in the morning with a complaint charging first degree murder. .... provided, the suspect was not a cop.

The excuse dished up by the Oakland District Attorney -- that they needed to investigate whether the shooting might not have been a mistake -- is slop worse than SOS. "Mistake" is a defense; it is brought up by the accused. To be sure, prosecutors routinely take into consideration potential defenses that could be brought up during trial. But a case consisting of an unprovoked shooting of a prostrate man, is not one of them. With evidence like that, any prosecutor would be more than eager to file charges, delighted at the prospect of seeing a defendant trying to argue "ooops".

What "we have to investigate" really means in this case is "we have to two-step and shuffle" to see if we can't figure out a way to plausibly argue "insufficient evidence" to bring charges against Mehserle. That's all there is to "investigate" because the case-for-murder is otherwise patently visible. The notion, being leaked and floated, that Mehserle thought he had pulled out his taser is just as patently absurd. An experienced officer mistakes the feel of a gun for the feel of a taser? Oh puleeze.

But aside from the ludicrousness of the hypothesized defense, is the fact that the "prosecutors" are spinning their wheels trying to dream up utterly risible excuses. Step back. Mehserle has resigned from the force and refuses to talk . Faced with a situation where the prime suspect in a homiced refuses to talk and refuses to make known his excuse or explanation, so called "prosecutors" are sitting around trying to figure out what possible defenses the suspect could maybe come up with if and when he stops not talking.

It is beyond belief; and the only explanation for this prosecutorial conduct is that they are foot-dragging and trying to figure out how not to charge Mehserle with murder. Law and Justice are utterly besmirched.

©Barfo, 2009

.