Paranoia – The Destroyer, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #347 | @MDWorld
October 28, 2013 Mike Gold 8 Comments
European leaders are still falling over each other in feigned outrage over the latest revelations that the United States of America was – can you believe it – actually spying on them!
And that big yellow ball of heat up there in the sky? It’s called “the sun.” You learn something new every day.
Do I think America should be spying on its allies? Well… there was a time when Britain was sending boatloads of soldiers out here to grab their land back. They burned down the town in which I now live (Norwalkers moved to Ohio in the belief that the Red Coats wouldn’t follow). More recently, Germany had that World War I / World War II thing going on. Japan screwed up Hawaiian tourism for half-a-decade. These days, or at least before Edward Snowden confirmed the truth behind our long-held suspicions, those guys were our friends.
But eternity is a long time, and sides shift. The Soviet Union and the United States were on the same side during both World Wars. After that, not so much. Today… well, that’s where Snowden lives, isn’t it?
I’m not crazy about all this, but international espionage is a force akin to gravity, fueled by paranoia. If we weren’t paranoid, we wouldn’t be spending two-thirds of a trillion dollars each year on “defense.” And that doesn’t count the actual black-budget spying activity that is kept off the books in the name of… security.
At the end of the day, I’m not concerned about the fact that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was “severely shaken” by the revelations or that the European Union is going to pass a “Data Protection Reform Act” that would have the same affect on the American National Security Council as a fart in a blizzard. If they haven’t had their spy operations looking at the United States, and if they weren’t receiving the benefit of American spy operations from time to time, then a severe disservice has been done to the European people.
As the song says, “it starts when you’re always afraid” and we’ve been on a fear-footing ever since Hitler took his dirt nap. We invent reasons to be afraid of the rest of the world as though there aren’t enough real reasons. Then again, we’ve got a two-thirds of a trillion dollar defense budget that needs justification. That’s a whole lot of jobs.
Not that it ruined Barack Obama’s otherwise awesome week. Executive branch incompetence has been off the charts for 13 years now, and no one would be surprised if it continues until the Chicago Cubs win the World Series.
But, please, spare me the self-righteous indignation. Like the rest of Snowden’s revelations, there’s nothing new here. There’s only public confirmation of what we all believe in our heart-of-hearts has been going on since the days of James Fenimore Cooper.
You know. Back when Great Britain was our enemy.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com and on iNetRadio, www.iNetRadio.com as part of “Hit Oldies” every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check www.getthepointradio.com above for times and on-demand streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
George Haberberger
October 28, 2013 - 8:36 am
“For What It’s Worth” by Buffalo Springfield has got to be one of the most prescient songs ever recorded, I especially like: ” What a field day for the heat. A thousand people in the street. Singing songs and carrying signs. Mostly say ‘Hooray for our side.’ ”
Hooray for our side. Does anything better describe the level of today’s political discourse?
Mike Gold
October 28, 2013 - 8:43 am
Yep. That was my favorite line in the song at the time, that is my favorite line today, and it’s been my favorite line in-between. I still remember Tommy Smothers’ holding a sign saying “Hooray” when they appeared on the Comedy Hour.
But… did you get where my headline came from?
Rick Oliver
October 28, 2013 - 11:05 am
Not one of the Kinks better songs, IMO.
Doug Abramson
October 28, 2013 - 11:06 am
I’ve been chuckling at the feigned outrage coming from politicians over these “revelations”. Of course we’re spying on our allies, and don’t tell me that they aren’t doing the same thing. to the best of their abilities. Its the way the game is played. How many times has Israel been caught conducting espionage operations against the US, on US soil? Nobody seemed to think that it was an outrage for Israel to do that to an ally; but the US capturing signal intelligence is an outrage. Governments have been collecting that kind of intelligence, against allies and enemies, since somebody figured out how to tap into a telegraph cable. The energy wasted in “outrage” about this “scandal” is breathtaking.
Mike Gold
October 28, 2013 - 11:12 am
I like it, Rick. Nice sequel song. It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it. But it’s much, much better live. Which is probably a missed opportunity now.
Neil C.
October 28, 2013 - 12:01 pm
One of my favorite “later-era” Kinks songs.
Rene
October 28, 2013 - 2:03 pm
Countries are amoral entities, at best. It’s only propaganda that paints them as good or evil. So yeah, the US spying on everybody? No surprises there.
But I wonder if the “outrage” has something to do with Obama being the current US President. If a “bad guy” like Bush does something amoral, it’s expected. But if a “good guy”, almost a saint, like Obama does something amoral, it’s a disappointment.
And, yes, except for that 1/3 of the US’s population that are loyal Republicans, pretty much everybody in the whole world thinks of Obama as more or less a good guy, and Bush a bad guy.
George Haberberger
October 28, 2013 - 2:27 pm
“…pretty much everybody in the whole world thinks of Obama as more or less a good guy, and Bush a bad guy.
I seriously question the validity of this statistic.
Hooray for our side indeed.
Rene
October 28, 2013 - 2:32 pm
Don’t misunderstand it, George. That the world thinks of Obama as a good guy doesn’t mean he is one, or that I think he is one. I’m talking about perception here.
Personally, I find much in Obama to be disappointing. I’m not a yes man. I think “my side” is all the stronger for my being critical of it.
Rene
October 28, 2013 - 2:35 pm
By the way, did you miss the sarcasm when I refered to Obama as a saint?
George Haberberger
October 28, 2013 - 3:55 pm
“By the way, did you miss the sarcasm when I refered to Obama as a saint?”
Yes I did. But considering that for the first four years of his administration, the news media has been the audio/visual department of the Democrat Party, I think sainthood is the least they bestowed upon him. No offense, but a Brazilian man being critical of Obama doesn’t carry as much weight as an American Democrat being critical of Obama. That is beginning to happen now but now that he is safely ensconced in his second term, criticizing him is easy and amounts to nothing. Soon, Hillary will be criticizing him soon, if she hasn’t already.
Neil C.
October 28, 2013 - 5:26 pm
You know, except for conservatives, I’ve never heard anybody thinking of ‘anointing’ Obama as anything but a president who is trying his best to lead out out the most miserable, dark decade in American history since the Depression. But never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Reg
October 28, 2013 - 7:47 pm
“…Obama as anything but a president who is trying his best to lead out out the most miserable, dark decade in American history since the Depression. But never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.”
^ This.
The only thing I would add is that said efforts are being made while also having to deal with some of the most virulently counterproductive and intransigent opposition imaginable.
“Frankly Scarlett, many don’t seem to give a damn”…about the damage being done to the republic’s citizens as long as ‘that one’ is stymied at every turn.
George Haberberger
October 28, 2013 - 9:00 pm
Seriously?
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 before he had done anything. (Lucky for him too because continuing the foreign policy of George Bush and expanding the drone strikes probably wouldn’t have gotten him a lot of votes.)
Chris Matthews wants to put him on Mount Rushmore.
Remember the elementary school kids being taught to sing about Obama before the 2008 election? A friend of mine who grew up in communist China said that reminded her of how they were taught to praise Mao.
Yeah, its just a narrative.
Rene
October 29, 2013 - 7:25 am
Comparing Obama to Mao is just as silly as considering him a saint, just in the other direction.
The Nobel Prize was a farce. Though it had a certain amusement value as a big “fuck you” to Bush. I thought it was a bit demeaning to Obama, he won the award not for what he did, but for not being Bush.
I’m not as against drone strikes as most people, though. In my view, standard war is seem as more honorable than assassination just because we still have the remnants of a tradition of “heroic” war. They’re just as abominable. But yes, to justify the Prize, Obama should have closed Guantanamo, at the least.
George Haberberger
October 29, 2013 - 7:41 am
“Comparing Obama to Mao is just as silly as considering him a saint, just in the other direction.
Agreed. My friend doesn’t think Obama is comparable to Mao, just that having children sing his praises when they are not old enough to have any political opinions was manipulative and creepy, which is similar to how children in China were trained. It’s the adults in that video that are ministers of propaganda. That video will live on the internet forever and I suspect that a few years down the road, many in that video, (adults and children), will which it didn’t, if they don’t already.
Rick Oliver
October 29, 2013 - 8:52 am
Ah, the irony. School children sang a song praising Bush for his adept handling of… Hurricane Katrina!
I’m not in favor of this kind of thing, regardless of the party or the occasion.
As for the tireless complaints about the “liberal” media, follow the money. Large corporations control the vast majority of the media outlets, and they are not well known for their “liberal” agenda. Fox and Clear Channel certainly don’t have “liberal” agendas, and Fox has more than double the cable market penetration of MSNBC.
R. Maheras
October 29, 2013 - 9:16 am
Obama got the longest, most deep-seated free pass any president has gotten from the media since FDR. It’s taken five years for some to shake out of their self-imposed trance and do their jobs the way they’re supposed to.
Neil C.
October 29, 2013 - 12:05 pm
Not as long as the pass Bush got from everybody for his warmongering. Oh wait, I forgot, we’re supposed to forget about everything that happened before 2009 in Bubble World. Because no president has been hit hard by the media since Nixon. But it only matters to RussGeorge when it’d a Democrat.
George Haberberger
October 29, 2013 - 1:28 pm
It would hard to criticize Bush for “warmongering” when he had the approval of Congress, and people wanting to replace him, for his actions.
“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001
“Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”
State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 2002
I can supply pages of quotes like this, but you’ve probably stopped reading by now because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Rene
October 29, 2013 - 1:40 pm
George, your assumption seems to be that Bush is any less of a warmonger, just because spineless opportunists in the Democrat Party surfed that wave when the tide was right for it.
Or that, since Democrats gave Bush a pass, then the big media is any less to blame for swallowing and enabling Bush’s warmongering.
George Haberberger
October 29, 2013 - 3:14 pm
I object to the characterization of Bush as a warmonger regardless of whatever CYA action the Democrats took. He has spoken often of how sending troops into harm’s way weighed on him. You may not believe him but he did not take the actions he did lightly.
Mike Gold
October 29, 2013 - 3:24 pm
Oh, Bush is a warmonger all right. His completely unnecessary and hypocritical invasion of Iraq instead of actually taking on our enemy make him so. Yeah, all those deaths he caused — some 654,965 between 2003 and 2006, according to the medical journal Lancet — they weigh heavily on his mind, huh?
Big fucking deal. He is responsible for slaughtering more people than any other national leader since Pol Pot, and he did so for no national purpose. His Iraq War had NOTHING to do with 9/11. He didn’t avenge anybody’s death. He didn’t even deal with his daddy issues.
Doug Abramson
October 30, 2013 - 1:12 am
Carefull Mike, you might distract people from George’s truth telling. Not that Bush the Younger has anything to do with your topic. At least not any more than Obama and every other President going back to at least Eisenhower, and probably further back than that.
Neil C.
October 30, 2013 - 5:18 am
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/30/left-accept-ted-cruz-dominionist-messiah.html
Neil C.
October 30, 2013 - 5:19 am
George,
At least I accept facts when they don’t meet my ‘narrative,’ as opposed to those who fit reality into their beliefs.
Neil C.
October 30, 2013 - 5:24 am
I’m willing to admit Democrats fucked up when they went along with Bushwar (as opposed to Obamacare). And being against it after being for it is flip-flopping in BubbleWorld as opposed to letting reality give you regrets. Would the right ever admit the government shutdown was a fuck up or do they do the usual double down on denial?
George Haberberger
October 30, 2013 - 7:36 am
“Oh, Bush is a warmonger all right. His completely unnecessary and hypocritical invasion of Iraq instead of actually taking on our enemy make him so. … His Iraq War had NOTHING to do with 9/11.”
“Associated Press
February 13, 1999
Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Taliban authorities in the militia’s southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country.
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities. ”
“National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999.
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER
… There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.”
You can accuse Bush of relying an faulty information but that is another thing entirely than intentionally starting a war.
Mike Gold
October 30, 2013 - 7:46 am
But he intentionally started a war. When he invaded Iraq, we were told Saddam was the man behind 9/11 and not bin Ladin. If we invited Iraq because bin Ladin was there AND he was the guy we were looking for, then starting a war against Iraq STILL would have been wrong. You don’t go slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people just to find one guy.
A guy we weren’t even looking for at the time.
Caveat: Mike Grell and I were looking for bin Ladin at the time. We figured it out well before Bush did. And we (Grell, me, I think Martha, Glenn Hauman, Peter David, and a half-dozen others) were told exactly where bin Ladin was several years before we killed him. Our source was a possibly retired spook, a friend of Mike’s and mine. So if this guy knew, and he had it down to the exact building, I gotta think Bush knew.
Or should have known.
Neil C.
October 30, 2013 - 12:00 pm
Next you’ll tell us that Bush was born without Original Sin.
George Haberberger
October 30, 2013 - 12:58 pm
“Next you’ll tell us that Bush was born without Original Sin.”
So I post evidence from the Associated Press and NPR that lends credibility to the idea that Bush was justified in invading Iraq and your response is that that is so very close to an outrageous religious claim. Is your position so undermined that no argument other than something totally implausible is comparable?
If you have a problem with it, ask the AP and NPR if Bush was born without Original Sin. I would never claim something so extreme.
Rene
October 30, 2013 - 1:47 pm
I find it a bit touching that George believes the Iraq War was about finding Bin Laden. His loyalty and faith in George Bush as a morally lily-white guy that felt so much for the troops and only invaded Iraq because he genuinely believed he’d find Bin Laden…
In Bush’s defense, I’ll say that I don’t believe greed, malice, or sadism ever were motivations. I think he and his group actually believed that invading and re-modeling Iraq was in the USA’s best future interests for the region. It was all a bit of geo-political chess. Seizing an opportunity presented by 9/11 to project power.
I think it was a colossal misfire that resulted in the US losing political and economical power, instead. But I don’t see Bush as a monster, like some Liberals. I think he was very, very bad for the US, and perhaps future historians will pinpoint his administration as the axial point when America ceased to be the only hyper-power.
George Haberberger
October 30, 2013 - 2:23 pm
I didn’t say that finding bin Laden was the primary reason for invading Iraq. The news reports I posted imply that he could have been there but Hussein brought the war upon himself by consistently disregarding UN resolutions. Take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi7RUO93dOI
“…perhaps future historians will pinpoint his administration as the axial point when America ceased to be the only hyper-power.”
Any more fiascos like Obama’s Syria adventure where Putin stepped in defused the situation and that axial point will be firmly established in the Obama administration.
Rene
October 30, 2013 - 4:03 pm
I agree with you about Obama. Despite his killing Osama Bin Laden in a way that I find much better than big scale wars, Barack Obama is a weak President when it comes to foreign policy. I found it laughable that a barely disguised dictator like Putin, of all people, came out of it as the voice of reason!
Obama really looked like a political dwarf.
I do not agree with you about Bush, though. Yes, Hussein had been disregarding UN resolutions… just like about 857 world leaders. But the other 856, many of them more dangerous and brazen than Hussein, have not been invaded. It’s convenient to have excuses for wars you want to wage anyway when the opportunity appears. It’s how the game is played.
Neil C.
October 30, 2013 - 7:42 pm
I mention that, George, because, Wow, some people supported the Iraq War and later regretted it when other facts came out and the patriotic jingoism that we all had wore off. What shocking news! I guess people aren’t allowed to change their mind or else face the “Gotcha” of George.
George Haberberger
October 31, 2013 - 5:30 am
No “gotcha” intended. Those news reports from the AP and NPR were from 1999. Obama, Clinton, John Kerry… everyone who had to vote, (well not Obama, who was not in Washington at the time), should have aware of them. People are certainly are allowed to change their minds but to claim they were misled is just a lie. They were not honest enough to admit, as you put it, that their “patriotic jingoism” wore off, probably because, you know, that would reveal them to be more concerned with which way the wind is blowing than any strength of character.
Neil C.
October 31, 2013 - 8:31 am
They should just copy plots from movies like Rand Paul!
George Haberberger
October 31, 2013 - 9:48 am
Nice deflection to something else entirely.
Neil C.
October 31, 2013 - 10:02 am
I’ve learned it by watching you!
George Haberberger
October 31, 2013 - 1:18 pm
If only you could learn everything from me! Then we’d both be right.
Rick Oliver
November 1, 2013 - 8:10 am
I couldn’t support Hilary in 08 because she refused to acknowledge that she fucked up on the Iraq vote. As far as the repeated assertion that the media gave Obama an extended free pass, the overall impression I got from the media was that Obama was well-meaning but largely not very competent. Then, of course, there are all those folks that rant that Obama did nothing while he had a super majority for two years (he didn’t) and then rant that he had the temerity to “sneak in” some legislation that they didn’t like during the very brief period in which he actually did have a super majority.
Mike Gold
November 1, 2013 - 8:15 am
Hillary will be fun. At last, a president who kicks ass and takes no prisoners. And it’ll be fun to watch the idiot republicrats try to resurrect the ghost of Vince Foster.
Most Americans couldn’t tell Vince Forster from Stephen Foster.
Let alone Stephen Foster Kane.
(Thanks and a tip of the aluminum foil hat to Stan Freberg for that one.)
Neil C.
November 1, 2013 - 9:20 am
Rick,
Never let the facts or reality get in the way of a good narrative.
R. Maheras
November 1, 2013 - 11:38 am
Rathole time: Mike, were you one of those six people who successfully signed up for Obamacare on Day 1?
😉
If you were, then you should’ve bought a lottery ticket that day as well!
Neil C.
November 1, 2013 - 1:13 pm
And Russ and George cheer for failure. “Hooray for our side” indeed.
Rick Oliver
November 1, 2013 - 1:27 pm
Yes, the ACA is a complete failure because the system had glitches during the first month of a six-month window to sign up to avoid a potential penalty. Let’s shut down the government again! BTW: The “liberal” media, that loves Obama for some undefined reason that apparently has nothing to do with corporate revenue, was all over the initial glitches in the system. Subsequently, one of those dastardly bastions of the “liberal” mainstream media — 60 Minutes — ran a mostly erroneous story about why the ACA is bad, because, you know, they love Obama and they’re giving him a free pass because they’re…you know…liberal.
Whitney
November 1, 2013 - 1:49 pm
Golden Boy –
Just wanted to say “Hi!”
Everyone else was commenting. I didn’t want to feel left out.
Mike Gold
November 1, 2013 - 2:25 pm
Russ, I think you’ll see next week that that six number is not accurate.
However, I live in one of the 16 enlightened states in America. The ones that aren’t run by Republican death panels. And I received my confirmation from the state last week. And I received my letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield explaining my benefits and asking me if that’s okay. So I’m doing fine.
When they fix the site (and, absolutely, hiring a Canadian outfit that had been fired by the Canadian government was truly stupid) you’ll be seeing them meet their goals. Even those people who already have substandard coverage.
Neil C.
November 1, 2013 - 2:32 pm
More liberal media propaganda, I bet: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/10/florida-woman-s-canceled-blue-cross-plan-is-junk/index.htm
Mike Gold
November 1, 2013 - 2:47 pm
Hi, Whitney! How’s it goin’?