A refreshing article at the Boston Globe, but also more of the same from Chickenhawk Jacoby

The Boston Globe was for a couple of decades owned by the New York Times.  In that era, it was reliably Timesy.  To be honest, so we guess.  I no longer live in the Boston area so what little I read was usually a link that evinced no surprises.

As there are few hot properties in daily news outlets, The Times unloaded the Globe in 2013 at a fire sale price relative to what the old Yankee ownership received about 20 years previously.  

The new owner, John Henry, is a successful businessman who also owns the Boston Red Sox.  Out here in Nowheresville, we have not discerned any change in direction from the usual knee jerk progressivism.  Then again, we are not paying attention.

It was refreshing to catch a link to an article that is in opposition to the administration policy in Eastern Europe.  The title of the September 20th piece, Russia is not the enemy, set the tone that Stephen Kinzer followed to the end.  What's interesting is Mr. Kinzer is a veteran Timesman.  Of course, as we are not following either paper too closely, we may be misjudging.

Still, the article is good.  It lays out all the reasons why the current policy toward Russia is ill advised.  Reading Kinzer, one gets the feeling that American foreign policy makers just don't know when to stop.  Well, that has been a bit of a theme here at The Neutralist.

Mr. Kinzer's article is worth your time.

The current administration at the Globe has inherited, for better or worse, old staff.  In the for worse column, we would include token conservative Jeff Jacoby.

Jeff is a neocon, which really does not bear much resemblance to conservatism.  The man is reliably for war and more war.  

Needless to say, you can leave out one word in the title of Mr. Kinzer's article and change Russia to Putin and you have serviceable theme for Jacoby's article back in March.  The title, Putin has builta Russia of hate, is not going to win awards for subtlety, nor is the article.  Jacoby blames Putin for everything except the Lindbergh kidnapping.

The article is a rehashing of all the anti-Putin tropes, as Putin has been, 

"crushing Chechnya, occupying Georgia, running interference for Syria and Iran-al while eviscerating domestic democratic opposition, plundering Russia's wealth..."

Forgetting that Putin also warned us about the Marathon bombers, but so what.  Gee, those Chechens are the nicest people.  

That running interference for Syria, we could translate that as opposing ISIS, but why quibble.

Putin might not have annexed Crimea if Nuland et al had not pushed a coup as Jacoby did not mention.

In his article, Jeff all but accuses Putin of killing dissident Boris Nemtsov.  For all we know that may be right.  Does it mean we have to go all out against the Russkies.  Jeff is all for it.

"America and the West can best give meaning to Nemtsov's death by emulating the resolve and courage he embodied in life. Condolences won't stop Putin's advances. Backbone is a different story."

Jeff knows all about backbone.  He has led the fight against those who call him and his non-serving ilk "chickenhawks."  To him its a slur.  He and the rough writers showed us by marching down to the recruiting office to lead the battle from the frontlines and not the keyboard.

Nah, he still fights from the comfortable Globe bunker on Morrisey Boulevard. 

Tomgram, salvation is destruction

The headline to the Tomgram article says it all,  We Have to Destroy Our Constitution to Save It.  It's one of those great lies such as Bush the younger's abandoning free market principles to save it.  It has no basis in truth, but is accepted by a segment of the population.

No one to the Neutralist's knowledge actually said that about the constitution other than Tom, but it is the general tone of partisans of the security state. 

Bush did make his remark.  Unlike a lot of people who were born with a hatred for him, his family and party, The Neutralist doesn't think he was stupid.  Neither do we believe him a genius.  He possessed the cunning of the political class.  There is a very limited free market in this country.  In real terms, Bush did nothing to save it, nor did he have any intention of doing so.  He was bailing out the banker class.  His remark of saving it was him being cute as was, oh like say, Bill Clinton when he announced the end of the big government era.

The security state partisans do claim to be preserving our freedoms, but they talk more on the order of keeping us safe.  They say we have not heard about the events they prevented.  We sure know about the guys they set up for a fall.  If they're so effective, then there should have been no Boston Marathon bombing.  After all, they were tipped off by the Russkies.

So if the record of catching the bad guys is, as they say in Scotland, not proven, what is the rationale for scooping up all our phone records?

In truth, we do not have an answer, only guesses.  The people who are doing this are bureaucrats even if they wear general's stars.  We would not want to say they are born rotters and that is what they do.  They may have signed on believing in the goodness of the mision.  No matter the state of their souls, they believe in the mission.  If they don't, at least they serve it.  Governments and bureaucracies do not always trust the citzenry.  It is not far from that to a for your own good attitude.

It is even shorter to a we are trashing the Bill of Rights to save it.  Are they mad.  Sure, but the real crazies don't go to asylums.  If you can write a plausible paper, appear cogent on C span, you should have no worries about keeping a post no matter how many files you want Leviathan to scoop up.

The Tomgram applauds the activity of the people who exposed COINTELPRO and the paper that exposed the operation.  What has changed?  More to the point, who has changed?  There is a tiny burst of surprise that the Clintons have an enemies list.  Not a big topic in the media.  When Nixon had them it was proof of complete evil, as was just about anything he did.  Equally hated and reviled was J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI. 

To go after them was truth to power.  Was it really?  After all, the media applauded the actions of the operatives.  We don't know, but no matter, the security state at that time was a fraction of what it is now, but it was not good.

Now, the great and good are not rising up in opposition as they did even under Bush.  Not too many have much to say against this administration.  Why?  Is it a cult of personality for someone who really does not have much of a personality?

Tom and Glenn have to be commended.  It has to be a bit lonely, but that is heroism.

The Pakistani Role and what should we do about it?

Did the Paks know? Short answer, I'm guessing, probably. So, what do you want to do about it? Invade? Good luck. Bomb? We do that a lot. If it worked we would have won Nam and Afghanistan would be a liberal democracy now. Oh yeah, there was Serbia, but if you remember, we bombed because we added some conditions to the peace agreement and the Serbs rejected them. We bombed and then agreed to the conditions. We have since gone back on them.

Since the usual diplomatic methods, bombing and invasion don't look so hot, let's leave. Unless you believe there is a solution instead of an outcome, it is the only sensible route.

A number of years before 911, Harry Browne said "we have a very strong national offense, but a very weak national defense." The felling of the Towers proved his point. What has changed? Not sure. A lot of security theater and a country on lockdown with swat team a growth industry, but it is not getting better.