To satisfy a US moral standard, the image of a naked woman’s breast must first be doused in blood. The great stand-up Lenny Bruce said this (or something like it) so often, comedy nerds have been misquoting it for more than half a century. Bruce’s preoccupation with nude boobs notwithstanding, he made a good point at the time: America sees obscenity in intimacy, but not at all in war.
This was true for Vietnam, the war that would inform Bruce, and was arguably true in 1998 when president Bill Clinton’s almost forgotten strikes in Baghdad coincided with the Monica Lewinsky “scandal”. Irish newspaper The Examiner ran with the headline “Lewinsky affair apparent in phallic missile deluge on Baghdad”. Sure, this is more florid and more Freudian than James Joyce on an especially emotional afternoon, but it doesn’t contradict more scholarly accounts of the Desert Fox raids, which came to be known as Monica’s War.
We should name this deadly invasion for the former intern no more than we should blame her for Clinton’s impeachment. For the impeachment, for the forgotten war and for the diminished Western reputation of cigars, we can blame Clinton. But, we can’t let that puritanical US hypocrisy Bruce described go free. It was Clinton’s choice to enact violence. But it was the US tradition to prefer that obscenity over a naked breast.
Perhaps it remains the US tradition. Even today, as tensions increase between Trump and the nation he might not have colluded with, US media buoys that custom of disgust for naked women. The actor Stormy Daniels, who has made allegations about US President Donald Trump, continues to produce headlines and moralising fits. Liberal outlets worry most for this wayward woman.
In The Washington Post we find a paternalistic portrait of a woman too naïve to name her abuse. The writer frets that Daniels is just not bright enough to know that she’s been done, both by Trump and by the adult film industry, in which she continues to work. Daniels has been clear that she is not a victim, and the Post is generous enough to call that her “prerogative”. Not so generous that they will also call it her truth. Today, a woman who told 60 Minutes that she would not “further someone else’s agenda” is dismissed as deluded by the Post.
Just how such condescending focus is made possible within the imagination of so many liberal writers is a mystery. Daniels is a woman who is a danger to Trump, who declares that she is not a victim, who will not further someone else’s agenda and who is unashamed to remove her clothes for money. I’d say she’s earned full empowerment credentials.
The Post does not. This naked woman who refuses to wear the preferred language of #MeToo is a threat. And, per Bruce, she is an obscene threat, which is more of a threat than war.
I’d say that war is a bit of a threat. Not to be a glass-half-empty foreign policy hobbyist, but today marks the largest expulsion in US history of Russian diplomats. Trump has broken Reagan’s Cold War record. Guy only ever managed to evict 55 in one go.
EU members are doing the same, following the lead of the UK, their soon-to-be ex. At the time of writing, local reports suggest that Australia will soon expel two Russian diplomats. Which might be a bother for Dutton, who may not enjoy farewelling white residents.
At what point US, Australian and all Coalition of the stupid journalists might cease cheering on the possibility of war and demanding that Trump takes more action against Russia is anybody’s guess. Maybe when the first of an estimated 4000 armed Russian nuclear missiles is activated. Maybe when anti-Russian sentiment stops trending among careless journalists on Twitter.
The loving anticipation of this war, which will be legitimised by history about as much as any other US military action of the last 60 years, will end. Perhaps in annihilation. But, maybe the Western preference for the obscenity of violence over the “obscenity” of women who refuse to wear clothes or a hashtag will never really end.
Don’t let me be one of those comedy nerds who tells you Lenny Bruce was right.
Whereas Razer sees obscenity in the West violently intervening in the affairs of other countries because it feels “threatened”, but no obscenity in Russia violently intervening in other countries because it feels “threatened”.
Of course, no mention of those people publicly poisoned on the streets and still fighting for their lives…but to satisfy the Razer moral standard, the frothing mouth of a nerve-agent poisoned dissident must be doused in liberalism…
Fun and fanciful conclusion. More Joyce?
Hyperbolic much?
Shall we do a count of PROVEN Russian ‘interventions’, and compare that to proven Western interventions?
But, all hilarity aside, methinks you are missing the point.
This is the point, along H’s line, but on a whole other level – https://thesaker.is/what-happened-to-the-west-i-was-born-in/
You do realise the Atomic Scientists have the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than it’s been since the early ’50’s, and that includes the Cuban Missile Crisis?
‘Scorecards’ are pretty pointless about now, dontcha think?
From long distant Sunday school teachings I clearly recall a Commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ but nothing about ‘thou shalt not be immodest’. US godbotherers need a refresher course.
I think this article is a non-sequitur struggling to become a false dichotomy.
The expulsion of Russian diplomats was led by the UK as a proportionate response to the use of an outlawed nerve agent in an attempted assassination. The measure was supported and echoed by most of the EU, and the US was a follower here and not a leader. If there’s a better response, what is it? But regardless, for a change Trump wasn’t at the centre of it, he was unlikely to make things any better, yet so far hasn’t seemed to have made them any worse. He’s a non-sequitur here.
But meanwhile, I don’t see where moral outrage is warranted on Stormy Daniels either. A seasoned entertainer who exploits sex for money is exploiting a self-confessed predator who exploits power for sex while the media and lawyers exploit them both. They all know what they’re doing; it’s hard to fathom how the scandal will see Trump impeached, and I think the main US domestic political interest will be how many rusted on Trump-supporters it’ll dislodge before he runs for a second term. It’s worthy of some reporting, and Daniels’ strategy is built on exploiting media attention anyway so she’ll run it for as long as it’ll run.
Finally, if there were fewer Stormy Daniels interviews, would we see more analysis of how diplomatic expulsions might hurt Russian trade or affect regional stability? I doubt it. So if war is the worry then I think Daniels is a false dichotomy.
A better article would have practiced what it preached: ignored Daniels and Trump too, done the relevant research and talked about Russia’s emerging trade and political identity, and how recent events play against it.
The UK has chosen not to provide any proof that the nerve agent, if that’s what it was, came from Russia. It’s all unsupported allegation any these people have form when it comes to unsupported allegations. Remember Saddam’s WMDs? The laboratory that researched that family of chemicals was in Uzbekistan, not Russia, and was dismantled by the Americans, not the Russians. Russia was officially certified to have destroyed all its chemical weapons. (Of course they could have hidden some but that’s a “could have.”) Both the West and Russia have double standards about what’s Soviet and what’s Russian as we see in Russia’s “taking back” of Crimea which was transferred from Russian to Ukrainian administration when both were component states of the Soviet Union and in the extensive blaming of Russia in the West for anything that came out of the Soviet Union. Now, the leaders of the US, UK, France and Russia are all quite unpleasant people with their own agendas. Any one of these four could immediately destroy any one of the others in a nuclear exchange, as could also China at least and possibly Israël, India and Pakistan. A nuclear conflict between any two of these countries would cause widespread damage outside their borders while a nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia would destroy both in minutes and then produce a worldwide nuclear winter that would kill billions and end civilisation. Any responsible leader of any country that just might have the ear of any leader of these potential world destroyers should be talking to their allies, pleading that they move away from war, not to the brink as they are now.
“any these people” should read “and these people”
Rais argued:
> The UK has chosen not to provide any proof that the nerve agent, if that’s what it was, came from Russia
It’s has been stated by the UK government that the nerve agent used was of the Novichok series, which the USSR and Russia developed between 1971 and 1993 under the program codenamed FOLIANT, whose fourfold objectives were to be undetectable to standard NATO equipment of the day, defeat NATO chemical protective gear, be safer to handle than alternatives, and circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) first drafted in 1992, and outlawing the stockpiling of common chemical weapon precursors.
Russia officially denies producing or researching Novichok agents, however Russian scientists who developed these agents claim they are the deadliest ever made: these are serious weapons, and their use at all sets a dangerous global precedent.
If you wish to assert that a Novichok agent wasn’t used, then you need to offer a testable explanation for why the UK government lied in such a conspicuous way on a matter that’s relatively easy to independently verify. If you had such evidence you’d have offered it instead of rhetoric, so let’s discard that position.
Alternatively, if you accept that a Novichok agent was used to try to kill a former Russian agent and his daughter then you either believe that:
(i) It was used by Russian agents, e.g. for reprisal or expedience; or
(ii) It was used by non-Russian actors for their own reprisal or expedience, *and* that Russia has also somehow lost control of a controlled and weaponised nerve agent — which places on you the burden of evidence as to who else would have done it, why *and* how they came by that particular method.
While (i) is more plausible than (ii), I would agree that we can’t eliminate (ii) without further information, but these are the alternatives the UK government offered the Russian government as a ‘please explain’, prior to expelling Russian diplomats.
Russia has not responded with a credible answer and maintains official denials that do not withstand public scrutiny. Russia also has form in assassinating former agents on foreign soil. Thus, the UK’s expulsion of Russian diplomats is a considered and proportionate response, and since the use of nerve agent sets a dangerous global precedent, it’s a proportionate response for other CWC signatories too. Please note that the only diplomats expelled were those suspected of working in Russian intelligence — i.e, those offering other services were not expelled.
I don’t see your other points as relevant, Rais, but would return you to my earlier question: if you think the expulsion of Russian diplomats suspected of intelligence activities is not a proportionate response to a muscular government that has been deceitful for decades about its researches and in likelihood has set a dangerous chemical weapon precedent, what alternative response would you recommend?
No I didn’t assert that Novichok wasn’t used. I pointed out that the UK government had asserted that it was but chosen not to provide evidence. I pointed out that the UK (and US) have form asserting things without proof and gave an example of a case where they certainly knew that the assertion was false. I don’t know whether the current assertion is true or not and neither do you. What I do know is that “robust response” to a murder that may or may not have been committed by someone from Russia is taking us ever nearer to the tipping point where war may start. Personally I’d rather back down and be called a coward than “respond robustly” and be a radioactive cinder.
Rais wrote:
> the UK government had asserted that it was but chosen not to provide evidence
Due to the symptoms reported widely, there’s not much question that a nerve agent was used. You’re asking how we know which one?
Some more background then: due to the specifics of their design, Novichok agents have been of international concern for years. Last year, spectrographic signatures of key Novichok agents were identified and added to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ Central Analytical Database (OCAD) [Ref: *Spectroscopy Now*, Jan 1 2017], and are now available internationally for detection and verification. If any of these agents were used, then independent verification would be straightforward: a copy of the spectrography would suffice.
In principle I agree that for transparency and accuracy, such spectrography should be shared with an independent laboratory. I have not been able to confirm that this has occurred, but the speed of EU response suggests to me that either it already has, or that it will be expected to (and if it doesn’t happen, expect protests from the international laboratories collaborating on OCAD.) My point being: this would not be a good claim for Her Majesty’s Government to have lied about, and I believe they know it.
But meanwhile, I don’t think you need criminal-level proof to act diplomatically. All you need is balance of probability on means and motive (they seem to have it), and a noncooperative foreign government telling lies (they have that too.) Nobody is being jailed, and no person is even being slandered: governments are just revoking privileges they have the right to revoke, and the Russian government is retaliating in kind. The nett cost is to certain on-the-ground intelligence operations (which I suspect will mainly affect trade though I’d love more detail about that.) However in principle, having multiple nations do it to Russia puts more cost and embarrassment on Russia than Russia can put on other nations. It’s a considered and proportionate response.
Will it be effective? Only time will tell. If we see an epidemic of Novichok-agent assassinations around the world in coming years, then that’ll tell us it wasn’t. If there isn’t, then it probably was.
> I’d rather back down and be called a coward than “respond robustly” and be a radioactive cinder.
So your preferred alternative is ‘do nothing’. You seem then, to be arguing that politically, a nuclear power should be allowed to use subtle, insidious nerve agents whenever it wants in every jurisdiction it wants, provided that the individuals responsible are never directly identified.
I strongly differ on that position. I think it’s to the credit of the UK, the EU, the US, Canada and Australia that they acted promptly, decisively and proportionately. (New Zealand has also expressed in-principle support, but seems to lack suspected Russian spies to expel.) My fear is that such action in itself may not be effective.
Posted not in response to our colleague Rais, but to close off an avenue of previous concern….
Reported in the Guardian today, 31-Mar-18:
There is no opportunity to reply button to Ruv’s most recent post. I suppose that many will consider the initiative as “better late than never”. Of course, not all are going to accept the result – but such is life.
We don’t know when the samples were dispatched to the OPCW; only when that was reported. But even in the worst case, the times involved are quite brisk compared to the coordination that often occurs between governments and intergovernmental agencies (having worked with government agencies, inter-agencies and multilaterals for some 20 years.)
As for evaluating the results, it’ll be interesting to see what additional insight the OPCW can offer.
For further interest, New Scientist speculates that the samples may have been drawn from the victims’ cerebral spinal fluid. I note too a police report that the highest concentration of the agent was on the door of their home, and that the UK government is unsure how long the agent lasts before it breaks down, and therefore has applied a cordon and advised residents to shower and wash their clothes. (If nothing else, that’s more evidence that this is not a substance the UK government is familiar with.)
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/
References are great, Mike. I’d suggest avoiding ‘expert’ blogs though, and trying for information compiled comprehensively, that gets scrutinised and tested. For example, two scientists who attest to first-hand experience of Novichok were whistleblower Vil Mirzayanov and Andrei Zheleznyakov (eventually killed by exposure to the nerve agent he said was a Novichok.)
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/andrei-zheleznyakov-soviet-scientist-poisoned-novichok
* https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/russian-spy-poisoning-attack-novichok-chemist
And a Reuters article reporting a secret trial associated with abuse/theft of nerve agents:
* https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-stockpiles/secret-trial-shows-risks-of-nerve-agent-theft-in-post-soviet-chaos-experts-idUSKCN1GQ2RH
So there’s some corroborated testimony here, pretty comprehensively researched, independently reported and easy for competing media outlets to check.
Moreover here’s some evidence that the OPCW has been applying suitable skepticism across the years, rather than simply starting at hares:
* https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/SAB/en/sab-16-01_e_.pdf
* https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/RC-3/en/rc3wp01_e_.pdf
And finally, here’s the spectrographic paper that got into the OPCW OCAD database:
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rcm.7757
It’s not conclusive, but in context I don’t think it needs to be. I think it’s fair to treat the UK government’s claim as credible on this occasion.
Vil Mirzayanov included a formula, or formulae, for Novichoks in this 2008 book – https://www.amazon.com/State-Secrets-Insiders-Chronicle-Chemical/dp/1432725661/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522197573&sr=1-1&keywords=vil+mirzayanov
The OPCW didn’t even have it listed, because they had no proof it existed beyond rumours of being ‘deadly’.
The Soviet Union farmed up much of their weapons developments to neighbouring states of the Union. A lot of the CW development went to Uzbekistan.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the US claimed oversight of the CW facilities in Uzbekistan, committing to wind down the program and destroy any stockpiles. They still haven’t fronted the OPCW to say they have done so.
The OPCW partnered with Iran to see if Novichoks could be produced. While the OPCW thought that to be the 1st evidence of successful production, they still didn’t list Novichoks as military grade, deadly nerve agents.
BTW, Craig Murray was the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, from ’02 to ’04. Then, Blair got rid of him – Murray was a bit too principled for Blair.
About 6 years ago, the Richard E. Lugar Centre for Public Health Research was opened in Georgia. Not Georgia US0fA, Tblissi, the capital of Georgia.
Lugar was a US Senator.
The Centre for Public Health Research houses the US Army Medical Research Directorate……in Tblisi, Georgia.
I wonder where these samples were sent:
“A day after Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised members of Russia’s human rights council by informing them that some shadowy entity – possibly with ties to the United States – had been collecting biological tissues from Russians from different ethnic groups, the group responsible for harvesting the tissue has revealed itself.
While some initially discounted Putin’s remarks as another loony conspiracy theory, as it turns out, he was right: The group responsible for the tissue collection was none other than the US Air Force, proving that yet another conspiracy theory has become a conspiracy fact.
A representative for the US Air Force Education and Training Command explained to Russia Today that the choice of the Russian population was not intentional, and is related to research the Air Force is conducting on the human musculoskeletal system.
Eyebrows were first raised in July when the AETC issued a tender seeking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid and synovial fluid from Russians, adding that all samples (12 RNA and 27 synovial fluid) “shall be collected from Russia and must be Caucasian.” The Air Force said it wouldn’t collect samples from Ukrainians, but didn’t specify why.”
That information is very easy to find.
Finally, are you aware of the history of Porton Down? I am, and that sustains a very healthy scepticism about anything that comes out of gobs like that of Boris Johnson.
David, thank you for your contributions, but I’m not sure what your contention is here. For example, are you contending that Novichoks are a fraud, that all weaponised Novichok agents are now in the sole possession of the US, or that they are now widely available to multiple state or non-state actors?
In the flurry of points you’ve submitted I can’t discern a thesis, how you believe it has bearing on the relatively restrained decision to expel Russian intelligence diplomats, or how your contention could be disproven were it false.
For myself, I agree that Iran has been testing Novichok agent spectroscopy (the paper I linked was written by Iranian researchers) and that non USSR/Russian powers will have had decades of interest in securing samples, methods and data about effects. I’ve also supplied papers showing the OPCW’s cautious interest in Novichok-agents, and its resistance — even to 2011 — to asserting their existence, so I’m not sure exactly what we’re disagreeing about. If anywhere, I think it must be somewhere in your conclusions, but I’m afraid I don’t know what they are.
For some reason there’s no “Reply” button on the Ruv’s reply as it appears on my screen so excuse me, Mike, for replying under your very enlightening link instead. Ruv, no, please don’t set up straw men you can knock down by saying, “So what you’re saying is…” then refuting something that hasn’t been said. For the last time, I repeat the undisputed fact that the UK government has not offered any proof of the origin of the agent used. I should add that in view of the allegedly very high toxicity of the agent allegedly used the welcome report that the victims are apparently still alive is surprising. “You seem then, to be arguing that politically, a nuclear power should be allowed to use subtle, insidious nerve agents whenever it wants…” Do I? I thought I said something about producing evidence, any evidence at all since up to now we only have assertions by a government with a known record of falsehood, as have most governments. Then I said something about the relative merits of being alive or dead. Interpret that as you will but don’t make things up so you can refute them. That’s all I have to say; I wish you, and all of us, peace.
Rais it’s not a straw man: I was just pointing out a logic hole you introduced but haven’t dealt with. I understand the attraction of procrastination, and respect that you don’t wish to argue further. For the interest of other readers then, here’s the problem I think the ‘procrastinate for more evidence’ position advanced by Rais hasn’t dealt with:
On the one hand, more information is always desirable, but how will more evidence help when dealing with a malignant nuclear power that we know already interferes with foreign democracies, assassinates former agents in foreign jurisdictions, supports and whitewashes ethnic cleansing, and lies about its chemical weapon programs?
Would more evidence:
* attract much-needed international support? (No — we already got that rapidly and decisively for a change.)
* moderate a potentially excessive response? (No — unlike the WMD fiasco in Iraq, the response to date has been reasonable and proportionate.)
* provide even more deterrence? (No — further delay would simply present indecision and inefficacy to a country that already exhibits contempt for NATO-allied democracies anyway.)
More evidence could provide us with more detailed information and improved investigations in future, but what immediate decisions require it, what is the risk of waiting for it, what is the likelihood of getting it, and what are the costs if we wait, but don’t get it?
Without those answers, the principle of ‘procrastinate until certain’ is license for a sufficiently aggressive power to do what they want, where they want, when they want, as long as it can be done furtively. I can’t think of many things I respect Therese May for, but I think she, the EU, our government and even the lecherous orangutan across the Pacific (or at least his remaining advisors) are doing the best one can here. 🙂
Hyperbolic much?
Shall we do a count of PROVEN Russian ‘interventions’, and compare that to proven Western interventions?
But, all hilarity aside, methinks you are missing the point.
This is the point, along H’s line, but on a whole other level – https://thesaker.is/what-happened-to-the-west-i-was-born-in/
You do realise the Atomic Scientists have the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than it’s been since the early ’50’s, and that includes the Cuban Missile Crisis?
‘Scorecards’ are pretty pointless about now, dontcha think?
Somehow I managed to post that twice.
Stormy said they had an affair, Trump says they didn’t: who are you going to believe, the fake blonde with big tits, or Stormy Daniels?
(Mike I just wanted to acknowledge this as my favourite comment to date. :D)