MEDIA ROOTS — If you’re like me, you’ll do your darnedest to make sure you catch the lovely J Mascis or the tender and mighty Dinosaur, Jr. anytime they come to town.  For some of us, this means catching life-altering gigs at venues like San Francisco’s Fillmore or Slim’s.  So, imagine my delight when my dear brother Mónchis said Henry Rollins would be previewing on his KCRW radio show J Mascis’ forthcoming release of instrumental guitar-driven transcendence from his new eponymous side-project, Heavy Blanket (below).  

But if you’ve never heard of ’em, for starters, check out Without a Sound.  You will not be disappointed.  J Mascis was recently ranked #5 of the top 100 guitarists of all time by Spin.  Indeed; Kurt, Lee & Thurston, Jimi to name a few.  And all share a love of Fenders, too.  Even Morrissey’s legendary bassist, Gary Day, at the Beauty Bar in SF’s Mission District joined me in chatting about J’s purple sparkle Fender Jazzmaster guitar one fine night the very gallant gentleman was hosting a stylish soirée. 

But don’t just fast-forward to the second hour of Rollins’ KCRW radio show for the Heavy Blanket world-premiere because Rollins has plenty of life-affirming, soul-nourishing musical vitality in store for you—from delectable stylists, such as The Stooges (with a track pre-dating Joy Division’s “New Dawn Fades”), Janis Joplin, The Ramones, Marnie Stern, Jimi Hendrix, The Ruts, Generation X, and more, such as, quite possibly, the first time distorted guitar was ever recorded, certainly popularised, with Jackie Brenston & His Delta Cats right on down to the Japanoise sounds of Fushitsusha.  Also, check out the excellent recent J Mascis concert from the Aussie 2012 Sydney Festival (below).  

Messina

***

Henry Rollins: KCRW Broadcast 162  Saturday, 28 APR 2012

Heavy Blanket
Heavy Blanket
Outer Battery Records

1. Galloping Toward the Unknown
2. Spit in The Eye
3. Blockheads
4. Corpuscle Through Time
5. Dr Marten’s Blues
6. No Telling No Trail

***

LA WEEKLY — Fanatics! Hello from beautiful Sydney, Australia. I am a few hours away from another show here. I have been finding some great records here that will find themselves in our upcoming shows over the summer. I think you’re going to like what we will be laying on you in the weeks and months upcoming!

In our first hour, we will be rocking some serious guitar heavy hitters. If you look down the list, it’s all heavy weight all the way through but you will notice something conceptual in the second part of our show.

Now, in tonight’s second hour, we have a very special record we will be playing for your in its entirety. A side project of our good pal J Mascis called Heavy Blanket will be releasing their first and perhaps only album on May 8. Visit J Mascis’ site for more information.

Read more about Fanatics! Henry Rollins’ KCRW Show Tomorrow Night : World Debut of J Mascis/Heavy Blanket Album.

***

Sydney Festival 2012: Watch J Mascis and other great gigs on Moshcam.

“Me, I’m a part of your circle of friends
And we notice you don’t come around
Me, I think it all depends
On you, touching ground with us

I quit, I give up
Nothing’s good enough for anybody else
It seems

I quit, I give up
Nothing’s good enough for anybody else
It seems

And being alone is the best way to be
When I’m by myself, it’s the best way to be
When I’m all alone, it’s the best way to be
When I’m by myself, nobody else can say
Goodbye

Everything is temporary, anyway
When the streets are wet
Colours slip into the sky
But I don’t know why that means
You and I are
That means
You and I quit?

I give up
Nothing’s good enough for anybody else
It seems

I quit, I give up
Nothing’s good enough for anybody else
It seems

And being alone is the best way to be
When I’m by myself, it’s the best way to be
When I’m all alone, it’s the best way to be
When I’m by myself, nobody else can say

Me, I’m a part of your circle of friends
And we notice you don’t come around”

***

Photo by Flickr user total13

“Circle” © 1988 (Brickell/Withrow)

MEDIA ROOTS — Suzanne Maloney is a mainstay within élite U.S. foreign policy circles.  A former employee of ExxonMobil and the U.S. State Department, Maloney now works for the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  She recently presented testimony to the United States Congress entitled Progress of the Obama Administration’s Policy toward Iran.  The Saban Center later provided an Arabic translation of her testimony on their website.  Maloney’s testimony and its Arabic translation afford valuable insight into the ideology, which directs U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Ideology and the Saban Center 

Haim Saban, who holds dual citizenship between the USA and Israel, founded the Saban Center in 2002 with a multi-million dollar donation.  By his own admission, Saban boasts, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”  Saban, who has a personal net worth of roughly $3 billion, was also the second biggest private donor to U.S. Presidential and Congressional candidates.  He describes his formula for influencing U.S. politics thusly:  “make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”  According to The New Yorker, “he is most proud of his role as political power broker.  His greatest concern,” he says, “is to protect Israel by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship.”  In line with Saban’s words, the Saban Center attracts those who adhere to a rigid brand of Zionist ideology.  

Ideology is a constellation of ideas, which form the basis of a group’s political theory and actions.  Zionism is a political ideology, which supported the establishment of an occupying Jewish state in the historical land of Palestine.  Today, Zionism is dedicated to furthering Israel’s nationalist aspirations.  The most widespread form of Zionism in the U.S. foreign policy arena is Revisionist Zionism, which romanticizes Jewish nationalism, emphasizes a perceived necessity of military force against any Arab or Persian ‘threat,’ and condones Israel’s territorial expansion and aggression.  Adhering to this Zionist ideology, the Saban Center has employed Visiting Fellows whose ranks include numerous former IDF employees, the former head of Shin Bet, and a sprinkling of Arab nationals who turned their backs on the Palestinians and sought the prestige inanely associated with D.C. think tanks.  In this context, the Saban Center doesn’t just publish texts periodically, but rather is a constituent to extensive dynamics, which prescribe Revisionist Zionist policy and advance it throughout the U.S. foreign policy lobbying apparatus.

Maloney’s testimony highlights the fact that, although the majority of U.S. think tanks are diffused across the Democrat-Republican two-party system, even the most respected think tank doesn’t deviate from the Revisionist Zionist narrative with respect to U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East.  Maloney testified in the autumn of 2011 during a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was mobilizing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its propaganda apparatuses in Washington, D.C. to inflate the Iranian ‘threat.’  Netanyahu is no fool.  He targets Iran, which is Israel’s lone regional rival, because Iran supports groups, which resist Israeli aggression.  Maloney testifies within that context.  She critiques President Obama on behalf of the Saban Center, as part of the political ebb and flow, which ensures all Washington actors adhere to the precepts of Revisionist Zionism.

Numerous U.S. think tanks perpetuate Revisionist Zionist ideology with even greater aggression than others.  The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Center for Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute are the most prominent.  However, it is crucial to focus on the Saban Center for Middle East Policy precisely because it is not often considered a Zionist enterprise, unlike these other think tanks.  This low visibility allows the Saban Center to propagate a subtler, smoother mode of Revisionist Zionism throughout the U.S. foreign policy lobbying apparatus.  With deliberate concealment, the Saban Center professes to provide “Washington policymakers with balanced, objective, in-depth and timely research and policy analysis from experienced and knowledgeable scholars,” while claiming that its “central objective is to advance understanding of developments in the Middle East through policy-relevant scholarship and debate.”  This prevarication is even more dangerous when one considers its influential status as the 2011 “Top Think Tank in the World.”

The Saban Center’s subtle use of Revisionist Zionism is exemplified in the salient fact Maloney’s testimony doesn’t reference Israel once.  This intentional silence speaks volumes.  Omissions of Israel, its regional hegemony, or the USA’s history of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, are all part of a deliberate effort to de-historicize Iran and flush away any useful socioeconomic perspective.  Other relevant facts—Israel possesses nuclear weapons and didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), while Iran has no nuclear weapons and has signed the NPT—are simply not allowed to penetrate the prevailing narrative.

Mark Dubowitz and Dr. Kenneth Pollack accompanied Maloney in testifying to Congress.  Mark Dubowitz is Executive Director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.  That think tank describes itself as a “non-partisan policy institute” dedicated to “defending free nations against their enemies,” specifically against the “threat facing America, Israel, and the West.”  Kenneth Pollack is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  In 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged Pollack aided two AIPAC employees while they were under investigation on allegations of spying for the state of Israel.  After immense political pressure, all charges were eventually dropped.  These three, the only panel members to testify before that Congressional Subcommittee, were selected deliberately to provide policymakers with the narrowest possible viewpoints of the Iranian ‘threat‘ through the lens of Revisionist Zionism.

Ideology via Translation

Revisionist Zionism is present within Maloney’s original English language testimony and also underpins the Saban Center’s translation of this document into the Arabic.  (The Saban Center does not credit any individual(s) for translating Maloney’s text into Arabic).  Aside from examples to be discussed momentarily, the Arabic translation is outstanding and remains completely loyal to Maloney’s English text.  This faithful, direct translation is itself a strategy, stemming from the deliberate collocation of an ideology with persuasive, incisive writing (Lefevere: 51).  

When reading the Arabic translation in comparison to the English text, it is evident that the Saban Center’s translator spent a great deal of time selecting the appropriate words to convey Maloney’s challenging, academic vocabulary.  Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that any deviation from Maloney’s source text is entirely deliberate and may have ideological motives. As the Persian language, Farsi, is the national Iranian language, any changes, which took place during translation from the English into the Arabic, imply a sense U.S. power is omnipotent and unavoidable.  These changes can foment dissent among Arab populations who read that text, and provide an Iranian minority, which is literate in the Arabic, with a sense of ascending capability to confront the Iranian theocracy.

Although the Arabic languge translation of Maloney’s testimony is a direct, accurate, and faithful translation, the instances where the translator deviates from said fidelity are fantastic discussion points. These deviations are also valuable precisely because they’re rare and offer tremendous insight into the nature of Revisionist Zionism and the broader aims of Maloney’s text. For example, Maloney’s English testimony stated, “Iran has experienced very little of the upheaval that has beset its neighbors over the course of the past year.”  However, the translator opted for a stronger word in Arabic, which means “to storm through, to blow through, or to shake thoroughly.”  The Arabic translation reads:  “Iran had witnessed very little of the protests that stormed through its neighboring countries over the past year.”  Later on, the English language testimony states Iran’s “neighborhood has been engulfed in historic change,” while the translation expresses how “the historic change stormed through/blew through Iran’s neighboring countries.”  The Saban Center translated these passages in this manner in order to address the Arab audience, and emphasize Middle Easterners’ agency and ability to affect change in their region.  Perhaps the translator is also targeting the slice of Iranian Persians who can read Arabic or the many Arabs who fled to Iran after USA’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.  The translator deliberately selects words, which emphasize how populations in the Greater Middle East can positively affect their environments; the audience can engage in protests, which storm through regions, not passive, nameless upheaval, which besets regions.

The Saban Center often interfered with the Arabic language text during translation.  In multiple instances, the translator selected two different Arabic words to translate the English language word for “liabilities.”  The first context speaks of “the regime’s internal political liabilities,” which I would have translated as “political responsibilities.”  The second context broaches how “the regional environment has also created new liabilities for Tehran,” which I would have translated as “obligations.”  By telling the Arabic audience responsibilities are actually liabilities and obligations, the Saban Center advises the populace has a right to be upset if any regime reneges on its obligations.  This can be extrapolated to other regional, oppressive regimes.  This is a deliberate, indirect message to the Middle East, fitting perfectly with an Israeli propaganda apparatus, which prides itself on sewing strife within Arab and Persian lands.

Maloney’s testimony affirms “sanctions and export controls have played a subtle but significant role in slowing Iran’s capability to acquire” nuclear technology.  The Saban Center deliberately didn’t translate the word “subtle” into the Arabic, despite the fact that the Arabic language contains multiple words with which to convey subtlety well.  The Saban translator instead selects a word, which means “covert” or “hidden.”  This Arabic word meshes well with the U.S.-Israeli clandestine subversion of Iran’s sovereignty.  A covert program, supported by two hegemonic powers, is unlikely to be stopped; it can’t even be pinpointed.  Those who read the Arabic translation of Maloney’s testimony may retain a feeling of inevitability the hegemons will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology and the reader must go along with such a foregone conclusion.

Maloney contends “Iran’s dogmatic theocrats perceive the Arab uprisings in triumphal terms.”  The Saban Center translates this into the Arabic as:  “Iran’s dogmatic zealots perceive the Arab uprisings in triumphal terms.”  There is no mention of a theocracy.  In theocracy’s stead, the Saban Center refers to dogmatic “zealots” or “hardliners.”  Zealotry, synonymous with fanaticism and intolerance of opposing views, is an amplification of mere theocracy.  Theocracy, by definition and Iranian tradition, is a system of government in which clerics lead the nation.  In practice, the Saban Center actualizes a cognitive distinction in the reader of its Arabic language text.  The Arabic reader, having no knowledge of the tamer wording in Maloney’s original testimony, understands the Iranian rulers as fanatics, not mere theocrats.

The Saban Center’s mutation of theocrat into zealot also confines the Persian Other within Western stereotypes.  “By employing certain modes of representing the other… translation reinforces hegemonic versions of the [neo]-colonized” (Niranjana: 3) and emphasizes damaging stereotypes.  The readers are fully cognizant of this distortion of identity, but are helpless to alter the source of these representations, located distally in Washington, D.C., where these images serve as a mobilizing force.

Early in her testimony, Maloney asserts the Iranian regime’s durability is “the product of a resourceful campaign” to hamper popular uprisings.  Notably, the Arabic translation of Maloney’s testimony indicates the regime’s durability results from a “sly” or “insidious” campaign to suppress dissent.  By portraying the Persian with great negativity, the reader of Maloney’s translated testimony is imbibed with a sense of antipathy towards the Other.  Perhaps this revulsion will contribute to existing Persian-Arab tensions around the Persian Gulf, or perhaps this revulsion will be internalized within the Arab or Iranian readership.  No matter its effect, portraying the Persian with great negativity benefits practitioners of Revisionist Zionism.

Near the end of her English language testimony, Maloney remarks “the impediments to American sanctions represent tactical challenges,” which the Saban Center translated as representing “large” or “considerable” challenges.  The Saban Center’s omission was deliberate, since the word “tactical” exists in Arabic and is used frequently.  Tactical challenges are related to military manoeuvres in support of immediate martial gain and are designed to contribute to strategic objectives.  By omitting any mention of the tactical nature of the challenges posed by U.S. sanctions, the Saban Center avoids military correlations and any concept Iran might possibly achieve military advantage.  Furthermore, by translating the utterance “tactical” into the adjective “large,” the Saban Center places an amorphic, conceptual obstacle of indeterminate volume in Iran’s path.  Once again, the Saban Center employs slight translation techniques to dramatically affect the Arabic reader’s perception.  The message to the Middle East is clear: Revisionist Zionism, and those who support it, whether willingly or otherwise, will win.

In addition to manipulating individual words, the Saban Center adds Arabic words during translation.  Maloney’s testimony asserts “disturbing new allegations [surround] Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology and its involvement with terrorism.”  The Saban Center’s Arabic translation deliberately adds to Maloney’s initial assertion through contending allegations exist about “Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology and its involvement in acts of terrorism.”  The insinuation is profound to the Arabic reader.  In diplomatic terms, general involvement with terrorism pales in comparison to direct complicity in acts of terrorism.  The Saban Center’s ideological additions frame Iran as an exporter of global terrorism and implicate it in finite acts of the worst kind, a contention Maloney’s counterparts at the Subcommittee hearing were eager to emphasize.

A similar narrative arises in Maloney’s testimony when she remarks “the resistance and persistence of the Islamic Republic presents a greater concern within the region than at any time in the past two decades.”  The Saban Center translates this seemingly bland introduction as: “the Islamic Republic’s resistance and persistence is a source of great worry within the region, more so than at any point in the past two decades.”  This addition incriminates Iran as the paramount source, insinuating boldly all fear will evaporate once Iran is dealt with. Interference through addition is a clever, measured action, calculated specifically to frame the Iranian regime in a negative light.

As expected, there are many instances where English language utterances do not exist in Arabic.  These cases provide the Saban Center translator with free range to convey the precise meaning of the English word by using whatever Arabic words the translator sees fit.  When discussing USA’s position relative to Iran, Maloney asserts “the threat of new measures has persuaded Tehran to take a number of steps over the years to mitigate its vulnerability to external economic leverage.”  That statement alone, like much of Maloney’s testimony, is loaded with ideological prejudices.  Despite all, the Saban Center chose to insert greater ideological force in the Arabic translation.  Since a single, complete, apropos utterance for “leverage” doesn’t exist in Arabic, the Saban Center could have conveyed its essence through multiple words or various other translation techniques.  Instead, it selects one word, whose meaning conveys influence, effectiveness, and even prestige.  None of these descriptions satisfy leverage’s definition, which conveys an exertion of force designed to achieve a particular outcome.  By deliberately avoiding explaining this in the Arabic, the Saban Center instead drops any connotation the U.S. achieves its goals through the application of force and implies the U.S. is enigmatically influential.  In sum, the Saban Center doesn’t attempt to explain the concept of “leverage” in Arabic, because that doesn’t suit its ideological goals; implications of the inexplicable influence of non-native entities aligns well with the ideology of Revisionist Zionism.

The heart of Zionism explains why the Saban Center would omit words during translation.  Zionism, by definition, is based on exclusion, both territorially and conceptually.  It emphasizes a state-building process, which rejects Palestinians, prioritizes land allotment for a chosen people, and deliberately propagates ethnic division (Gordon: 821).  By its very nature, Zionism demands the expulsion of aspects, which might disrupt its traditionally cohesive character (Ibid: 811).  Hence, ideology tends to trump linguistic considerations during the translation process (Lefevere: 39).

Caution is mandatory because some translators might not be conscious of how the Saban Center’s ideology affects their work.  Hence, deliberate intent might not be applicable to all instances where the Saban Center distorts Maloney’s text during translation into the Arabic.  Concordantly, critics of the Saban Center’s perpetuation of Revisionist Zionism must accept not all ideological acts are premeditated.  Nonetheless, dissecting Dr. Suzanne Maloney’s testimony and its Arabic translation illuminates how a subtle U.S. think tank adheres to a strict Zionist narrative when prescribing policy about the Greater Middle East.  This analysis is a small step towards understanding how the ideological undercurrents of a refined think tank intersect with the U.S. geopolitical process.

Written by Christian Sorensen for Media Roots

***

Photo by Flickr user Ron Almog

Additional labour by Messina

MEDIA ROOTS — The function of the U.S. presidency, essentially, is to give a human face to the empire, to offer a humanizing appeal to barbarism abroad and domestically—at least under our rigged de facto two-party dictatorship.  A point Obama doesn’t deny:  “People have a sense the game is rigged…”  Enter Obama, to assure them otherwise. 

So, when uncritical corporate rock magazines interview the so-called Commander-in-chief, we’re supposed to feel warm and fuzzy, rather than dreadful or indignant about the $750 million in campaign funds he took in 2008, nor the projected $1 billion for 2012, and all of the pro-1% policies which flow from such obscene funding.  Last week’s Rolling Stone interview with President Obama conducted by the magazine’s Editor and Publisher Jann S. Wenner (alongside RS Executive Director Eric Bates) evokes many familiar tropes we’ve grown accustomed to during his last four years in office.  But let’s take another look at the sympathetic campaign-promoting interview from a more critical perspective.

Robbie and Messina

***

The recent Rolling Stone interview with Obama evokes many familiar tropes we’ve been accustomed to during his last four years in office.  Indeed,

“[…] even when asked a direct question, [Obama] focused primarily on the very real constraints he operates under as president […]”

Out the gate, Obama employed what Glenn Greenwald refers to as the ‘impotent presidency‘ excuse, setting the tone for the interview wherein anything remotely controversial is deferred to other areas of government, taking the president off the hook of showing any meaningful leadership, as we’re expected to agree the president has no power to change the system, nor try.

Instead, in his introduction Wenner primes readers for Obama’s campaign rhetoric:

“[…] ending discrimination against gay soldiers, pulling US troops out of Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden […]”

These, of course, are lists of ‘accomplishments’ Obama prefers to emphasize.  Although, we weren’t aware that, by dragging his feet for years on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell‘ (DADT) and finally removing it, he was “ending discrimination against gay soldiers.”  From our estimates, sexuality in the military is still stuck 50 years in the past, with women charging rape being labeled mentally ill by commanding officers.  If heterosexual discrimination is still so prevalent, we don’t even want to imagine how far in the past homosexual discrimination is (DADT repealed or not).

As, Obama strove to set the tone for the interview with the ‘impotent presidency’ defense, Wenner assisted the humanization process by depicting Obama as a regular guy.  If Bush 2.0 was the guy you might want to have a beer with, Obama is the guy you can text with.

“Obama began to air-thumb an imaginary text.  ‘See I’m hip,’ he said with a laugh.”

Oh, Obama, you’re so funny!

“Do you think racial politics and race relations in America are any different now than when you first took office?”

“Look, race has been one of the fault lines in American culture and American politics from the start.”

Here, Obama uses his familiar condescending sentence structure, starting out his statement with the word ‘look.’  And, of course, avoids the glaring statistics, which betray a virtual war on Black and Brown and immigrant communities, not to mention the function police departments play in criminalizing people of color and low-income.

“You’ve shied away from demanding marriage equality for all.  Are you at least willing to say that you support it on a personal level?”

“I’m not going to make news in this publication.  I’ve made clear that the issue of fairness and justice and equality for the LGBT community is very important to me.  And I haven’t just talked about it, I’ve acted on it.”

Completely dodging the question and in a defensive posture, Obama claims he’s made clear LGBT equality is very important to him, even though he personally does not support gay marriage and has said so repeatedly.

“And we’re going to keep on working in very practical ways to make sure that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are treated as what they are – full fledged members of the American family.”

Since the president himself doesn’t believe in marriage equality, maybe he’s referring to ‘we’ as in his administration.  You can’t be a full-fledged member of the “American family” if you can’t get legally married to the person you love.

“You vowed in 2008 […] you would not ‘use justice department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana.’  Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What’s up with that?”

“Here’s what’s up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law.”

Actually, Mr. President, you did say, literally, what was quoted above.  There isn’t anything more ‘specific’ about it.  Your statement, as well as the one made by Attorney General Eric Holder, stated clearly criminal prosecutions of people in violation of federal law, but not state medical marijuana laws, would be a very low priority.  Effectively, you did “nullify” the DEA policy by making such a statement in office.  Unfortunately, it was merely a platitude and a statement without any intention of being honored.  Smoking marijuana, medicinally or not, is against federal law.  So, why all of a sudden are you worried about federal law in regards to marijuana?  Medical pot needs to be grown somewhere, but it’s probably more convenient for the DEA to go after the big fish because they have the most money and resources that the DEA can ‘seize.’

Regarding questions on why criminal charges have not been leveled against Wall Street:  “Despite all the fraud and manipulation, why is nobody on trial?”

“First of all, we’re a nation of laws. So in some cases, really irresponsible practices that hurt a lot of people might not have been technically against the law. They might have been the wrong thing to do, but prosecutors are required to actually build cases based on what the law is.”

Obama makes the neoclassical economics argument, albeit ahistorically, about how Wall Street is supposed to innovate and then government can regulate after the fact.  There’s no mention of the deregulation, which laid the foundation for the economic disaster under President Clinton’s Administration.  And, of course, many of those same people flocked to Obama’s Administration.  Moreover, Obama employs a form of doublespeak wherein the first half of his response negates the second because while the thrust of his response involved regulation, his first said it all:  “[…] really irresponsible practices that hurt a lot of people might not have been technically against the law.”  And, of course, we note the linguistic coup in Obama’s transformation of “fraud” into “irresponsibility,” completely scrubbing culpability from the entire discourse.

Wenner:  “So, you think there’s still a possibility of criminal prosecution?”

Obama:  “I think there’s still possibilities of criminal prosecutions.  But what I’ve instructed the attorney general to do is to follow the evidence and follow the law.  That’s how our system works.”

Oh, really?  Is that why there are still gulags (Gitmo and Bagram) operating under your direction where people can be held indefinitely without charges for merely being suspected ‘terrorists’?  When it comes to prosecuting the powerful, Obama, all of a sudden, respects our justice system?  Obama must have learned through his coaches and PR team not to give a definitive answer either way.  Right after he was elected, people started asking him, ‘will there be Bush Administration prosecutions?’  And his answer became a familiar mantra:  ‘We must look forward not backwards.’  This time, he leaves it open-ended to give the false impression he still has the intention to prosecute rich and powerful Wall Street criminals:  The recent housing settlement “doesn’t provide any criminal immunity whatsoever.”

Actually it does, perhaps not as bad as the NSA telecom immunity bill Obama flipped on when he was in the Senate, but close.

Glenn Greenwald offers a more realistic perspective on “how our system works” With Liberty and Justice for Some under our two-tiered justice system:

“The thing is, if you look at what has happened in the last decade in the United States,” explains Greenwald, “think about the kind of crimes that we have seen by the most powerful people. 

“So, we’ve seen the construction of a worldwide torture regime, spying on American people without the warrants required by the criminal law, an aggressive attack on another country that killed at least a hundred thousand innocent people, multiple acts of obstruction of justice, systematic fraud on an enormous scale, that triggered a worldwide economic crisis, that destroyed the economic comfort and middle-class security of tens of millions of people, mortgage fraud where homes were taken without legal entitlements.  And every single one of these crimes has been completely protected.  None have been investigated meaningfully, let alone prosecuted.

“Then at the very same time that we’ve created this template of elite immunity we have created the world’s largest penal state, prison state, in the entire world.  

“So, people are extremely well aware of this vastly disparate treatment, that people who are powerful and in positions of privilege and prestige receive versus how ordinary Americans receive treatment before the bar of justice.  And we’re inculcated the idea we’re all supposed to be equal before the law.”

But never mind reality, Rolling Stone has more important questions to ask.

Wenner:  “You came into office as a young president with no military experience. Can you tell us a bit about your experience with overseeing the Pentagon and how you’ve grown as commander in chief, how your leadership style has evolved?”

Obama:  “In part because of really good work by Bob Gates, who I kept on as a secretary of defense […]  I think they know I care about them and I respect them, and I think they respect me and listen to what I say.  They understand that I’m the commander in chief.”

Again, Obama carefully words his answer to reinforce the false notion that he can only do so much.  He expresses his desire and uncertainty of the Pentagon having mutual respect for him.  Keeping the Bush Administration’s defense secretary was a way for him to offset his lack of experience, or so he claims.

Wenner:  “I heard you liked the TV show Homeland.”

Obama:  “I did, it was a great show.”

Laughably, here Rolling Stone readers are, apparently, supposed to get the sense Wenner is really sticking it to Obama with her questioning by reiterating:

“In the show a drone strike destroys a madrassa and provokes an assassination attempt on the vice president of the United States.  What did you enjoy about it?”

But, again, this is merely another frame, by which Obama is humanized and his responsibility for unprecedented drone killings is scrubbed clean from the discourse.

“What I liked was just real complicated characters.  […]  It’s a terrific psychological study, and that’s what I enjoy about it.”

Obama likes the show Homeland because, like another propagandistic show before it, Sleeper Cell, it reinforces the false premise that the USA is under domestic threat from ‘Islamic terrorism‘ because of ‘blowback’ resulting from U.S. imperialism and heavy-handed military attacks. 

Wenner continues with the humanizing questions, coming full circle from the introduction to the conclusion, by asking him for more TV-viewing recommendations and giving Obama a chance to name-drop celebrities, such as George Clooney, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, and so on.

“I like The Daily Show[…]  I think Jon Stewart’s brilliant.  It’s amazing to me the degree to which he’s able to cut through a bunch of the nonsense […] he ends up having more credibility than a lot of more conventional news programs do.”

Utilizing a familiar trope from late Bush-era commentary.  It used to be ‘hip’ to say these things about Stewart, now the president is saying them.  Is something wrong with this picture?  Jon Stewart has been noticeably hands-off in regards to criticizing the Obama Administration, even frequently having on as guests people from his cabinet.  Democrats and liberals still love the Daily Show, since it never really stopped attacking Republicans on a regular basis, even when Democrat Obama became Commander-in-chief, buttressing the false left/right paradigm, by which Republicans simplistically play the antagonist to the Democrats’ protagonist role in the de facto two-party system and alternative parties are scrubbed from the people’s consciousness.

“There are a handful of blogs [I read], Andrew Sullivan’s on the Daily Beast being an example, that combine thoughtful analysis with a sampling of lots of essays that are out there.”

If you weren’t sure what to think of “former” neo-con Andrew Sullivan’s blog before, hopefully this helps.  When Obama himself starts praising your work as a journalist, it’s time to re-evaluate whether you even believe in the concept of the Fourth Estate.  By the shamefully uncritical treatment of Obama, it’s clear what Rolling Stone thinks about it. 

Written by Robbie Martin and Felipe Messina for Media Roots

***

Photo by Flickr user Donkey Hotey

MEDIA ROOTS — It’s been a whole year since Osama bin Laden was allegedly assassinated in a Pakistani Navy Seal raid, but that isn’t stopping water-carrying media outlets and the White House from ratcheting up fears of terrorism, painting the potential for an ‘anniversary attack.’  Not surprisingly, a federal judge recently ruled, because of ‘national security,’ the Obama Administration does not have to release photos or video of the raid.  We were told by the White House the Seals had helmet cams running in real-time during the operation.  However, they have now back peddled on that claim, stating no video exists, as the feed allegedly, and coincidentally, experienced an apparent ‘black out’ during the actual raid itself.

In a 2011 60 Minutes interview, a week after the raid, Obama said, “We have done DNA sampling and testing… we are absolutely sure it was him.”  If they’ve done DNA testing to prove it, why can’t they—at the very least—show us that evidence?  It raises many questions, among others, why they would need to do DNA testing at all, unless his body was unidentifiable to the naked eye.

The timing of Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow’s upcoming bin Laden raid movie could prove to be very convenient for the Obama re-election campaign.  She was granted exclusive access to classified documents detailing the accounts of the raid, but unlike most White House propaganda ‘leaks,’ this one will be in the form of a Hollywood film.  It’s still in production, but one shoud expect the previews and TV spots for Bigelow’s movie to help remind everybody why Obama ‘keeps us safe‘ right before the November 2012 election.

Written by Robbie Martin of Media Roots

***

SALON — Earlier this week, an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled in favor of the government in a national security case (needless to say), when he denied a FOIA request to obtain all photos and videos taken during and after the raid in Pakistan that resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death. The DOJ responded to the lawsuit by arguing (needless to say) that the requested materials “are classified and are being withheld from the public to avoid inciting violence against Americans overseas and compromising secret systems and techniques used by the CIA and the military.” Among other things, disclosure of these materials would have helped resolve the seriously conflicting statements made by White House officials about what happened during the raid and what its actual goals and operating rules were.

But while the Obama administration has insisted to the court that all such materials are classified and cannot be disclosed without compromising crucial National Security secrets, the President’s aides have been continuously leaking information about the raid in order to create politically beneficial pictures of what happened. Last August, The New Yorker published what it purported to be a comprehensive account of the raid, based on mostly anonymous White House claims, that made Barack Obama look like a mix of Superman, Rambo and Clint Eastwood; The Washington Post called it “a fascinating, cinematic-like account of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.”

Read more about Selective Bin Laden Leaking.

***

Photo by Flickr user Ssoosay