I’m back from surgery
The cataract was removed successfully, the surgeon seemed satisfied, and now I’m taking it easy. My vision is still funky, but it’s very early yet and the next few days will tell the tale.
Many many thanks for all your good wishes.
A trip back in time: December 9, 2019, the Biden campaign
I think Joe Biden owes this guy an apology. So does Time magazine.
He’ll never get one from either of them.
This is the sort of thing I’m talking about (dateline 12/9/19):
Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a tense exchange with a man during a campaign stop in Iowa…[T]he man told the 77-year-old candidate he believed him to be too old to become President.
Fancy that. Fancy that. Why, the nerve of that man! But Joe told him:
“Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people know and I can get things done,” Biden responded.
And I suppose that’s true. Biden has gotten things done, and in record time. They’re just all the wrong things.
Then Biden challenged him to a physical contest, including pushups. But the exchange wasn’t over:
Biden’s comment was part of a larger exchange that also included the man claiming Biden “sent” his son to work in Ukraine, and accusing the former Vice President of “selling access to the President.”
Now, where did this man get that crazy idea? After all, Hunter’s laptop contents hadn’t yet been revealed, then covered up, and then discovered again. But Joe had a ready answer:
Biden responded by calling the man “a damn liar,” adding “no one has ever said that.”
No one. Ever.
More:
President Trump is currently facing a House impeachment inquiry over claims that he withheld aid to Ukraine while pressuring the country to investigate the Bidens.
Ah yes. Trump was impeached for that. Astounding to look back and reflect on it.
This is what the august Time had to say about the accusation:
Although Biden’s son Hunter Biden did hold a position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, claims about corruption have been debunked.
Utterly and totally debunked. Debunked debunked debunked….
The Gulf of Tonkin hoax: or was it?
I’ve noticed quite a few recent references to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that occurred during the Vietnam era. The Gulf of Tonkin is treated as though we all know the story: the government lied to get us into a war.
But did you ever wonder why you believe that was a hoax, besides the fact that it’s something “everybody knows” was a hoax? It’s based on the Pentagon Papers, right?
Did you ever read the Pentagon Papers? The actual Pentagon Papers? I discussed that topic long ago (in 2006), but I think it’s time for a repeat of some of it (unfortunately, the first link in the quote is dead):
A fascinating piece on the subject of war coverage by the MSM–both then and now–was written by James Q. Wilson and appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal. Take a look at this, on the Papers:
“Journalist Edward Jay Epstein has shown that in crucial respects, the Times coverage was at odds with what the documents actually said. The lead of the Times story was that in 1964 the Johnson administration reached a consensus to bomb North Vietnam at a time when the president was publicly saying that he would not bomb the north. In fact, the Pentagon papers actually said that, in 1964, the White House had rejected the idea of bombing the north. The Times went on to assert that American forces had deliberately provoked the alleged attacks on its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a congressional resolution supporting our war efforts. In fact, the Pentagon papers said the opposite: there was no evidence that we had provoked whatever attacks may have occurred.
“In short, a key newspaper said that politicians had manipulated us into a war by means of deception. This claim, wrong as it was, was part of a chain of reporting and editorializing that helped convince upper-middle-class Americans that the government could not be trusted.”
In writing this post, I went back and read a few of the comments to my earlier Vietnam essays. I happened across this one, that deals with the very subject at hand: media coverage of the Pentagon Papers:
“The NYT and WaPo reporters (Neil Sheehan, et al) who provided a highly abridged (paraphrased and quoted) version [of the Pentagon Papers] to the public of that era (’71) distorted the originals in sundry and fundamental ways in order to imply or more directly state that Pres. Johnson and others employed deceptions at critical junctures in the conflict when in fact (as stated in the original document as well as the scaled down version) they did not. A specific example (and a critical one in that era) taken from Michael Lind’s Vietnam: The Necessary War:
“The June 14, ’71 NYT edition of their edited version of the Pentagon Papers indicates Pres. Johnson had virtually concluded his decision to initiate a bombing campaign against the North by Nov. 3, 1964. (If true this would have made Johnson out to be deceitful toward the American public at an early and critical stage in the conflict.) However the Pentagon Papers itself states: “… the President was not ready to approve a program of air strikes against North Vietnam, at least until the available alternatives could be carefully and thoroughly re-examined.” That quote, reflecting November, 1964 circumstances, can be located via a search in this section of the Pentagon Papers.
“This single distortion may not appear to be dramatic in and of itself, but there were other overt and more subtle distortions in the NYT’s and WaPo’s paraphrased versions of this document. In sum they always and consistently distorted the picture in a manner which eroded Pres. Johnson’s (and others) reputation, broadly characterizing him as being willfully deceitful; that general mischaracterization is what proved to be critical at the time rather than any single aspect of the paraphrased report.”
Some of what we think we know, or are even sure we know, are things that are false – or at least have a good chance of being false. It’s pretty easy to ascertain what the Pentagon Papers actually said – just read them. Problem is, they’re long, and most people haven’t read them (and that includes me). Most people base their point of view on the summaries provided by the MSM.
Open thread 4/4/22
Sleeping Beauty over time
I often complain about how ballet has lost much of its charm and art, sacrificed to ever more spectacular technique and tense gymnastics. The greatest of the olden-day dancers didn’t raise their legs as high, and didn’t perform as many turns, but they were more enjoyable to watch because they transcended the doing of steps and they conveyed the fluidity of dance. The greatest of the newer dancers – most of whom I don’t consider great, but others do – show off their poses and extensions (that’s a term for how high the leg lifts) but tend to ruin the line in the process. Who wants to see a 180-degree split in a tutu? Not me.
I think this video shows some of what I’m talking about. You can see a general decline (in my opinion anyway) from the fluid charm of the elegant Fonteyn and the effervescent Sizova in the first two clips, to a more stop-and-go and slightly static sort of movement (is that an oxymoron?) later in time – although the very last dancer does somewhat better than the ones in-between; and Cynthia Gregory, a dancer from the 70s whom I usually like, is somewhat miscast in this role because of her natural restraint and regalness.
The ballet is “Sleeping Beauty” – not one of my very favorites, but it’s good for illustrating what I’m talking about. The occasion is supposed to be the 16th birthday celebration of Princess Aurora, and this is her first entrance. These dancers aren’t 16, of course, but their art is supposed to aid them in suggesting the innocent and radiant joy and energy of a 16-year-old.
Note particularly what Fonteyn does between minutes 1:42 and 2:17. The steps are simple, but it’s the use of the arms and upper body that is so magical (unfortunately the film quality is blurry). Sizova’s clip starts at 2:41, and you can see her amazingly light and airy jump. Her arms movements are more simple for that same portion I called attention to with Fonteyn, though; you can view Sizova’s version from 3:56 to 4:16:
What the Russians left behind
As I’ve said before, I haven’t posted much specific Russia/Ukraine war coverage – battles, atrocities, troop movements, weapons used – because of a combination of the fog of war and the purposeful fog of propaganda. But the topic keeps coming up, especially in the comments.
It’s with that background that I offer the following video. It’s from the BBC, and relies on British reporters in Ukraine. You and I may disagree with the politics of the BBC, but in this case the video seems quite bona fide as far as I can tell. It does appear to portray some of what the Russians have been doing in certain cities, because it was filmed shortly after the Ukrainian troops retook the town from Russian occupation.
It seems to me that either the Russian troops have been told to be brutal to civilians, or they’re doing it on their own due to poor discipline and generalized rage.
You may have a different opinion of what you see here, but that’s mine.
Arab states and Israel unite against the US
The policies of the Biden administration have done a lot for Israeli/Arab relations:
A summit was held in Israel over the weekend between Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Israel and the United States. The meeting was designed to back the U.S. into a corner. The United States wants to reach a new understanding with Iran, roughly built on the negotiation platform that was abandoned by President Donald Trump in 2018 as insufficient in dealing with the Iranian threat. Israel and the four Arab countries, plus some others, oppose the Biden initiative, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was there to persuade them. It did not seem to work. A paper in Dubai headlined that a new Israeli-Arab front had been created. The question has been frequently asked if unity among Arabs and Israel might be reached. The answer seems to be that it’s possible due to fear of Iran and hostility toward American plans for Iran.
That cooperation was something Trump was able to foster and to capitalize on. Biden and company seem to be furthering it despite themselves and against their own intentions.
[NOTE: The rest of the post at the link contains a really interesting and intelligent discussion of the possible outcomes of the Russia-Ukraine war. It’s fairly succinct and well worth reading.]
Eye surgery scheduled for Monday
Like many people “of a certain age,” I have cataracts that have gotten to the point where they impede my vision quite a bit. But unlike a lot of people, I don’t have a simple situation. Probably as a consequence of an iridotomy I had about fifteen years ago (and which I briefly mentioned in this post from 2017), I have significant adhesions in my left eye which make the cataract removal more challenging.
Right now I’m on the west coast, staying with relatives, because the eye surgeon I chose is here. I’m scheduled for the surgery in my left eye this coming Monday. It could go any number of ways, and it’s hard to predict the recovery time because it’s not the ordinary uncomplicated cataract surgery. If things go smoothly it could be quite a quick recovery, or it could take longer even if things do go smoothly otherwise.
So this post is just to let you all know what’s going on. If I have time before Monday, I may schedule a few posts for Monday and maybe Tuesday. Certainly the open posts, anyway. I’ll be planning to give you an update as soon as I can.
Open thread 4/2/22
My grandfather holds me up, aged 3.
Covering the Hunter Biden laptop story
The Hunter Biden laptop is the same, back in October of 2020 and now. All that has changed is the angle the media wants to take on it, and that depends utterly on politics. There is no truth; there is only politics.
When Biden was running for president, it was of the utmost importance to smother the story. That was done, and if necessary the media was more than willing to lie about things such as the provenance of the laptop. Former “intelligence” officers were enlisted to opine on the in-authenticity of a laptop they’d never examined or even seen. It was absolutely necessary to do this, and the MSM was willing to prostitute itself and violate whatever journalistic standards it still retained (very few) in order to cover for Joe Biden. Social media giants were all too happy to cooperate in this endeavor, as well.
And despite Biden’s terrible record as president, I doubt that many or perhaps even any of these people have had a moment’s regret or a pang of guilt about what they did. Anything to stop Trump. Anything to stop the right.
So now that they’re covering the story, I immediately thought it was because Hunter was about to be in big legal trouble and the MSM wanted to “get ahead of the story.” In the first post I wrote about that, I said this:
As for the question “why now?”, I think the answer might be found in that phrase “ongoing criminal investigation into Joe Biden’s son.” That investigation certainly doesn’t seem to have been fast-tracked, does it? But my guess is that the Times is now trying to get ahead of the story.
Others think it’s because the left is getting ready to dump and replace Biden. I don’t think so. I think they’d like to, but I don’t think they can because they’ve got an itty bitty problem: finding a replacement who would be even marginally acceptable, and what to do with Kamala Harris. I recently wrote about that dilemma in this post. I don’t think that has changed.
Now that the MSM is deigning to cover the Hunter laptop story, it’s significant that it’s only partially covering it. For example:
Of course, [those in the MSM] all avoid the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from evidence contained on the laptop that the president’s drug-addled son Hunter abandoned at a MacBook repair shop in Delaware in April 2019: that Joe Biden, when he was vice president, was aware of, and intimately involved in, a corrupt, multimillion-dollar, international influence-peddling scheme run by Hunter, and Joe’s brother Jim Biden, in the countries for which Joe was point man in the Obama administration, such as Russia, Ukraine and China…
But despite acknowledging that the material on the laptop showed that Hunter was “trading on his father’s name to make a lot of money,” as CNN White House correspondent John Harwood put it, both the Washington Post and CNN were at pains to absolve Joe Biden of any involvement in the scheme.
“There is zero evidence that Vice President Biden, or President Biden, has done anything wrong in connection with what Hunter Biden has done,” Harwood said…
…[T]he Washington Post curiously left out crucial facts in two detailed stories about the laptop on Tuesday that totaled a hefty near 7,000 words.
The rest of the article goes into quite a bit of detail about the important things that the MSM is still leaving out of its coverage.
See how it goes? Hunter, who is probably going to be indicted, is the guilty one – poor, troubled, drug-sodden Hunter. But Joe? Clean as a whistle.
If and when they start writing stories about Joe’s involvement in the corruption, then it will be time to conclude that the left has all its ducks in a row and that they’re ready to replace Joe himself.
Putin’s rattling those nuclear weapons
We’ve heard it from Vladimir Putin himself. We’ve heard it from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. But just in case we somehow missed the message, a political scientist and longtime supporter of Putin by the name of Sergey Mikheev went on Russian state television this week to make their point absolutely crystal clear. If the United States, NATO, or any other western nation sends any sort of military peacekeeping force into Ukraine, Russia will start unloading their nuclear arsenal on everyone. This time the warning wasn’t even subtle, though. Mikheev actually sounded excited or perhaps even exuberant over the idea. He also had a list of targets at hand. Near the top of the list was Warsaw, with Berlin and the capitals of some other EU members not far behind.
Don’t you dare interrupt us in Ukraine or you’ll be destroyed, too.
Russia has been threatening Sweden with nuclear weapons as well. Yeah, Sweden. And not just verbal threats, either:
Two Russian planes that violated Swedish airspace earlier this month were equipped with nuclear weapons, it has emerged.
The flyover near the island of Gotland on March 2 was a deliberate act designed to intimidate Sweden, according to Swedish news channel TV4 Nyheterna.
A total of four planes had taken off from the Russian air base of Kaliningrad.
They consisted of two Sukhoi 24 attack planes, which were escorted by two Sukhoi 27 fighter jets.
It was the two attack planes which were, according to TV4 Nyheter sources, equipped with nuclear weapons…
‘We assess it as a conscious action. Which is very serious especially as [Russia] is a warring country,’ added Air Force Chief Carl-Johan Edström.
Fortunately, so far the Russians seem to be doing relatively poorly in its conventional warfare against Ukraine even without intervention by NATO troops although – as said many times – it’s hard to get a real bead on it or to predict the ultimate result. There’s this sort of thing, though:
In a clip shared on Twitter and in pro-Ukraine Telegram channels, a group of ten student soldiers in oversized helmets wielding AK-47s from the 1940s complain they’ve been ‘thrown into the s**t’.
One complains: ‘Know the truth! The Russian Ministry of Defence has no idea about us, or what we’re doing here.”
I can well believe it. I have no trouble believing this, either:
One Pentagon document described soldiers simply parking their vehicles and walking away from the war into woods.
As corrupt and bizarre as our own government has become, I think the Russians are more so – just in a different way.