RT as an Agent of a Foreign Government

It was only a matter of time.  I cannot count the number of times that I have watched RT and uttered aloud to an empty room, "I can't believe it!  How long will it be before they shut this down?"  It has been too good to be true.  A media outlet that tells the truth.
     

Now, it has happened.  Though not entirely shut down, RT has been labelled an agent of a foreign government. It is in keeping with the outrage expressed in the media about Russia influencing our elections.  This from a country that sent in helicopter gunships to murder Salvador Allende in Chile, a duly elected national leader.  The list of foreign leaders we have assassinated is a long one; the list of foreign leaders we have deposed through "covert" operations even longer.  RT's real crime--and this is obvious to anyone who follows world events--is that it gives a platform to those who have not drunk the American Kool-Aid.  There can be only one narrative of events--that coming out of Washington and a mainstream media that is controlled by Washington and the corporations that control the mass media in this country.  It is sad; it is outrageous; but it is also alarming because this is probably only the beginning of efforts to shut down any voices who do not subscribe to the official version of events.  Such behavior is associated with fascism and with the behavior of our erstwhile enemies in the former USSR.  Noam Chomsky, though a fierce critic of American policy, when asked by young people what they can do to turn the country around, has typically responded, "Act.  Speak out.  You have no excuse for not doing so.  This is the free-est country in the world."  That has now changed.  So nervous is the establishment now that the American people themselves are wildly scrambling for alternative leaders and ideas, that they have resorted to firing the first shot in a campaign to silence opposition voices. Unless this policy is reversed, we will see it applied to other media outlets.

All White Folks

I don't know if all those Democrats clad in white at President Trump's address to Congress were aware of it, but in Asia, white is the color donned for funerals.  It seemed entirely appropriate to the occasion since the evening's events had a definitely funereal cast for Democrats.  Looking back not merely on the presidential election but on all but a few moments in former president Barack Obama's administration, the party had fallen into a moribund state.  The mood was thoroughly maintained in



the traditional opportunity given the opposition party's right to a response which was delivered by a casually clad Midwesterner who seemed chosen for his resemblance to a middle of the road Republican.  More deathly calm.

The closing days of the Obama administration, traditionally referred to as the lame duck period, seemed to begin long before the usual last months, rather beginning almost at the inception of his second term, if not even the closing months of his first.  A script for an exciting Obama presidency was on hand.  All he needed to do was dust off Franklin Roosevelt's first inaugural address (which could have been written in 2008).  Instead, what the party provided was a caretaker president chosen to restore some semblance of dignity to an office--and a nation--that had, under George Bush, become an international disgrace given to illegal wars and the tearing up of constitutional safeguards going back to the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D.  The folks in what we now generally acknowledge as the "deep state," (earlier referred to as the "permanent government"), who handpicked the enterprising young black politician to at least temporarily distract the populace from conditions across the board that were steadily worsening in foreign affairs and the domestic economy (as well as--as a bonus--race relations) had reason to sit back and admire their handiwork.  Voters were not given much choice in any case, the party leaders having anointed Hillary Clinton as the preferred candidate in the 2008 election, an individual whose haters always outnumbered her admittedly solid base of supporters.  Hillary, in not just one but, amazingly, two presidential campaigns proved to be as effective as the Democratic Party's previous sure-loser, Al Gore, a guy who couldn't even carry his own state in 2000.  The party that had nothing to offer offered the people nothing and thus, for sixteen very long years, the United States had its dials tweaked by the likes of Halliburton and Goldman Sachs with almost no resistance at all.

Spaghetti Putin-esca

A striking contradiction has emerged out of the hearings on Trump's cabinet appointees.  We are witnessing a spaghetti-like tangle that shows little promise at the moment of lending itself to teasing out any clear indication of what will emerge as Trump's real foreign policy, particularly with regard to Russia.  On the one hand,  a constant accompaniment to Trump's campaign has been his regard for Putin and an implied desire to establish friendly relations with Russia.  Trump's designated candidates for key cabinet posts, on the other hand, have testified to Russia being "the greatest threat to our national security" and accused Russia of aggression in Syria and the Ukraine.  This, while the U.S. encircles Russia with arms and troops.  In the course of reporting on the permanent deployment of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Poland, a PBS NightlyNews commentator spoke of the move as meant to "deter" the Russians.  No explanation was given about what was being deterred.  Not surprisingly, RT, the Russian news outlet, has come in for another round of attacks.



       There is little wonder that RT is a very big bone in the throats of war hawks in Washington.  It must be more than a little annoying to U.S. policy makers that, while they can count on the domestic media, starting with the New York Times, to play down or fail to cover at all our own antics as well as those of Israel, RT has proven to be a reliable source of what is actually occurring here and abroad.  A few months back, we were hearing talk of Russia "winning the propaganda war," a notion presented with alarm and with at least the veiled threat of shutting down RT's television and internet outlets here in the states.  In fact, thousands now turn to RT to get some semblance of objective news reporting.  The most recent example grows out of yet another attack on Syria by the Israeli military. Just a few days ago, (January 12), Israel bombed a military airport near Damascus.  RT immediately covered the story.  Prompted by RT's coverage to seek coverage by the Times, the search took some time since the paper buried the story far from its front page.

       When Israel was demolishing large sectors of Gaza during their last assault on the Palestinian territory, much of the world reacted with horror at the scale and intensity of the attacks.  RT reported that the U.S. Senate made its position clear during the heat of the attacks by voting unanimously to send supplemental arms assistance to Israel.  Not one U.S. senator had the courage to stand up against the Israel lobby.  Once again turning to the Times for coverage of the event proved a vain exercise.
       U.S. covert (and not so covert) operations in Syria and the Ukraine--from "peaceful" demonstrations against the Assad government in the early stages of the conflict in Syria to Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, doling our biscuits to anti-government protesters in the Maidan--were and are largely glossed over by our own media.  Larger questions, such as why President Obama's administration provides a happy home for neo-conservatives one might have thought we were rid of when the Bush presidency ended, go unaddressed.