Occupy Wall Street: Evicted

Under the cover of night, the corporate forces of Wall Street descended on Zuccotti Park — aka Liberty Plaza - and evicted everyone on site. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is declaring victory as the protesters reassemble to return, albeit without tents. As Glenn Greenwald writes:

"Could #OWS have scripted a more apt antagonist than this living, breathing personification of oligarchy: a Wall Street billionaire who so brazenly purchased his political office, engineered the overturning of a term-limits referendum and then spent more than $100 million of his personal fortune to stay in power, and now resides well above the law?"

Indeed, Bloomberg has become the embodiment of the corrosion eating away at the heart of the American body politic. What happened last night was an assault - a nation at permanent war overseas has turned its military apparatus on its own citizens. Beware the consequences.

Corporate Free Speech: Silencing Dissent

"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"~ Ani DiFranco

A tool may come in all shapes and sizes, but no other one can compete when it's money. Payola has been taking over the democratic process in both Canada and the US for some time and corporations have been at the center of it all. Where the big money goes, so too do changes to the political environment that reflect the will of a corporate agenda. Free association? Free speech? A referendum in Greece? Only so far as they don't pose a threat to any benefactors. Government and corporate interests have merged at the expense of the public.

That explains why Herman Cain is being taken seriously by anyone and why a private entity - the National Restaurant Association - can silence speech in a country where the constitution supposedly protects it.

I can see how a mutual agreement might be reached between two parties over whether to litigate or not, but how could any document trump a country's foundational law? How could Cain's accuser be silenced by a payment of any kind from the National Restaurant Association? This is the world our "elites" have constructed to protect themselves and their money. It's also the subject of Glenn Greenwald's new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. I can't wait to read it.

Noam Chomsky: Unwanted Truth

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies" - Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky scares the shit out of conservatives and liberals alike because he's equally critical of power no matter who holds it. Chomsky is an intellectual, not a journalist or some political hack with an agenda. It's not surprising to see flaccid-minded scribes quaking in the wake of his pronouncements - Chomsky requires too much work, too much research and real thinking.

"The Gnome"

That's why it's disappointing to see writers I respect like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens dismissing Chomsky's recent article about the death of Usama bin Laden as though it were written by some paranoid fanatic. They try hard to paint him as a conspiratorial wacko bent on following narratives down rabbit holes, but nothing could be further from the truth. Chomsky instills fear because he serves facts, not opinions. They can't argue that bin Laden was never subjected to due process - it's a fact - so they resort to ad-hominem attacks against Chomsky's intellectual integrity.


Here's the nugget that really irks them:

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the 'decider'..."

Chomsky has gone on record about the heinous acts of 9/11 and in no way suggests the U.S. deserved them, as Hitchens surreptitiously claims. He's also repeatedly rejected the loony conspiracies that some invisible force like the Grand Elders of Zion was behind the attacks.

His use of "uncontroversially" is in reference to the evidence at hand. Facts are, by definition, uncontroversial...or at least they were BFN (Before Fox News). It's an irrefutable fact that bin Laden was never convicted for 9/11. It's not inconsistent to state this and also believe he and al-Qaeda were responsible, as I personally do. But Chomsky's logic is as cold as it is unforgiving; if the U.S. is a nation of laws, there can't be any exceptions, as Glenn Greenwald explains. To kill bin Laden without due process is to logically accept the same for those on your own side. In other words, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Below is Chomsky on the "validity" of the 9/11 "truthers":