Archive for the 'Mendacious Punditry' Category

Sep 15 2007

September 11: Relevant Questions

Published by cyrano2 under Mendacious Punditry

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

bushflagss

“It isn’t bin Laden and his dyed beard that should be flashing on our screens on this tragic day, but the disgraced faces of those who exploited the tragedy of a stricken nation to inflict tragedies on others.”

By Ramzy Baroud

9/15/07

Osama bin Laden has once again managed to occupy the stage and to insist on his relevance to the story of September 11, 2001. In his most recent video message, released by Reuters a few days before the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, bin Laden voiced some typically absurd statements, calling on Americans to embrace Islam and so forth.

What is really worth noting in bin Laden’s message, however, is not the message itself, but the underlying factors that can be deduced from it. First, bin Laden wished to convey that he is alive and well and thus the US military efforts have failed miserably.

Second, his reappearance - a first since October 2004 - will be analyzed endlessly by hundreds of “experts” who will inundate widespread audiences with every possible interpretation - the fact that he looked healthy, that he dyed his beard, that he dressed in Arab attire as opposed to a military fatigue and a Kalashnikov by his side, that he read from a paper and so on.

Continue Reading »

No responses yet

Sep 06 2007

Pompous whimsy

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

041108_rauch(05)

“Instead of identifying the themes in ‘Interventions’ and giving a thorough appraisal, National Journal writer Jonathan Rauch just gives a disinterested, curt and pompous dismissal of an outsider, whose opinions are clearly samplings of dementia to a Brookings scholar - an insider.”

By Jonathan Lenglain

9/6/07

Love him or hate him, the reaction good ol’ Noam provokes among elite writers is always instructive. In hurling invectives at him writers from major newspapers never fail to simultaneously mock the common man and his grievances against power and/or disillusionment with the media as well. Perfect examples of irate elitism.

This is still true even though Chomsky has become almost palatable to the major press since Bush began his outrages on democracy. His last two books were reviewed by the New York Times in respectful if unfavorable terms, which is fine and at least professional.

Yet his work is still liable to be harshly ridiculed and dismissed, in such a way that Chomsky readers can’t help but see as an elite repudiation of their own concerns and importance. It’s a big insult when popular ideas are rejected outright without a care in the world, and the Washington Post’s treatment of Chomsky’s latest: “Interventions” is another such exercise in elitist hate.

Continue Reading »

5 responses so far

Aug 19 2007

The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

judith_miller

“Think of the role Judith Miller played in the New York Times in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, her work became a scandal, but only after it played a powerful role in promoting an invasion based on lies.”

The following is a transcript of a talk given by John Pilger at Socialism 2007 Conference in Chicago this past June:

The title of this talk is Freedom Next Time, which is the title of my book, and the book is meant as an antidote to the propaganda that is so often disguised as journalism. So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media. That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalist talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called “professional journalism” was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment-objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, “entirely bogus”.

For what the public did not know was that in order to be professional, journalists had to ensure that news and opinion were dominated by official sources, and that has not changed. Go through the New York Times on any day, and check the sources of the main political stories-domestic and foreign-you’ll find they’re dominated by government and other established interests. That is the essence of professional journalism. I am not suggesting that independent journalism was or is excluded, but it is more likely to be an honorable exception. Think of the role Judith Miller played in the New York Times in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, her work became a scandal, but only after it played a powerful role in promoting an invasion based on lies. Yet, Miller’s parroting of official sources and vested interests was not all that different from the work of many famous Times reporters, such as the celebrated W.H. Lawrence, who helped cover up the true effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945. “No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin,” was the headline on his report, and it was false.

Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising.

Continue Reading

One response so far

Jul 31 2007

Deranged, Delusional, NOT

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

bush_via_the_daily_mirror

By Steve Jonas

7/31/07

Peggy Noonan was perhaps the paramount hagiographer of Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most influential creator of the Reagan Myth. Peggy Noonan is currently a Contributing Editor for The Wall Street Journal. In a column entitled “American Grit” posted on the OpinionJournal.com on Friday, July 13, 2007 (that tells you something), Noonan had this to say, in part, about George Bush: “I found myself Thursday watching President Bush’s news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth. . . . I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who’d previously supported him. She said she’d had it . . . . Americans have always been somewhat romantic about the meaning of our country . . . . But they like the president to be the cool-eyed realist, the tough customer who understands harsh realities. With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He’s the one who goes off on the toots.”

He’s the one who goes off on the toots?!? This is Peggy Noonan speaking, folks. He must be deranged or delusional, according to her. That’s the only possible explanation of what Noonan describes as his “seemingly effortless high spirits. . . . [His] certain steely good cheer. . . .” Isn’t it? But hold on. We’ve got the alternative view of The New York Times columnist David Brooks, who seems to be vying for the position of paramount hagiographer of George W. Bush. In his column of July 17, 2007, “Heroes and History,” he tells us that in an interview at the White House “Bush was assertive and good-humored. . . . His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency. . . . [Far from being delusional, he has an] unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: ‘I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.’ [And so], Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency.”

Continue Reading »

34 responses so far

Jun 20 2007

The Record of the Newspaper of Record

by Stephen Lendman

6/20/07

Dictionaries define “yellow journalism” variously as irresponsible and sensationalist reporting that distorts, exaggerates or misstates the truth. It’s misinformation or agitprop disinformation masquerading as fact to boost circulation and readership or serve a larger purpose like lying for state and corporate interests. The dominant US media excel in it, producing a daily diet of fiction portrayed as real news and information in their role as our national thought-control police gatekeepers. In the lead among the print and electronic corporate-controlled media is the New York Times publishing “All the News That’s Fit to Print” by its standards. Others wanting real journalism won’t find it on their pages allowing only the fake kind. It’s because this paper’s primary mission is to be the lead instrument of state propaganda making it the closest thing we have in the country to an official ministry of information and propaganda.

Single-handedly, the Times destroys “The Myth of the Liberal Media” that’s also the title of Edward Herman’s 1999 book on “the illiberal media,” the market system, and what passes for democracy in America Michael Parenti calls “Democracy For the Few,” in his book with that title out earlier this year in its 8th edition.

In his book, Herman writes about the “propaganda model” he and Noam Chomsky introduced and developed 11 years earlier in their landmark book titled “Manufacturing Consent.” They explained how the dominant media use this technique to program the public mind to go along with whatever agenda best serves wealth and power interests. So imperial wars of aggression are portrayed as liberating ones, humanitarian intervention, and spreading democracy to nations without any. Never mind they’re really for new markets, resources like oil, and cheap exploitable labor paid for with public tax dollars diverted from essential social needs.

Continue Reading »

2 responses so far

Jun 19 2007

Alex Cockburn–Climate Denier

“[Cockburn] reassures us, once again, that humans have nothing to do with climate change. We might as well fill up our gas tanks, and rev up our motors, he advises us in another column, October 15th, 2005, titled: The Virtues of Gas Guzzling: Why I Don’t Believe in Peak Oil.”

By Alex Smith

6/19/07

When some right wing pseudo fascist nut is convicted, or discovered in the bedroom of a little boy, something inside me accepts. I want to cheer, but I don’t, because it shows we are all kind of crazy, in some way. But at least all their hurtful rants become sidelined, in the great debates of the day. Thank God, if there is one, we don’t have to listen to Jerry Falwell anymore.

When an icon of the Left falls - someone who has warned and enlightened us, it is much harder. That’s what makes it so painful to announce the virtual death of one Alexander Cockburn - or at least the passing of his credibility.

This transplanted Irish/Scottish writer has blasted malfeasance, and authoritarian violence, from the pages of CounterPunch, the Nation, and many mainstream publications. He has been chums with Noam Chomsky, and pals with many of the gonzo journalists who keep us all honest.But now Cockburn has joined the Exxon-funded cranks, who deny that humans are heating up the planet with their pollution.

Continue Reading »

8 responses so far

Jun 09 2007

Wall Street Journal’s Looking Glass World

Photo: Mary O’Grady Wins Bastiat Prize for Journalism

By Stephen Lendman

6/9/07

She’s at it again on the Journal’s editorial page in her June 4 article called “The Young and the Restless,” subtitled “Is this the beginning of the end for Hugo Chavez?” The writer is self-styled Latin American expert Mary Anastasia O’Grady always getting top grades in vilification and disinformation but failing ones on regional knowledge and legitimate journalism.

This time she may have overstepped. Her article reeks with disinformation, outright lies, and most disturbing of all - incendiary commentary straddling the tipping edge of inciting insurrection. She can get away with it because she represents elitist interests and the Journal’s editorial view supporting the Bush administration’s fixation on ousting Hugo Chavez by any means, including through violence. It doesn’t matter that Chavez was just reelected again in December by a near two to one margin or that he’s admired and loved by the great majority of Venezuelans. They’re unperturbed and/or supportive of his shuttering RCTV’s VHF Channel 2 overshadowing that issue being used as a pretext for suspicious violent street protests, mainly in Caracas. More on that below.

It’s clear O’Grady will fit right in if the Journal’s controlling Bancroft family succumbs to greed selling out to Rupert Murdock’s wooing. That prospect’s got Journal employees apoplectic. They’re scrambling through their union seeking an alternate buyer willing to grant what Murdock never will - journalistic independence and what’s left of the paper’s tattered integrity. Those ideas are anathema to how he views journalism, and he’s not shy saying it.

Australian-raised author Bruce Page wrote about him in his new book, “The Murdock Archipelago,” calling him “one of the world’s leading villains (and) global pirates.” Murdock is clear, according to Page. He wants his journalistic empire to be a privatized “state propaganda service, manipulated without scruple and with no regard for truth (in return for) vast government favors such as tax breaks, regulatory relief, and monopoly” market control free as possible from competitors having too much of what Murdock wants for himself. The problem is he usually gets his way. Unless Journal employees stop him, the WSJ’s independence and status as a legitimate publication are over. Under Murdock control, no distinction will be made between real news, editorial opinion and agitprop, and no views will be tolerated, henceforth, contrary to Mr. Murdock’s. That’s how he operates throughout his media empire - take it or leave and find another line of work.

The way O’Grady writes, she’s not on board with other staffers against the Bancroft family sellout. Murdock will love her views, may give her more latitude and maybe more space as well. Let’s hope she’s disappointed, that Journal employees retain their independence, and Journal readers keep what they now have free from the venomous claws of the villainous king of media moguls.

Continue Reading »

2 responses so far

Jun 04 2007

Annals of Mendacious Punditry: When the Shill Enables the Kill

by Jason Miller

Jonah Goldberg is the living, breathing embodiment of virtually all that is pernicious in the malignant socioeconomic and political structures collectively known as the American Empire. Yet tragically, this scheming sycophant to the cynical, privileged criminals of the US plutocracy reaches countless millions through myriad corporate media conduits as he weaves his sophistic arguments supporting nearly every morally repulsive aspect of United States foreign policy.

Rising to his position amongst the US mainstream punditry elite through vigorous and shameless self-promotion based on his mother’s involvement in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, young Jonah quickly learned our culture’s ferocious appetite for the sordid, the lurid, and all that validates our collective pathological narcissism euphemistically called the American Dream. To this day, he skillfully crafts malevolent agitprop to convince and reassure us here in the United States that it is our unconditional right to murder, exploit, invade, and oppress as we preserve and advance the “American Way.”

To get a sense of the extent of his reach and his penchant for promoting himself, take a gander at the bio sketch he penned for himself. (This appears at National Review Online):

“Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online for which he writes his thrice-weekly column “The Goldberg File” and a contributing editor to National Review. Goldberg also writes a nationally syndicated column distributed by Tribune Media Services, which appears often such newspapers as the Kansas City Star, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington Times, the Orlando Sentinel, San Francisco Chronicle, the Manchester Union Leader, and others. He also writes a regular media criticism column for The American Enterprise magazine. Mr. Goldberg was a contributing editor and columnist for the now-defunct Brill’s Content.

Mr. Goldberg is also a CNN contributor and regular panelist on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. He is an occasional guest-host on Crossfire and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.

Since Mr. Goldberg became editor of National Review Online, it rapidly become one of the dominant players in web journalism, earning high praise from The Columbia Journalism Review, Vanity Fair, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor. The New York Press concluded that National Review Online is “by far the best political online operation going today.”

Jonah Goldberg is a former television producer who has credits in a wide range of productions. He was the senior producer of Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, the award-winning public-affairs program and he has written and produced two PBS documentaries. Prior to his work in television Mr. Goldberg was a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. An award-winning journalist, his writing has appeared in The New Yorker, Worth, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The Public Interest, The Wilson Quarterly, The Weekly Standard, the New York Post, Reason, The Women’s Quarterly, The New Criterion, Food and Wine, The Street.com, and Slate.”

It is a tragic indictment of our so-called “Fourth Estate” that an enabler of egregious war crimes enjoys such a massive megaphone through which to shout his virulent lies.

Consider this assessment of Goldberg by Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, a preeminent expert on the Middle East:

“Extremist rightwing hawks like Jonah Goldberg used their privileged position as pundits to terrify the US public that Iraq was a threat to the US. He repeatedly said in the buildup to the war that Iraq was a menace to the US, and he repeatedly brought up North Korea’s nuclear weapons as a reason for a preemptive attack on Iraq.

Iraq never has had nuclear weapons. Iraq never has been as close as two decades from having nuclear weapons. Iraq dismantled all vestiges of its rudimentary and exploratory nuclear weapons research in 1991. Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program in 1992, 1993 and all the way until 2002, when Jonah Goldberg assured us Americans that we absolutely had to invade Iraq to stop it from imminently becoming a nuclear power just like North Korea….

Jonah Goldberg is a fearmonger, a warmonger, and a demagogue. And besides, he was just plain wrong about one of the more important foreign policy issues to face the United States in the past half-century. It is shameful that he dares show his face in public, much less continuing to pontificate about his profound knowledge of just what Iraq is like and what needs to be done about Iraq and the significance of events in Iraq.”(1)

*Now that we have some background on Jonah, let’s subject some of his writings to critical scrutiny:

On 12/15/06, Goldberg opined in “Iraq Needs a Pinochet”:

“I think all intelligent, patriotic and informed people can agree: It would be great if the U.S. could find an Iraqi Augusto Pinochet. In fact, an Iraqi Pinochet would be even better than an Iraqi Castro…

Now consider Chile. Gen. Pinochet seized a country coming apart at the seams. He too clamped down on civil liberties and the press. He too dispatched souls. Chile’s official commission investigating his dictatorship found that Pinochet had 3,197 bodies in his column; 87 percent of them died in the two-week mini-civil war that attended his coup. Many more were tortured or forced to flee the country.

But on the plus side, Pinochet’s abuses helped create a civil society. Once the initial bloodshed subsided, Chile was no prison. Pinochet built up democratic institutions and infrastructure. And by implementing free-market reforms, he lifted the Chilean people out of poverty. In 1988, he held a referendum and stepped down when the people voted him out. Yes, he feathered his nest from the treasury and took measures to protect himself from his enemies. His list of sins — both venal and moral — is long. But today Chile is a thriving, healthy democracy. Its economy is the envy of Latin America, and its literacy and infant mortality rates are impressive.”

Here Mr. Goldberg crests the summit of the Everest of American hubris. Pinochet was the United States’ instrument to advance the “noble” agenda of free market ideology. Under the guidance of Henry Kissinger (an unindicted war criminal), the CIA and ITT (a major US corporation with significant business interests in Chile) carefully orchestrated the coup (including the assasination of the popularly elected leftist, Salvador Allende) which brought Augusto Pinochet to power.

Interesting that Jonah boasts that Pinochet “built up democratic institutions” when Augusto himself once quipped, “Democracy is the breeding ground of communism.”

Since communism is anathema to Goldberg and his ilk, Jonah would need to exhaust himself with mental gymnastics to overcome the gross inconsistency between Pinochet’s alleged accomplishments on behalf of democracy and Augusto’s belief that democracy bred communism.

Even if our master prevaricator managed to overcome such a hurdle, how could he hope to resolve the glaring contradictions created by attributing the proliferation of “democracy” to an autocrat installed by the CIA through assassinating a leader elected by the people of a sovereign nation?

To justify and rationalize the perpetual imperialism necessary to satisfy capitalism’s insatiable demand for new markets, cheaper labor, and inexpensive raw materials, the United States needs adept professional liars like Jonah. His apologia for Pinochet, a tyrant who had been charged with over 300 crimes (including egregious human rights abuses and massive embezzlement) before he died in 2006, demonstrates Goldberg’s unswerving allegiance to the cause of the moneyed elite.

Penned in October of 2001, Mr. Goldberg’s “Time to Return to Colonialism?” offers a particularly revealing look at the nature of his character and his agenda:

“SUDDENLY, serious people are rethinking an old idea that’s time has come again: colonialism.

For years, colonialism has been discredited. It was considered racist on the left to point out that many people lived better and more productive lives under, say, British rule than they have without it (Belgian rule is another story)….

…. But Americans may be willing to listen to a serious argument for American Empire. And now we have it. Max Boot, the features editor of The Wall Street Journal, has written a cogent and measured essay in the Oct. 15 issue of The Weekly Standard explaining that our problems abroad don’t stem from too much American “imperialism,” but too little.

Boot runs through the litany of American foreign policy failures in the last decade and, uniformly, he finds our mistakes stemmed not from an arrogance of power, but from a reluctance to use it.”

Who are these “serious people” who are “rethinking an old idea that’s time has come again?” They are obviously seriously deranged reactionaries if they truly desire a return to colonialism. Jonah’s attempt to repackage and revitalize Kipling’s “White Man’s burden” is the height of arrogance and reeks of racism and totalitarianism.

Sorry Jonah, but the incredibly sorry state of affairs in much of post-colonial Africa, the murder of 600,000 Filipinos, the slaughter of 3 million Vietnamese, and the annihilation of 600,000 plus Iraqis are but a handful of many poignant examples which demonstrate the abject immorality of colonialism and reveal the fact that ultimately, human beings are willing to kill and die before sacrificing their sovereignty to a brutal oppressor.

Jonah, most of us are now living in the Twenty First Century. Join us.

Goldberg delivered a gem in December of 2006 when he sang the praises of a malefactor of monumental proportions in “Jerry Ford’s Magic”:

“And now we have dear, sweet Jerry Ford. Everybody, it seems, loves Ford. Ted Kennedy even gave him a Profile in Courage Award a few years ago. But there’s an interesting difference. Ford was Tito Puente-ized early. His decision to pardon Richard Nixon — the courageous act for which he later got his Profile award — elicited enormous criticism and, some argue, cost him the election in 1976. But he quickly rebounded and was never hated the way Reagan, Goldwater or Nixon were…

….But Ford’s legacy is more important than the maneuvering of ideological partisans. Politics is about moments. The American people in 1974 yearned for a respite from the ideological clamor of the previous decade. Ford, by the sheer force of his own character, turned the Oval Office into the calm eye of a storm the American people had grown all too weary of.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said Ford was the most decent man in politics he’d ever met. Ford’s ‘luminous affability,’ in the words of the National Review, ‘enabled him to unite the country instantly, magically, in a way that would have been impossible for the (men) who had been lining up for the job. … This accidental President was exactly — for the moment — the right man.’

Considering the ideological clamor of the current moment, it’s tempting to ask who the right man, or woman, today might be.”

“Dear, sweet Jerry Ford” pardoned a man who ordered secret, illegal bombing campaigns in Cambodia that liquidated 600,000 human beings. How about we give him a posthumous “Profile in Cowardly Participation in Mass Murder Award”?

Let’s not forget that Ford and Kissinger also green-lighted and supported Suharto’s invasion of East Timor, which resulted in the slaughter of 200,000 innocent people.

Jonah reveals his true agenda behind his sickening hosannas for Ford, an abject war criminal, when he asserts that “it’s tempting to ask who the right man, or woman might be” to give us a “respite” from the “ideological clamor of the current moment.” Who indeed, Mr. Goldberg, will rise up to provide cover for the current crop of malefactors in DC and prevent a mass revolt against your precious establishment, which has been rotten to its very core for years?

Jonah scribbled, “What Protestors Don’t Get: Globalization=More Democracy,” in February, 2002:

“For example, if multinational corporations threaten democracy, how come the number of democracies grew simultaneously with the rise of the multinational corporation? It’s hard to pinpoint an exact date for when the “multinational corporation” or “globalization” began, but over the last 30 years we’ve been told that democracy is increasingly threatened by these diabolical forces. The funny thing is, the number of democracies has been rising, with occasional fluctuations, pretty much nonstop.”

Obviously Mr. Goldberg has a unique vision of what democracy entails. Where are these democracies about which he raves? Would Chile under the Pinochet regime have qualified as one? We don’t even have a democracy in the United States. In fact, there is very little left of the constitutional republic which existed before the evisceration of our Constitution.

Corporations, spawned by a rapacious economic system driven by selfishness and greed, are structured as tyrannies. Given the fact that oligarchic corporations wield such immense power in the United States, and throughout the world, it is lunacy to assert that “the number of democracies has been rising” in conjunction with the proliferation of corporate influence. Unfortunately for Jonah, a whole comprised of totalitarian parts cannot be a democracy. Unless of course one subscribes to Goldberg’s nonsense and defines a plutocratic imperial power and its neo-colonies as democracies.

In August of 2001, Jonah graced us with “Americans Wouldn’t Tolerate Terrorism at Home”:

“In fact, it’s worse than that because Israel never intends to kill innocents. When terrorists kill Israeli civilians, Israelis attack terrorist strongholds, military targets and bomb-making infrastructures.

Sometimes, they’ve even used rubber bullets. But even when the “payback” is unambiguously severe, it is always delivered to grown-up, declared combatants. Hence, when Palestinian innocents die it is virtually always an unfortunate byproduct of Israeli action. When Palestinians kill, innocents are the target.”

The more one reads his work, the more apparent it becomes that Goldberg’s objective is to vindicate as many ruthless oppressors as his seemingly infinite capacity to lie will allow.

According to information updated on May 31, 2007 at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/, since September of 2000 Israel has killed 934 Palestinian children while Palestinians have killed 118 Israeli children. A total of 4,098 Palestinians and 1,021 Israelis have died in the conflict over the last seven years. Over 31,000 Palestinians have suffered injuries; only 7,600 Israelis have been wounded. The United States subsidizes Israel to the tune of over $7 million per day while giving the Palestinians nothing. Israel has been targeted by 65 UN resolutions (each of which, being the rogue state that it is, it has ignored). The Palestinians have not been censured by the UN once. Israel is holding over 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners and the Palestinians hold one Israeli captive. While Israel has demolished over 4,000 Palestinian homes, the Palestinians have razed zero Israeli houses.

“…Israel never intends to kill innocents.” Do you think the family members of those innocents that Israel has killed at a 4:1 ratio give a dam about the intent of the IDF, Jonah?

Israelis pack a wallop with those “rubber bullets,” don’t they, Mr. Goldberg?

What Goldberg fails to reveal in his commentary is that the “Israeli action” which causes innocent Palestinians to die as an “unfortunate byproduct” represents the implementation of the ultimate Zionist objective, which is to eradicate Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank through oppression, economic strangulation, and, when they can get away with it, direct military action.

As for the wounded and dead Israeli civilians, they are the tragic victims of retail terror carried out in response to the wholesale terror waged by their government and that of the United States.

“Wanted: An Iranian Saddam” from January of 2006 offers quite an impressive display of mental contortions and truth distortions, even for one as ethically limber as Jonah Goldberg:

“Conventional wisdom holds that there are really only two options for dealing with Iran: military strikes (by us or Israel) or the usual bundle of conferences, ineffective sanctions and windy UN speeches that lead to nothing….

But there is a third option that, alas, has become less and less likely in recent years: regime change from within. Pro-democracy — or at least anti-mullah — sentiment has been building in Iran for over a decade. In recent years there have been huge protests against the regime. Soccer stadiums full of Iranians have chanted “USA! USA!” In 2004, polls of various sorts indicated that anti-regime attitudes were held by up to nine out of 10 Iranians.

Iranians are a proud, nationalistic people and would probably rally around their government — or any government — were it threatened from without. That’s one reason Ahmadinejad has been rattling his sabers so much lately: It’s an attempt to bolster his unpopular regime.

A coup by sophisticated and serious members of the military would be great news. Even better would be a popular uprising. And best of all would be a combination of the two.

An Iran with an old-style military dictatorship charged with defending democratic institutions would be an enormous, epochal victory for the West and for the Middle East. That would go a long way toward guaranteeing success in Iraq and would neutralize the threat of the Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even if they decided to pursue a bomb. After all, the argument about nuclear weapons is no different than the argument about guns. The threat is from the people who have them, not from the weapons themselves. Lots of countries have nukes; we only need to worry about the ones run by whack jobs.”

Writing from an ahistorical perspective so typical of the corporate media in the US, as Jonah laments that the “third option” of “regime change” is becoming “less likely,” he neglects to remind readers that the United States has been there and done that in Iran. In 1953 the CIA installed the Shah to replace Iran’s prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. (Mossadegh, elected by the people to serve in parliament and by parliament to become prime minister, had exhibited the audacity to nationalize the oil industry to prevent US ally, Great Britain, from reaping nearly all the profits from Iran’s petroleum.)

By 1976, the Shah’s rule had evolved into such a brutal tyranny that Amnesty International declared that Iran had, “the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.”

It was the blatant US violation of Iranian sovereignty that catalyzed the 1979 revolution, hostage crisis, and subsequent formation of an Islamic government, a government which remains understandably hostile to Western intervention in its affairs. “Regime change” worked so well the first time. Why not try again, eh Jonah?

“An Iran with an old-style military dictatorship charged with defending democratic institutions would be an enormous, epochal victory for the West and for the Middle East.” Wow! Jonah veered way outside the parameters of rational thought with that bizarre conclusion. “Old style military dictatorships” and “democratic institutions” are components of antithetical political structures. His column on Pinochet and this piece seem to indicate that Mr. Goldberg suffers from the delusion that the two can somehow coexist. Or perhaps he simply regards the intellect of his readers with such contempt that he thinks they will swallow his nonsense.

As for his assertion that, “lots of countries have nukes; we only need to worry about the ones run by whack jobs,” George Bush has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet at his disposal. If Jonah’s statement is true, we have tremendous cause for concern.

As nauseatingly opportunistic as his mother, Lucianne Goldberg, a woman who spied on George McGovern for Nixon in the 1972 presidential campaign and advised Linda Tripp to tape her conversations with Monica Lewinsky, Jonah has few peers in the punditocracy who can match his mendaciousness or the degree to which he has prostituted himself.

May his readers, listeners and viewers recognize that he is nothing more than a shill for exploitative imperialists who impose their will on the world through acts of economic extortion and wholesale terror.

Further, let us hope that one day he reaps the bitter harvest of the noxious seeds he so eagerly sows.

Notes:

* As Jonah has so proudly informed us, his agitprop appears in numerous media outlets, but the source for each of the excerpts in this analysis was the online version of the Jewish World Review.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonah_Goldberg

Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor (https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s at https://bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/. You can reach him at

8 responses so far

May 21 2007

ANNALS OF MENDACIOUS PUNDITRY: PIN-STRIPED PERFIDY

By Jason Miller

5/21/07

Larry Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, an economic and investment research firm. Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” which airs weeknights at 5 p.m. He is the host of “The Larry Kudlow Show” on WABC Radio on Saturdays 10:00am. Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and also hosts his own blog. He is a contributing editor of National Review magazine, as well as a columnist and economics editor for National Review Online. He is the author of “American Abundance: The New Economic and Moral Prosperity,” published by Forbes in January 1998. Kudlow is consistently ranked one of the nation’s premier and most accurate economic forecasters according to The Wall Street Journal’s semiannual forecasting survey.

For many years Kudlow served as chief economist for a number of Wall Street firms. Kudlow was a member of the Bush-Cheney Transition Advisory Committee. During President Reagan’s first term, Kudlow was the associate director for economics and planning, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, where he was engaged in the development of the administration’s economic and budget policy. He is a trusted advisor to many of our nation’s top decision-makers in Washington and has testified as an expert witness on economic matters before several congressional committees.

Kudlow began his career as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, working in the areas of domestic open market operations and bank supervision. Kudlow was educated at the University of Rochester and Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He and his wife Judy live in New York City and Redding, Connecticut. (from the CNBC website)

Karl Marx once asserted, “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”

Even a relatively cursory study of Western socioeconomic history and current events provides abundant evidence to substantiate Marx’s observation. Forged in a crucible of formidable indoctrination underscored by materialistic bribes enabled by usurious lending, seductive propaganda in the form of media and advertising, and illusory “get rich” opportunities, American Capitalism maintains an iron grip on the psyches of hundreds of millions of people—not only at home but around the globe.

Blindly worshipping profits, money, and material “success”, we US Americans have plunged the United States into a moral abyss from which it is unlikely we will re-emerge. If we don’t implode due to our own decadence, the rest of the world will see to the demise of our bloody, exploitative, and barbaric empire.

Wrestle free for at least a moment, if you can, from the catechism of free markets, deregulation, free trade, and the like. Now consider just a few characteristics of American Capitalism which guarantee that we, as its practitioners, will continue sinking deeper and deeper into the fetid cesspool of depravity and isolation that rules our everyday lives, even if we (at least many of us) remain largely oblivious to its daily exactions. Our system, which we have been inculcated to view through Panglossian lenses, rewards greed, selfishness, self-absorption, and hyper-individualism (four of the most repulsive aspects of human nature); necessitates that profits trump humanity, and demands perpetually futile efforts to fulfill an insatiable appetite for growth and expansion. If we in the United States had the courage to gaze upon our collective reflection in the mirror, we would shudder at the sight of a visage more grotesque than that of Dorian Gray.

Few in today’s corporate-dominated mass media in the United States better embody our “ruling intellectual force” than Lawrence Kudlow. As his CNBC bio sketch indicates, he is no mere sycophant to the criminal class of plutocrats who rule our nation. His resume’ includes a Princeton education, an influential position within the Reagan administration, a stint as a high-powered player on Wall Street, and (currently) a position as the principal of an investment research firm. No mere journalist is he. Lawrence is both a member of the ruling class and its staunch advocate in the “liberal media.”

Calling him a swine would insult our porcine brethren, so let’s not label him. Instead, let’s define him by his numerous betrayals of the human race. As we shall learn, these betrayals gush from his pen (and mouth) to form a relentlessly potent stream of perverse justifications for institutionalized theft, rape and murder.

Let’s consider and dissect some examples of Mr. Kudlow’s punditry:

Kudlow’s “Design for Doom” appeared in the Washington Times on 5/13/07:

“And while Republicans talk about significantly increasing the defense budget and expanding American force levels for all the armed services, the Democrats hope for some sort of Iraqi peace dividend upon immediate withdrawal — one that can be rechanneled into higher domestic social spending….. To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also wants to raise taxes on the rich and roll back President Bush’s tax cuts. The Republicans, however, understand those tax cuts have propelled economic growth and contributed to a stock market boom. They recognize Mr. Bush’s Goldilocks bull-market economy — which I call the greatest story never told — relies on extending the investor tax cuts and perhaps even moving forward with a flat tax or national sales tax…. Finally, to a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also has it in for corporate America. The Democrats discuss various punishments for business — especially oil companies, but also drug, utility and insurance firms. Not so for the Republicans, who talk about helping businesses and promoting entrepreneurship in our successful free-enterprise economy.”

Slow down there, Larry! You are emptying your arsenal of American Capitalist memes in just a few paragraphs.

Kudlow knows that if he and his fellow aristocrats are to maintain the shekels to afford $3,000 suits, cars costing six figures, Rolexes, trophy wives and mistresses, global jet-setting, and homes with the square footage of the Taj Mahal, us “commoners” have to believe in the illusion of democracy, and hence that there is a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. Yet given the fact that both parties are beholden to obscenely wealthy corporations and individuals, and that many of our “elected” officials are well-heeled insiders like Mr. Kudlow, even Mr. Roarke and Tattoo couldn’t make this fantasy real.

And by all means, let’s increase a “defense” budget that already exceeds more than the rest of the world combined (to “defend” 5% of the world’s population). Assuming the Democrats did throw a few additional crumbs to the homeless, poor and working class via the “higher domestic social spending” Larry decries, public spending for infrastructure, education, housing, transportation, and health care would remain grossly inadequate for a nation with the wealth and power of the United States.

Presenting a particularly glaring pair of contradictions, Kudlow laments that the Democrats have “it in for corporate America.” Would Larry have us believe that the Democrats are truly dense enough to bite the hand that feeds them?

Further miring himself in inconsistencies, he raves about the success of our “free-enterprise economy.” With sharply decreased regulation and the increasingly incestuous relationship between the US government and “corporate America,” leviathan companies like Microsoft, Halliburton, and Wal-Mart are attaining frightening power and dominating the so-called “free market.” Free enterprise has indeed been wildly successful for a relative handful of major investors, like Kudlow.

In May of 2006, Larry penned “Would Adam Smith Approve?” This excerpt comes from Human Events.com, which claims to have been “leading the conservative movement since 1944”:

“A couple hundred years ago, in his “Theory of the Moral Sentiments,” Adam Smith contended that capitalism requires a moral and ethical center if it is to function effectively and to the benefit of all.

About 30 years ago, supply-side economic philosopher Irving Kristol similarly emphasized the importance of capitalism’s moral compass. His wife, the brilliant historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, wrote regularly about the importance of morality in society, culture and the economy, a topic she covered in her standout book, “The De-Moralization of Society.” She sets off the Victorians in English history as an example of a moral society……

Capitalism in this country has been under assault ever since FDR’s New Deal 1930s, a time when a number of alphabet agencies attempted to control America’s industrial and farming sectors. The experiment soon proved a dismal failure, with unemployment running 20 percent to 25 percent up until World War II. It was only when Roosevelt started unleashing businesses to produce wartime goods that the economy ultimately resurrected.

Still, the American welfare state would grow. In the 1960s and 1970s, the murderer’s row of economic morons — LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter — in allegiance with their liberal Keynesian advisors, concocted a socialist policy mix that ultimately led to wealth-destroying big-government stagflation.

Providentially, Ronald Reagan changed all that in the 1980s. The Gipper slashed tax rates, deregulated industries and rescued the dollar, unleashing the forces of entrepreneurial capitalism….

As deregulated stock markets democratized the American financial system, a great new investor class grew up. Roughly 20 million investors evolved into over 100 million share-buyers, and they got rich in the process….

This investor class has also become the nation’s most powerful voting block. In recent elections, nearly two out of every three voters has been a stockowner. And yes, they are voting for capitalism — meaning lower tax rates, limited government and greater opportunities for entrepreneurship.

George W. Bush, a lineal descendant of Reagan, calls this the “ownership class.” And though I can’t prove it, I’m willing to bet that this group’s demand for lower tax rates and entrepreneurial activity goes hand-in-hand with the cultural characteristics of hard work, thrift, personal responsibility and law-abiding behavior….

Looking down from his perch in heaven, Adam Smith would be very proud.”

Once again, Kudlow has showered us with a salvo of deceptions and distortions. He wastes no time with subtlety either as he relentlessly advances the agenda of the ruling elite.

It is obviously a testament to his superior intellect that Kudlow can discern that Adam Smith would feel such pride “from his perch in heaven.” Yet in spite of Larry’s certainty, one can’t help but consider the more likely possibility that a moral philosopher like Smith would recoil in horror at the gross injustices and atrocities resulting from the economic system so often attributed to him.

In a flagrant display of intellectual dishonesty, Kudlow reassures us of the “moral compass” guiding capitalism by referencing Irving Kristol, the godfather of the Neoconservative movement. Sinking further into a quagmire of deceit, he portrays Victorian England as “an example of a moral society.” Lawrence has a point. Those of us with a social conscience marvel at the morality exhibited by the industrial capitalists of the Victorian Era. Child labor, fourteen hour work days, pittance wages, dangerous working conditions, squalid living conditions, and workhouses exemplified a moral society driven by an undying compassion for humanity.

What Larry means when he says that “capitalism in this country has been under assault ever since FDR’s New Deal 1930’s” is that he and his excessively wealthy associates strenuously object to progressive taxes, public spending on domestic social programs, and laws that protect workers and consumers. Kudlow longs for a return to the “good old days” of the Gilded Age, Robber Barons, monopolies, and unbridled freedom for him and his ilk to inflict misery upon the rest of us.

Lawrence’s professed reverence for “the Gipper” (who was largely successful in his efforts to crush what remained of the power of organized labor, emasculate government regulatory agencies, and shift the tax burden back to the poor and working class) coupled with his odd reference to George W. Bush as a “lineal descendent of Reagan” offer us more clear indications that he is a relentless champion for the cause of the ruling elite.

(“Lineal descendent?” Sounds almost as if he would welcome the restoration of a monarchy).

Kudlow’s highly disingenuous arguments concerning the “ownership class” or “investor class” in the US are riddled with fallacious conclusions.

Playing fast and loose with the truth, Larry boldly proclaims that “this investor class has also become the nation’s most powerful voting block….And yes, they are voting for capitalism — meaning lower tax rates, limited government and greater opportunities for entrepreneurship….. I’m willing to bet that this group’s demand for lower tax rates and entrepreneurial activity goes hand-in-hand with the cultural characteristics of hard work, thrift, personal responsibility and law-abiding behavior.”

Since we haven’t had a legitimate presidential election since 1996, and both the Democrats and Republicans represent corporate and patrician interests, the composition of the largest voting block is nearly irrelevant. This “minor detail” aside, wouldn’t it be instructive if we knew by what means Lawrence determines that people voting for a particular candidate were “voting for capitalism?” It is also interesting to note his less than subtle implication that those who don’t “vote for capitalism” are lazy, wasteful, irresponsible, and criminal.

Kudlow’s ebullient claim that, “Roughly 20 million investors evolved into over 100 million share-buyers, and they got rich in the process…” is extremely dubious.

For a more realistic perspective on the “ownership class” in the United States, consider this segment from a report from Professor G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz:

“In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.”

Remember that Lawrence Kudlow represents the 10% who own the United States. Those of us comprising the remaining 90% are “just renting” and need to recognize his agitprop for the intellectual flatulence that it is.

For those still doubting pernicious nature of Kudlow and his efforts, here are a few more examples:

“The Greatest Story Never Told” appeared in Human Events in 4/06:

“Today’s economy may be the greatest story never told. It’s an American boom, spurred by lower tax rates, huge profits, big productivity, plentiful jobs and an ongoing free-market capitalist resiliency. It’s also a global boom, marked by a spread of free-market capitalism like we’ve never seen before….

Indeed, bashing big oil won’t create a drop of new energy. Nor will confiscating Lee Raymond’s bank account.

Energy is best left in the hands of the free market. With this in mind, Congress should allow environmentally friendly drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, more LNG terminals and the creation of nuclear power facilities.”

Perhaps today’s economy is the “greatest story never told” because the fairy tale Kudlow depicts never happened.

To his credit, in this piece Larry openly proclaims his support for rapacious industries (i.e. Big Oil), outrageously excessive CEO compensation, and the rape of the environment for profits.

Kudlow wrote “Bull-Market Cheers for Bush” on 2/3/07:

“… George W. Bush became only the second sitting American president to visit the floor of the New York Stock Exchange…

Huge cheers. Loud applause.

This is the same guy the mainstream media loves to kick around — the same guy who suffers sinking polls while standing resolute on the subject of Iraqi freedom, and who gets virtually no credit for the Goldilocks economy and unprecedented four-year stock market boom. He’s also the same guy who continues to prove he has more character than most anyone serving in public office today.”

Kudlow’s capacity to pervert the truth (or perhaps his tenuous grasp on reality) is breath-taking. While many serving in public office in the United States are ethically challenged (which lowers the bar considerably), Larry has still averred that George W. Bush, one of history’s most heinous war criminals, has character.

Notice too how he cleverly intimates that he is not a part of the “mainstream media”, which he and his fellow reactionaries often label as “liberal” to maintain the illusion that the Fourth Estate is still performing its function as watchdog rather than serving as the propaganda network for the ruling elite.

In response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 7/06, Kudlow opined in “Israel’s Moment, the Free World’s Gain”:

“Israel is doing the Lord’s work. They are defending their own homeland and very existence, but they are also defending America’s homeland as our frontline democratic ally in the Middle East….

Repeatedly hostile actions by the totalitarians in Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and North Korea are all connected….

When the dust clears the world will applaud Israel for its courage. Sensible freedom-loving people everywhere will realize that Israel’s furious response in the face of senseless terrorist attacks will have made the world a better place.

In fact, we are all Israelis now.”

What are we to make of this bizarre set of statements?

Are we reading the ravings of a lunatic, the pronouncements of a pathological liar, or perhaps the calculated manipulations of a master propagandist?

Killing over a thousand Lebanese civilians (compared to the 43 Israelis Hezbollah killed), displacing over 200,000 people, and devastating Lebanese infrastructure is “doing the Lord’s work?”

What is Kudlow’s alleged connection linking the actions of the disparate entities he characterizes as “the totalitarians in Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and North Korea?”

Mr. Kudlow, thank you for pointing out that millions of “sensible freedom-loving people everywhere” are lining up to support oppressive, militaristic aggressors like Israel and the United States. Most of us are unable to recognize their presence.

“We are all Israelis now?” Wow! Perhaps Lawrence is a bit daft after all.

After examining Lawrence Kudlow’s mendacious punditry, it is reasonable to conclude that his myriad media conduits have enabled him to infect the minds of untold millions with “the ruling ideas” of “the ruling class.” Accordingly, if by some miracle the ruling elite of the United States face consequences for their egregious military and economic crimes against humanity, those meting out punishments need to remember to give Mr. Kudlow a generous helping.

Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor (https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s at https://bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/. He welcomes constructive correspondence at

9 responses so far

May 19 2007

A Whoring She Will Go

Published by cyrano2 under Mendacious Punditry


Peggy Noonan (born Margaret Ellen Noonan on September 7, 1950 in Brooklyn, New York) is an author of seven books on politics, religion and culture and a weekly columnist for the Wall Street Journal. She is a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University in Rutherford, New Jersey, and was a Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

“So begins the Wiki entry for Noonan in one of the Web’s most supposedly impartial information platforms. In fact, who would suspect, from that innocuous sentence, that Noonan is almost exactly the opposite of that description? Because if there is one thing for sure about Noonan it is this: Noonan is not a true populist, nor, for that matter, a friend of the working class. But, then again, populist posturing has been the staple of rightwing and fascistoid sellouts since Mussolini and Hitler opened the franchise in the 1920s.” [from the introduction to this piece as it appears on Cyrano’s Journal Online (https://bestcyrano.org/)]

Essay by Jason Miller

5/2/07

“Let them call me rebel, and welcome; I feel no concern from it. For I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.”

–Thomas Paine

Peggy Noonan obviously doesn’t fear suffering “the misery of devils.” She has whored her soul to the bourgeoisie in a bargain of Faustian proportions. One need only chip away slightly at her façade of compassion and moral rectitude to reveal a very contemptible human being.

With ease, delight, and ample reward, Ms. Noonan joins a bevy of cynical pundits in sustaining the false consciousness of the masses, which in turn paves the way for the egregious crimes of the United States’ avaricious and malevolent plutocracy. If this sounds hyperbolic to you, you don’t know much about the true history of the United States, particularly its foreign policy.

Disseminating her mendacious apologias for American Capitalism and its myriad manifestations of criminality from her comfortable perch as a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy pollutes the minds of millions of readers each week. Bear in mind that the Wall Street Journal’s editorial section is the standard-bearer for our ruthless de facto aristocracy, having endorsed economic imperialism through the implementation of neoliberal policies, torture of prisoners in the “War on Terror”, raping the poor with “supply-side economics”, and an end to the “witch hunt” against “Scooter” Libby.

Her ties to her bourgeois masters run deep. She was married to the chief economist for the US Chamber of Commerce, Richard Rahn. She served Ronald Reagan (champion of the wealthy elite, enemy of the poor and working class, and slaughterer of tens of thousands of Latin Americans) with a gushing pride which permeates her writing to this day. Peggy Noonan literally put the words in the mouth of this heinous criminal as she authored a number of his speeches. Despite her recent criticism of Bush, prior to 2005 Noonan used the power of her pen to buttress his regime and took an unpaid leave of absence from the WSJ to campaign for Bush’s “re-election” in 2004.

In the September 2004 issue of Crisis Magazine, Bently Elliot, “Noonan’s former boss at the White House and now vice-president of communications at the New York Stock Exchange,” said this of Noonan:

“She graduated cum laude with a degree in English literature and newly acquired conservative convictions—convictions that took shape when, as Elliot puts it, her patriotism was ‘offended by the ugly, anti-American nature of the self-described ‘peace’ movement in the 1970s.’ (Elliot’s words in italics)

Evidently Ms. Noonan believes that the imperialistic invasion of a tiny nation and the resultant deaths of 58,000 US Americans and 3 million Vietnamese were both beautiful and American. Shame on those hideous, treasonous peaceniks who opposed our carnage in Vietnam!

In a blatantly revealing display of her pathological worldview, Peggy trumpeted her pride at having raised her son to consort with mass murderers. (In yet another excerpt from the Crisis Magazine profile of Ms. Noonan):

Her son, Will, loves politics and has grown into the sort of young man Noonan can bring to a dinner party at Vice-President Dick Cheney’s home “and have a good conversation with the vice president of the United States about the war,” Noonan says. “How lucky is that kid to be exposed to that sort of thing—and how lucky am I as a parent to take my son to such a thing.”

Like the malignant socioeconomic system she so tenaciously defends, Ms. Noonan’s clever spin is riddled with irreconcilable contradictions and souless priorities, which require layer upon layer of sophistry, speciousness, and prevarications to maintain an illusion of rationality and decency.

Let’s examine some of the “best propaganda bourgeoisie money can buy” as we peruse some choice analyses Peggy has composed for the Wall Street Journal in the name of God, country, and free markets:

From her September 22, 2000 “Dumb-Good vs. Evil-Smart” we have this astute observation:

“Mr. Bush, as we all know, has a tendency to mispronounce words, like a bright and nervous boy trying to show the admissions director that he’s well-read. His syntax is highly individualistic. He’s bouncy and affectionate and funny in a joshy way as opposed to a witty way.

But he is, almost transparently, a good man. He cares about children; he wants government to be honest; he wants to protect his country from bad guys; he wants to stand up for those who protect us. He is a good governor, he has a natural sympathy for those–the hardware store owner and the woman who starts her own housecleaning company–who are taxed and regulated to death in America. He thinks this abusive. He wants to liberate them. If he becomes president–when, I believe, he becomes president–he will drive conservatives to distraction with his tendency to think with his heart, and not his brain.”

In her 10/23/2000 WSJ opinion piece, subtitled “George Bush is Reaganesque. Now America Knows it”, she wrote of George Bush:

“George W. Bush not only won the debate Wednesday night, but in a way that damaged a central assumption of the Gore campaign. That assumption is that Mr. Bush doesn’t know very much. But Mr. Bush demonstrated that he knows a lot, and that his common-sense views and observations can be spoken in a common-sense language accessible to all. He sat back in his chair, spoke of America’s role in the world, and made it clear that that role should be grounded in moral modesty and strategic realism. He suggested that the various forces at work in the world should be met not with American hubris but with moderation, and with attention to the kind of example we can, as a great power, set. He seemed thoughtful, knowledgeable, and he buried the memory of the less-seasoned Gov. Bush who one day in Boston flailed when pressed by an interviewer who insisted he name the ruler of Pakistan.”

The following week Peggy scribbled a column entitled, “The Loyal Opposition” and further glorified the future Nuremberg-class war criminal:

“….He is a good man. He’d be a better man if his life had been harder. But you can’t have everything…..I was thinking the other night: Mr. Bush seems the least radical politician in America. He lives in the middle of the land of the possible. He is by nature moderate, by habit and thinking a moderate man…..”

Evidently prognostication and character assessments are not Ms. Noonan’s strengths. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to conclude that George Bush was the best man to serve as the “democratically elected” front man for the criminal enterprise we call a government, and that Ms. Noonan is a highly paid shill for our deeply entrenched oligarchy.

In February 2007, the WSJ published her, “Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan”, subtitled “He was a man of determination and good cheer—one of America’s greats”:

“Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” was CBS’s White House correspondent during the Reagan administration, and I asked her what she remembered most. She said, “We reporters would stake out ‘the driveway’ to see who was going in to see the president. In the first few years there was a stream of people who came to argue against his budget-cutting proposals. They would march up that driveway in a huff, smoke coming out of their nostrils as they rehearsed their angry arguments about why he was destroying the lives of poor people, or schoolkids.

‘I remember specifically a group of mayors from big cities, livid about cuts to their welfare programs, school-lunch programs, etc. They were there to give the president a scolding; they were going to tell him. And in they’d march. Two hours later, out they came. We were all ready with the cameras and the mikes to get their version of the telling off. But they were all little lambs, subdued. . . . He had charmed them. . . . The mayors told us Reagan agreed with them. That they had persuaded him. . . .

Thirty minutes later Larry Speakes was in the press room telling us the numbers would not in fact change. The mayors had ‘misunderstood’ the president. Still, I’ll bet anything if you talked to those mayors today, they would tell you Reagan was a great guy.’”

Peggy is right. America needs more “greats” who can subdue people like “little lambs” when they dare to demand we use public money to provide assistance to the poor or to hungry children. One with the guile to defuse the anger of those fighting for social justice with lies and false promises most certainly qualifies as a “great guy”.

When Gerald Ford died, Ms. Peggy opined in her 12/29/06 WSJ piece, Ford Without Tears,”

“The first is that when he pardoned Richard Nixon, he threw himself on a grenade to protect the country from shame, from going too far. It was an act of deep political courage, and it was shocking. Almost everyone in the country hated it, including me. But Ford was right. Richard Nixon had been ruined, forced to resign, run out of town on a rail. There was nothing to be gained–nothing–by his being broken on the dock. What was then the new left would never forgive Ford. They should thank him on their knees that he deprived history of proof that what they called their idealism was not untinged by sadism.”

Thank you, Peggy, for having the courage to be the voice of reason. Ford’s pardon of Nixon was a noble act indeed. Imagine if he hadn’t cut a deal with Alexander Haig to become president in exchange for the pardon. We might actually have seen a US President tried, convicted and imprisoned, for crimes both foreign and domestic. (Let’s not forget Nixon’s secret, illegal bombings in Cambodia that annihilated 600,000 human beings). Compliments of Gerald Ford, the US ruling elite can continue running rough shod over the Constitution and committing mass murder with impunity.

Peggy offered us this gem on the notoriously reactionary Rick Santorum in November, 2006. She called it, “We Need His Kind”:

“Mr. Santorum has been at odds with the modernist impulse, or liberalism, or whatever it now and fairly should be called. Most of his own impulses–protect the unprotected, help the helpless, respect the common man–have not been conservative in the way conservative is roughly understood, or portrayed, in the national imagination. If this were the JFK era, his politics would not be called “right wing” but “progressive.” He is, at heart, a Catholic social reformer. Bobby Kennedy would have loved him.”

She actually characterized Rick Santorum as a progressive. Displaying such utter disregard for truth in a widely read column took some real chutzpah! My hat is off to her on that one.

Just a few days ago, our gal Peggy lamented that We’re Scaring our Children to Death:

“This week saw a small and telling controversy involving a mural on the walls of Roosevelt High School in Los Angeles. The mural is big–400 feet long, 18 feet high at its peak–and eye-catching, as would be anything that ‘presents a colorful depiction of the rape, slaughter and enslavement of North America’s indigenous people by genocidal Europeans.’ Those are the words of the Los Angeles Times’s Bob Sipchen, who noted ‘the churning stream of skulls in the wake of Columbus’s Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.’

What is telling is not that some are asking if the mural portrays the Conquistadors as bloodthirsty monsters, or if it is sufficiently respectful to the indigenous Indians of Mexico. What is telling is that those questions completely miss the point and ignore the obvious. Here is the obvious:

The mural is on the wall of a public school. It is on a public street. Children walk by.

We are scaring our children to death. Have you noticed this? And we’re doing it more and more.”

How could that school have been so reckless? What could possibly have compelled those hopelessly irresponsible school administrators to reveal the truth about the genocide waged by Western Europeans against the indigenous people of Turtle Island? How dare they expose our children to such heresy! Leave Hollywood and video game manufacturers to saturate our youth with heaping portions of gratuitous fantasy violence to distract them from the horrific decimation we US Americans have been inflicting on the rest of the world for many years.

In June 2002, Ms. Noonan wrote “Capitalism Betrayed” for the Journal:

“I have been reading Michael Novak, the philosopher and social thinker and, to my mind, great man. Twenty years ago this summer he published what may be his masterpiece, “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.” It was a stunning book marked by great clarity of expression and originality of thought. He spoke movingly of the meaning and morality of capitalism. He asked why capitalism is good, and answered that there is one great reason: Of all the systems devised by man it is the one most likely to lift the poor out of poverty.

Mr. Novak answered by quoting the philosopher Jacques Maritain, who once observed that affluence in fact inspires us to look beyond the material for meaning in our lives. “It’s exactly because people have bread that they realize you can’t live by bread alone. ‘In a paradoxical way, said Mr. Novak, the more materially comfortable a society becomes, the more spiritual it is likely to become, “its hungers more markedly transcendent.’”

If capitalism is the system “most likely to lift the poor out of poverty”, it is strikingly counterintuitive that millions plunged into inhuman working conditions, wage slavery, child labor, and economic misery when the United States practiced a much “purer” form of capitalism around the turn of the Twentieth Century. Interestingly, now that US capitalism has been “tainted” through evolution into a “mixed economy”, working conditions and wages have improved significantly. Yet our unimaginably wealthy nation still has over a million homeless, a high infant mortality rate, nearly 50 million people without viable means to attain health care, and about 13% of our population living in poverty. Apparently these wretched souls must wait for the materially comfortable members of our society to evolve spiritually and begin ministering to the poor.

On Thursday, August 25, 2005, Peggy cautioned us to “Think Dark”:

“The Pentagon says this huge and historic base-closing plan will save $50 billion over the next two decades. They may be right. But it’s a bad plan anyway, a bad idea, and exactly the wrong thing to do in terms of future and highly possible needs.

The Pentagon has some obvious logic on its side–we have a lot of bases, and they cost a lot of money–and numbers on paper. They have put forward their numbers on savings, redundancies, location and obsolescence.

But they’re wrong. What they ought to do, and what the commission reviewing the Pentagon’s plan ought to do, is sit down and think dark.

In the rough future our country faces, bad things will happen. We all know this. It’s hard to imagine some of those things on a beautiful day with the sun shining and the markets full, but let’s imagine anyway.

Among the things we may face over the next decade, as we all know, is another terrorist attack on American soil. But let’s imagine the next one has many targets, is brilliantly planned and coordinated. Imagine that there are already 100 serious terror cells in the U.S., two per state. The members of each cell have been coming over, many but not all crossing our borders, for five years. They’re working jobs, living lives, quietly planning.

Imagine they’re planning that on the same day in the not-so-distant future, they will set off nuclear suitcase bombs in six American cities, including Washington, which will take the heaviest hit. Hundreds of thousands may die; millions will be endangered. Lines will go down, and to make it worse the terrorists will at the same time execute the cyberattack of all cyberattacks, causing massive communications failure and confusion. There will be no electricity; switching and generating stations will also have been targeted. There will be no word from Washington; the extent of the national damage will be as unknown as the extent of local damage is clear. Daily living will become very difficult, and for months–food shortages, fuel shortages.

Let’s make it worse. On top of all that, on the day of the suitcase nukings, a half dozen designated cells will rise up and assassinate national, state and local leaders. There will be chaos, disorder, widespread want; law-enforcement personnel, or what remains of them, will be overwhelmed and outmatched…

…And all this of course is just one scenario. The madman who runs North Korea could launch a missile attack on the United States tomorrow, etc. There are limitless possibilities for terrible trouble.”

In this example, Peggy’s Janusian stance and shameless fear-mongering on behalf of the military-industrial complex are beyond the pale. Typically, Ms. Noonan extols the virtues of small government through fiscal conservatism, cuts to federal programs to uplift the poor, and progressive tax decreases. Yet when her cronies in the defense industry face the potential of diminished profits, Ms. Noonan rolls out her propagandistic Howitzer and blasts her readers in the face with a heavy dose of dread.

Painful as it is, let’s have one final look at an excerpt from Noonan’s loathsome agitprop. From March 30, 2001, we have “The Haves vs. the Will-Haves”:

“Class warfare, says Mr. Barone, is at odds with Americans’ hopeful nature. ‘We don’t identify ourselves as permanently downtrodden; it is not the American experience that you’re kept down and can’t move up.’ In America you can not only move up, but do so quickly. The divorced single mother of this year gets a job or remarries and suddenly she and her children are not the bottom line on anybody’s statistical readout anymore.

It is the fantastic fluidity and hopefulness of Americans, their enduring sense that in only one generation they can go from nothing to everything and nowhere to anywhere, that contributes to some surprising statistics on the death tax. Only 2% of Americans pay the levy, but in the polls 70% are consistently against it. Maybe this is because, as Steve Forbes used to say, they think it unfair that anyone should have to deal with the undertaker and the taxman in the same week. But it’s also probably a good bet that this majority opposes the death tax because they believe that some day they’ll have money, or their kids will, and they won’t want to pay it.

We all think we can make it. We all think we can work hard and succeed, or win the lottery, or our cousin’s new restaurant will be a big success and he’ll hire us as greeter or maitre d’. We all dream. The inheritance tax seems antidreamer because it seems anti-American dream. A lot of Americans think that when you bash the rich you’re bashing their future ZIP code.”

Whoa there, Peggy! Someone needs to rein you in before you become hopelessly lost in the nether regions.

In actuality, Ms. Noonan is far too educated to actually believe the tripe she has written here. The meritocracy myth is a cornerstone of the opulent class’s relentless yet nearly invisible grip on wealth and power in the United States. Once can cite numerous examples of individuals who “pulled themselves up by their boot-straps” and “made something of themselves” in this land of “unlimited opportunity”.

Yet we live in a nation of 300 million people and statistics expose these “Horatio Alger’s” for the anomalies that they are. The top 1% of the US population boasts ownership of 40% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 80% “hoards” about 9% of our riches. A child born into the bottom 20% of the US income stratification has a 1% chance of joining those in the top 5%. Those born into the middle class have a “greatly enhanced” 1.8% chance of enjoying such upward mobility. For every Larry Ellison or Bill Gates there are tens of millions of “won’t-haves”.

Incidentally, the reason many poor and working class US Americans oppose the “death tax” is precisely because media whores like Ms. Noonan have convinced them that the ESTATE TAX is “anti-American dream” and have bamboozled them into believing that there is more than an infinitesimal chance they will acquire enough financial wealth to face such a tax. The purpose of the estate tax is to limit the perpetuation of the very entrenched aristocracy Ms. Noonan would have us believe does not exist in the United States.

While Ms. Noonan is merely one soldier in an army of mendacious propagandists waging war on behalf of the moneyed elite in the United States, her incestuous ties with government, her veil of respectability, and her platform from which she penetrates the consciousness of millions who are intellectually unprepared to fend off her toxic perversions of the truth combine to make her quite formidable.

So the next time you are reading one of her columns or books, or listening to her speak, remember that Peggy Noonan is probably weaving a clever, subtle, and sophistic argument to advance the agenda of thieves and murderers. But it’s too late to worry about her soul. She made a whore of that long ago.

Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor ( https://bestcyrano.org/). He welcomes constructive correspondence at or via his blog, Thomas Paine’s Corner, at .

No responses yet

Next »