Readers Write In #370: The Josef Stalin Story

(by G Waugh) DISCLAIMER: This essay is a humble attempt to recount whatever I had read recently in historian Isaac Deutscher’s definitive book- Stalin, A Political Biography. There will be plenty of events here which I have discussed already in my series of essays in this blog titled The Russian Revolution. I really request my […]

Chuck Todd: Too Good To Check

Unless one is a WWII Japanese soldier recently emerged from hiding in a South Pacific cave, it’s well known the media suffers from terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome, and since Donald Trump became president, have agreed that a “new” standard must be employed in their reporting.  That new standard includes making up sources, outright lying, opinion masquerading as news, burying any story that would unfavorably portray Democrats—that’s a great deal of “news”–and a media favorite: deceptive editing.  Chuck Todd of NBC is expert at them all, as Fox News reports:

NBC News anchor Chuck Todd offered an on-air apology after he faced criticism for what was described as a deceptively edited clip of Attorney General William Barr over his defense of the Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) push to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

‘I want to take a moment to talk about something that occurred on Sunday’s edition of ‘Meet the Press,’ Todd said Tuesday during his weekday MSNBC program. ‘During the program, we had a sound byte from a CBS News interview with Attorney General Bill Barr. In the byte that we aired and commented on, Mr. Barr was asked about how he thinks the history of his decision to end the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn will be written. Mr. Barr answered, ‘History is written by the winner so it largely depends on who’s writing the history.’ In the full version of the interview and transcript, he went on to say, ‘But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.’

Todd claimed that his Sunday program did not make the ‘edit’ but that it simply saw the edited quote before seeing the full quote.

Riiiiiight.  NBC would never do anything like that.  

‘Now, we did not edit that out. That was not our edit. We didn’t include it because we only saw the shorter of two clips that CBS did air,’ Todd explained. ‘We should have looked at both and checked for a full transcript, a mistake I wish we had not made and one that I wish I had not have [sic] made. The second part of the attorney general’s answer would have put it in the proper context and had I seen that part of the interview, I would not have framed the conversation the way I did.’

Rational people might be forgiven for thinking this just another example of “too good to check” journalism.  If what Todd is saying is true, that’s what it is.  The clip suppported NBC’s anti-Trump hatred so perfectly, it so perfectly fulfilled the D/S/C narrative, they would not have thought to check to ensure its accuracy.  What would be the point when they just know Trump and everyone associated with him, or who has ever voted for him, is stupid and evil?  Of course, the other alternative is NBC and Todd are simply hateful and malicious and don’t much care about the truth.  They’re D/N/C operatives with bylines.  Which is worse?  Actually, all can explain the “error.”

He added: ‘I am obviously very sorry for that mistake. We strive to do better going forward.’

Oh, obviously, of course.  I’m sure Todd is inconsolable.  We must, gentle readers, consider sending him flowers.

The on-air apology was delayed until Tuesday because MSNBC ran special coverage of President Trump’s press conference in the Rose Garden on Monday.

Of course, because I’m sure that Rose Garden coverage ran continuously, every minute of airtime on every NBC/MSNBC/MSDNC program until Tuesday.  There just wasn’t a spare second for an apology until then.

I have just one question: why does every mistake/lie/technical glitch committed by the legacy, hate Deplorables/Trump media always do harm to Deplorables and Mr. Trump?  Wouldn’t the law of averages dictate, perhaps in .000001% of the time, it would be D/S/Cs being harmed?  Odd, that.

PS: do take the earlier link, which is to an article in the Trayvon Martin case archive where NBC deceptively editing an audio recording in an blatant, and particularly stupid attempt to make George Zimmerman seem racist.  This article is also related.  

Andrew Cuomo: A Bloody Messiah

In Andrew Cuomo: The Campaign Commercials Write Themselves, I wrote about two trends: (1) The tendency of D/S/Cs to see New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as the next D/S/C messiah.  After all, he has been on TV daily talking—and talking and talking—about the Coronavirus, and D/S/Cs are beginning to realize Joe Biden is an electoral disaster. (2) The newest messiah, while blaming everyone but himself, forced New York nursing homes to keep and accept people infected with Covid-19.  He’s responsible for the deaths of innumerable elderly New Yorkers.

Michael Goodwin at The New York Post reports Cuomo has reversed himself, but is claiming it’s not a reversal at all, and of course, is taking no responsibility for the seniors his policy killed:

Gov. Cuomo will never be confused with Fiorello La Guardia. ‘When I make a mistake, it’s a beaut,’ the legendary mayor of New York once confessed.

Unfortunately, Cuomo’s pride and political calculations don’t allow him to admit error even as he finally reverses one of the mostly deadly policy mistakes in New York history.

Nursing homes and rehabilitation centers have tallied more than 5,000 coronavirus deaths, yet the governor accepts zero responsibility despite his March 25th order forcing them to take infected patients from hospitals.

Now he says they no longer have to do that, announcing Sunday that ‘a hospital cannot discharge a person who is COVID positive to a nursing home.’

Indeed, the initial order denied nursing homes the right even to ask if patients being sent by hospitals had tested positive for the coronavirus.

Now hospitals must do discharge tests and only those who are negative can be referred to nursing homes.

Said one nursing home executive, ‘It feels at least a month too late.’

File that one in every dictionary under “understatement.”  Still, Cuomo claims the reversal is not a reversal, nor is it a recognition of the fatal impact of the initial order:

‘Whatever we’re doing has worked, on the facts,’ he insisted.

Of course it did, because as I have so often observed, no D/S/C policy can possibly be wrong, thus no apology or recognition of fault is possible or necessary.  The facts are only New Jersey has a higher percentage of elderly in nursing homes killed by Covid-19.  I guess that could count as “worked” if work means unnecessarily killing uniquely vulnerable people.

Cuomo insists the nursing homes ‘could have resisted’ taking COVID-positive patients if they had no ability to care for them. The order, he seemed to be saying, was only meant to ensure that such patients were not discriminated against.

That point, he conceded, ‘was never really communicated,’ as if the March 25 order was not meant to be taken verbatim.

So the only failure is a failure to communicate, though he didn’t specify whose failure that was. Certainly not his.

As Goodwin points out, Cuomo is lying.  Nursing homes were given no latitude, and those that tried to argue were immediately threatened.

The second problem with Cuomo’s claim is the case of the Cobble Hill Health Center, which lost at least 55 patients to the virus. The CEO, Donny Tuchman, showed reporters April emails where he asked state health officials for assistance, and was turned down. He also asked them if COVID-19 patients he had could be sent instead to the Javits Center or the Navy ship Comfort, both of which were far below capacity. He was rejected again.

Socks befitting a messiah…

To add insult to injury, Cuomo has now taken to calling Covid-19 a “European Virus,” which I’m sure the Chinese propaganda ministry appreciates:

Is this just a matter of political arrogance?  “How dare anyone question the governor of the State of New York?!”  Is it a matter of thoughtless and reflexive political correctness?  NY bureaucrats write all laws and policies first with an eye to D/S/C orthodoxy rather than with concern for the health and welfare of citizens?  Of perhaps it’s both?  It’s now clear however, Andrew Cuomo, the new D/S/C messiah, might have just a bit too much blood on his hands to dethrone Joe Biden.  On the other bloody hand though, D/S/Cs have never much cared about that sort of thing.  Fundamental transformation is never easy, and it tends to be hard on those being transformed.  Let’s let Goodwin sum up, gentle readers:

It’s true there was one way Albany officials did help beleaguered nursing homes. The packages of equipment they sent included body bags.

They’re just that kind of people.

Tara Reade vs. Joe Biden: What’s the truth?

I haven’t found much about the author of this piece: Clifford MacArthur. He appears to have written just this one article on Medium (click on screenshot to read it). Nevertheless, if his assertions are correct, Tara Reade, who’s accused Joe Biden of sexual misconduct, is an outright liar. And MacArthur has a theory, which is his, about why she’s lied.

You’ve probably heard a bit about this case on the news, though the facts seem confusing.  Reade, an employee of Biden, originally said that he inappropriately rubbed her on the shoulders and neck in 1993. Then, over time, the story became more serious: this year she said that Biden actually cornered her and digitally penetrated her vagina, which is, legally, rape. Her changing story (there has been more than one change) is made less credible by the contradictions in her story, the failure of anyone to corroborate her accusations, her record of praising Biden, her history of duplicity in other venues, and at least enough evidence to suggest that her altered story was concocted because Reade was a Bernie Sanders fan and wanted to sink Biden to get her candidate nominated.

Now one can find plausible reasons why her story might be true and yet become more serious over time, and also that in the interim she could praise Biden.  Sexual assault victims sometimes don’t want to come forward immediately.  But what doesn’t hold here are the repeated changes in her story, her continuing practice (according to MacArthur) of lying, even up till now, and her apparent fabrication of details.

Altogether, MacArthur makes a pretty good case that Biden is innocent of sexual assault, even though we know he has a tendency to be “handsy”.

MacArthur wrote this piece because he was peeved that, according to the mainstream media (especially on the Right), they have bought Reade’s story, or at least found it a he said/she said affair despite numerous holes in Reade’s accusations. Apparently The Young Turks are also advocating for Reade’s account, and I believe they were big Sanders supporters as well.

Here’s MacArthur’s rational for putting together and analyzing all the data:

The mainstream media, for its part, has been focused on “reaction pieces” rather than direct coverage. What are the consequences of the story? What does it mean for #MeToo? What does it mean for the Democratic Party? How should Biden respond? There is little interest in verifying the story itself. For the most part, the media has reported Reade’s account uncritically. CNN and POLITICO, like the political extremists on social media, are motivated to sensationalize the story and present it as true.

Missing from all this coverage is an answer to the most important question: Is the story true? Did Joe Biden sexually assault a staffer in 1993? The public deserves to make an informed decision based on all the available evidence. Analyzing Reade’s statements, as well as her past and present behavior, reveals a pattern of lies and deception.

Indeed it does, and one reason I believe MacArthur’s account is that he documents most of his claims with evidence. Further, since he’s accusing Reade of lying in an attempt to damage her character and debunk her accusations, what he’s saying would be libelous if it’s false.

Here are the eight reasons, some with data, for MacArthur’s conclusion:

1.) Reade’s story has changed continuously, right up to the present (e.g., it changed between January and March, when she had already made her allegations of assault).

2.) The story is also self-contradictory. For instance, Reade has claimed since last year that she left Biden’s employ voluntarily to work in the California governor’s race, then that she left to protest American imperialism, that she voluntarily resigned because of bullying in the workplace, and, finally, that Biden fired her.

3.) There appear to be arrant lies on the part of Reade. For instance, Reade has repeatedly claimed that she filed a complaint against Biden with Senate Personnel, which should be in the National Archives. Nobody remembers that claim and there’s no record of it in the Archives. Also, Reade claims she told five people about her story, but four of them deny it, and the fifth, who says she agrees, refuses to go on the record about it.

4.) Reade appears to have fabricated “evidence”. This is a bit complicated, but involves Reade’s claim that her mother called the Larry King Show in 1993 to talk about Biden’s assault. There was a call from mom to King, but it didn’t say that, and so Reade apparently changed what she said: that the call involved sexual harassment and retaliation. It didn’t.

5.) Reade has apparently lied repeatedly about other matters over the years, and tried to scam at least one charity. She has also fabricated details of her biography, for example claiming that she qualified for the Junior Olympic in ski racing. She didn’t.

6.) Reade says she repeatedly complained about Biden, both formally and informally. Nobody seems to remember those complaints.

7.) Reade has a political motive for trying to bring down Biden.  Apparently, in 2018, Reade became a big admirer of Putin, joining those who claimed that “Russiagate” had been a big hoax designed to excuse Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 election. Many of these people were convinced that the Democrats were supposedly trying to rig the nomination in favor of Biden and against Bernie Sanders. In March, Reade started broadcasting on social media that she hoped her accusations would promote Sanders and destroy Biden’s chances.

8.) Reade has a personal motive for trying to bring down Biden. This is really a variant of #7, but with a twist. Reade seems to have been miffed at being called a Russian dupe, and was using her accusations to quash those who called her that. One excerpt:

Reade’s obsession went beyond mere tweets. When she went to Time’s Up with her sexual assault allegation, they put her in touch with several lawyers. Salon interviewed those lawyers, and they all told the same story: Reade didn’t care about pursuing a case against Biden, she wanted the lawyers to stop people from calling her a Russian agent on Twitter. Salon contacted Reade herself and she confirmed that was her goal.

In the end, MacArthur says “this is not a story of sexual assault, but of anger and revenge.”  His “Conclusions” section at the end sums up his case, even if you don’t want to read the longish piece, and I’ll let you read that for yourself.

What bothers me about how Biden has been treated here is that he’s been very conciliatory towards Reade while denying her claims. He hasn’t attacked her or explicitly impugned her credibility. Yet many women have called for Biden to apologize, almost admitting that he committed sexual assault. But, if you assume he’s innocent of Reade’s claims—which I think he is—he couldn’t have responded in a more civil way. As MacArthur says, the slogan “Believe All Women” should not mean we take their accounts at face value, or continue to publicize them if they can’t be verified. Rather, it means that their claims should be taken seriously and not dismissed, and then those claims investigated and judges. In the case of Reade, if MacArthur’s account be true, we can use Hitchens’s razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”



Who Won The Week? 05/10/2020

10CC3057-4EEA-4C80-B8C1-700C0FC6C906It’s time for another Who Won the Week prompt. The idea behind Who Won the Week is for you to select who (or what) you think “won” this past week. Your selection can be anyone or anything — politicians, celebrities, athletes, authors, bloggers, your friends or family members, books, movies, TV shows, businesses, organizations, whatever.

I will be posting this prompt on Sunday mornings (my time). If you want to participate, write your own post designating who you think won the week and why you think they deserve your nod. Then link back to this post and tag you post with FWWTW.

DF8FEB61-B0E0-4A31-8BF7-287973EF537FThis week I an reluctantly picking Michael Flynn as the recipient of my coveted Who Won the Week award. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Flynn, he is a retired United States Army lieutenant general who was briefly the National Security Advisor to Donald Trump before being fired just 24 days after assuming that role.

Flynn joined the Trump campaign in 2016 and is remembered for leading the “Lock her up” chants about Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. After Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 election, he appointed Flynn to the position of National Security Advisor.

But Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition. He admitted to having had conversations Russia’s then-ambassador to the United States as he and the rest of President-elect Donald Trump’s camp waited in the wings early in 2017.

Flynn also failed to declare that during the campaign, he was also serving as a paid political consultant to the government of Turkey and was lobbying on that country’s behalf.

Even though Flynn twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with the Russian government, Trump and many Republican allies painted Flynn as an innocent victim of a justice system run amok.

And this week, the “Justice” Department, under the leadership of Attorney General and Trump ass-kisser and presidential protector, Bill Barr, inexplicably decided to drop the charges against Flynn. That abandonment of the Flynn case is a political windfall for Trump, who had been talking about pardoning Flynn.A191C386-007C-4C81-B1C5-2191BC95EFD8So, Michael Flynn, who was still awaiting sentencing for his crimes, was granted a get out of jail free card, and yet another corrupt Donald Trump crony got off scot-free.

So much for the rule-of-law in America.

And now it’s your turn, folks. Who (or what) do you think won the week?


I may be away, but my heart is always there.

A place that gave me an identity of who I am.

Land who is dearer to my soul,

Gives me goosebumps when I remember how it got freedom.

Now often I lose my peace and calm,

When I see how politics have manipulated the thoughts of the people since post Independence.

Hunger of power, misguided the subjects only for the vote bank.

Today, when few leaders are trying to put things straight,

It’s hurting many, as the power is losing from there hand.

“Is it always correct to blame government?”

Media have forgotten there ethics.

Today news are not shown to inform  but to create disparities among people.

Where communication is done through social media.

Expressing opinions and thoughts through updates and status.

Creating a net of false presumptions.

When there were no phones and internet

Social interaction was more.

Issues were resolved face to face.

Sad when people express negative about their own nation on social sites.

Letting the whole world know, how miserable your  condition is.

Gaining false sympathy.

Comparing the issues and lifestyle with other countries.

Want to take the privilege of asking questions to those who take social media as a source of expression.

Do you discuss your family matters on social media?

Clash in family issues, siblings problem etc are they too publicly discussed?

No, personal life is not on display.

Than why one forgets nation too is a big family.

Personal issues being sensitive in nature should be carefully handled.

Social media have created a very unhealthy environment.

Creating an over all picture that may not even exists.

Myth for those who believe that expressing things in social media are eye-opening and make things better.

Instead it creates hate , misconceptions and potrays your own motherland negative.

Would be nice if you

Explore your surroundings and people.

Talk to them and clear things where required.

 Remember every person have their own story to tell.

Not every individual choose to display matters like few, to make things more ugly.