Deprecated: Function Elementor\DB::is_built_with_elementor is deprecated since version 3.2.0! Use Plugin::$instance->documents->get( $post_id )->is_built_with_elementor() instead. in /home/frequive/ on line 5383

Canceling Congressional Clouseau’s?

The New York Times has no comic section. That’s why they never fail to deliver the laughs right on the front page.

“With No Panel Riot Questions Sure to Linger,” reads Luke Broadwater’s 5-30-2021 headline. If the man is not trying to be a comedian he should have gone back to the familial trade of manufacturing second rate boats.

“…Republicans in Congress have all but closed off the possibility of a full and impartial accounting for one of the most serious assaults on American democracy in history, leaving unanswered critical questions with broad implications for politics, security and public trust.”

Very few of us are in awe looking over the management listed on the NYT masthead these days. But not even any of them seems stooge enough to believe Congress is capable of a “full and impartial accounting” of anything. So what is the editorial assessment of subscriber brain power? Doesn’t the city that never sleeps nod out with the rest of us when legislators start gaveling? The crowd that gets enlightened by updates from Capitol Hill talkathons is populated by people who repeat lines from “fast and furious” flicks.

Broadwater cites the “fact-finding commissions” that followed Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 as examples. Come again, Luke? Are you supposed to be for or against this investigation? Didn’t he already use this punch-line? Why was the Waco probe left out—is it possible even the gray lady recognized that one as a whitewash?

“Fearing political damage from any sustained scrutiny of the attack, Republicans united in large numbers against the inquiry…” Broadwater concludes, without notice that all legislators ever get done during these spectacles is crowd airtime with inane sound bites and roil up mud. Congressional panels always end up as competitions for the stupidest question. The events of January 6th failed to interrupt Hill sessions for even one day. A select committee to delve into the matter would impede business for weeks—at a minimum. Everyone saw something coming—it was all over the papers weeks in advance—why wasn’t security adequately beefed up? The guilt should be equally spread around.

“We need to get a definitive explanation of what actually happened,” Michael Chertoff is quoted. Does he think anyone was faking outrage while inwardly thanking the stars for the negative publicity the mob doused itself in? The Democratic desire for a violent flare up on the sixth wasn’t held behind a world class poker face. Can a Hill panel find a way to prove that the side that “narrowly escaped with their lives” wanted a riot more than a 6-year-old girl wants a pony?

Is there any doubt that the attack was a concerted criminal activity? Is there any mass movement to free the culprits? Is there opposition to preventing such events in the future? Not really, the only violent insurrections getting apologized for—or more often congratulated—are the anti-police uprisings that still go on across the country.  The definitive question that needs answering is how to place things into proportion and give them proper perspective. Most of media—the New York Times leading the pack—is dead set against any such thing. Just read the copy, it’s loaded with unqualified conclusions, hasty labels, emotional rhetoric and unfounded pronouncements about the 6th’s historical significance. The article places an event that lasted until the stormers left for dinner next to the War of 1812.

“…there is no outside group of experts charged with getting to the bottom of myriad failings that led to the deadliest assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.” Where do you go to find “experts” on hooligans anyway? Andy Ngo has spent years in the thick of unruly crowds to study and define them. After getting pummeled for going to the trouble he was labeled a “fascist”, deplatformed and had his book suppressed. Is the NYT telling us it’s a guy in tweed, sipping sherry at Friday teatime in the faculty lounge, who knows the streets?

“For the United States, which holds itself out as a beacon of democracy, the rule of law and transparency, the death of the commission has also raised a more fundamental question:…”

“[T]ransparency”? Isn’t Snowden still on the lam in Eurasia? Didn’t the same crusaders for truth condemning Belarus for forcing the plane carrying Raman Pratasevich down forget to notice the US resorted to worse? Jen Psaki—presidential press secretary now, State Department mouthpiece in 2013—said this after Bolivian president Evo Morales plane was denied airspace in several Western European countries forcing an involuntary landing in Austria:

“We have been in contact with a range of countries across the world who had any chance of having Mr. Snowden land or even transit through their countries, but I’m not going to outline when those were or what those countries have been.”

Snowden wasn’t even on Morales’ aircraft. Here’s what’s “transparent”—Lukashenko has more reliable intelligence than the United States. Does that belong on the list of times our rulers fell flat on their faces?

“…What happens when one political party effectively squelches any effort to look inward to assess government failings that have shaken the public’s faith in the nation’s institutions?”

Things would be a lot clearer for us all if it was only “one political party” not “look”-ing “inward” and  covering up “government failings.” How many decades did it take before the NYT itself gave sufficient coverage to the Tulsa massacre of 1921? Or any number of other matters, ignored for over a generation, that suddenly become urgent to public understanding? Faith in institutions, primarily the ones that do investigations, is largely unfounded. The NYT never fails to point that out when it falls in line with the political prerogatives they hold dear.

“Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who was allegedly sprayed with bear spray, collapsed and died afterward…” Originally it was reported the officer was struck with a fire extinguisher by the paper of record.  Now, even prosecutors tell us it was mace, and not bear spray, that assaulted the deceased. While there is medical data that links mace to strokes it is hardly definitive proof. This is not to say people who use the stuff in attacks shouldn’t be prosecuted. What’s proved here is another NYT effort to gin up rancor with any fragment of fact or farrago that furthers their case.

“The Justice Department’s investigation into the Jan. 6 is, at this point, one of the largest in U.S. history, with more than 400 defendants.” If only all violent public displays of dissatisfaction got the same kind of attention we’d all be safer—and more confident in those “institutions” the NYT finds reliable when convenient. I have a lot more sympathy for people left defenseless on Main Street last summer than legislators who let their guard down—quite possibly on purpose–with all the resources of federal government at their disposal.

““This was not just a random event; it was existential in nature,” said Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who was vice chairman of the 9/11 commission. “How in the world could this happen in this country? It was unbelievable that this far along in a democracy, we could have this kind of event occur. It needs exploration.””

If it wasn’t getting any “exploration” how did the DOJ turn up 400 defendants and counting? The criminality of many participants in the January demonstrations has not become a political football. Demonstrators aren’t taking to the streets to set those charged loose. But it is hardly “unbelievable” there is political unrest in this country. The most radical changes being forced on the population fall far short of enjoying popular volition.

We are enduring 55 murders a day in this country. Is that even close to being the top priority of the ruling class—which spans upper academia, Wall Street and an unhealthy proportion of elected officials? Their primary concern looks to be trading in meaningful education for a mass guilt trip. The only foreseeable outcome is a country falling further behind in world culture and economy. The minorities elites constantly claim to be saving will inevitably be hit hardest. It’s the same result every time enlightenment comes to the rescue.

“[A] panel of 10 experts, evenly split between Republican and Democratic appointees – would have had the broad authority to connect various threads of inquiry and compile a single comprehensive record for American history…”

Is it redundant to ask again how you would define an “expert” for this task? Is it remotely possible they’ll find too many choices in mass media to be the affliction? Libertarians are always skeptical of authority. But how do you square age-old voices of authority, like the NYT, gunning for authority and swearing by it on the same page daily? “…a single comprehensive record for American history”…is not a joke? Can editors be bothered to read the copy they sent to press yesterday?

The reason that January 6th can even be called “unprecedented” is the same for lots of other developments: hyper-communication. Archaic sources like the NYT took the brunt of the financial impact. If they don’t like being laughed at they should wise up to themselves. Hoping academic and governmental goons can break the country’s funny bone is a good sign the NYT’s end—as a serious influence—is nigh.

The post Canceling Congressional Clouseau’s? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Leave a Comment

Generated by Feedzy
%d bloggers like this: