Monday, February 29, 2016


There is absolutely no comparison between alleged human rights violation in Cuba and the atrocities committed by the Pinochet government as a result of the 1973 U.S.-backed coup in Chile.
This New York Times article is a moving account of a Chilean 18-year old who was drafted into the army just months before the coup and the atrocities that he witnessed and engaged in. Now almost 50 years later he has come forth with his story in an attempt to overcome the nightmares and emotional stress, in spite of the threats he receives and pleas from his wife. The man is obviously desperate, even though none of the conscripts of that era have been jailed for human rights abuses.  Can the execution of Batista thugs in Cuba in 1959 or the jailings of Cuban dissidents (whether they were justified or not) be placed in the same category? Obviously not. Yet the U.S. corporate media has published 10 or 20 times more (or is it 50 times more?) articles about the jailing of Cuban dissidents than the atrocities committed by military governments in Latin America in the 60s and 70s. This article in today’s New York Times is an exception.

Monday, February 22, 2016


Washington just announced that the U.S. would strengthen economic ties with Argentina. The stated rational for the move is that the government of Mauricio Macri has proved to be, in the words of Deputy Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, a “strong voice for democracy and human rights in Latin America.” What better example of how the issue of human rights is a smoke screen that justifies U.S. policy in favor of economic interests and geopolitical objectives. “Democracy and Human Rights?” Is it because Macri is repealing a law that prevents monopoly control of the communications media? What about Macri’s clamping down on freedom of expression in Argentina? It would seem that Macri’s fervent support for the Venezuelan opposition is what qualifies him to be a champion of Latin American democracy.

Sunday, February 21, 2016


52.7 PERCENT IS A RESOUNDING VICTORY? That’s what much of the U.S. media has to say about Hillary Clinton’s intake in yesterday’s Nevada caucus. When you consider that she had the entire Democratic Party establishment and corporate media on her side, and Wall Street capital solidly backing her and had an overwhelming majority of votes according to polls conducted several months ago, this is hardly a victory. Everything to the contrary. It shows how discontent and incensed a large chunk of the population feels about how the cards are stacked against them and in favor of the privileged one percent. The media should give more space to the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and less to the Republican Party circus that goes by the euphemism “primaries.”

Saturday, February 13, 2016


To a great extent Sanders is more radical (in the good sense of the word) than were Franklin Roosevelt and the FDR-wing of the Democratic Party. First, he has the entire political establishment against him, including its moderate-liberal wing. Moderate-liberal leaders, almost without exception, are supporting Hillary (including the Black Caucus, Michael Dukakis, Howard Dean, and the list goes on and on). As a fitting response, Sanders calls for a revolution from below.

Second, he attacks his adversaries super-aggressively. His attack on Kissinger in the last debate is just one example. Another is his refusal to minimize the importance of Hillary's Wall Street ties, and his statement in the last debate that 'Americans are not stupid' (or some such words) in response to Hillary's claim that Wall Street patronage does not influence her positions. The Democrats tend to treat their adversaries to their right with kid gloves, while often lashing out at the left (that's the treatment Nader got). Sanders' performance in the last two debates (the fourth and fifth) was crisp and clear as he lashed out at the establishment on many different fronts and issues.

And third, he is not a member of the Democratic Party, which may ease the immigration of his rank-and-file supporters to a third party.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Bill Clinton: Unprincipled Attacks on Bernie Sanders

BILL CLINTON CALLING BERNIE SANDERS A “SEXIST” SOUNDS SOMETHING LIKE AN OXYMORON. His mudslinging in which he also calls Bernie hypocritical shows how desperate the Clintons are. Bernie is harping on the issues and avoids name-calling. One of the issues, however, is Wall Street finance in politics and that has everything to do with the way big economic interests have bankrolled Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She laughed off a request that she present her talking points for the 3 speeches she gave Goldman Sachs in one year, for which she received $675,000 dollars. Of course, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Check out the big money she has received from the likes of Citygroup, JP Morgan Chase, DLA Piper (the multinational law firm), Time Warner (yes media corporations donate large sums of money to a given candidate, and then they claim to be evenhanded!), 21st Century Fox, and the list goes on and on: