"The Scientist and the A.I.-Assisted, Remote-Control Killing Machine."
-->According to the NYT, the assassination of a top Iranian scientist was a "straight-out-of-science-fiction story" that needed to be told. There was high tech weaponry with awesome power, and ingeniously crafted remote controlled machine guns. James Bond stuff, with enough fire power to titillate even the most jaded fans of mechanized warfare.
The victim, we are told in this NYT article sort of had it coming. He got up early "to study Islamic philosophy before his day began," like any typical US movie terrorist would supposedly do. He wore the same silver ring as Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenie. He had been a member of the Revoutoary Guards, and like any Western villain, "had no sense of humor." Finally, the NYT speculated that maybe he "found the idea of martyrdom attractive."
Nowhere is this article is any mention of international law, or even of basic human decency. The NYT just assumes that Israel and the United States have the right to assassinate anyone in the world they want, as long as there is enough one sided reporting of how bad they are. I wonder what the NYT would have to say about the assassination of a US scientist? But wouldn't that be, well, terrorism?
"SCIENTISTS AT THE Environmental Protection Agency have provided The Intercept with new information showing that senior staff have made chemicals appear safer — sometimes dodging restrictions on their use — by minimizing the estimates of how much is released into the environment.
The EPA gauges the potential risk posed by a chemical using two measures: how toxic the agency considers it and how much of the substance the public will likely be exposed to. Whistleblowers from the EPA’s New Chemicals Division have already provided The Intercept with evidence that managers and other officials were pressuring them to assess chemicals to be less toxic than they actually are — and sometimes removing references to their harms from chemical assessments.
Now new documents, including meeting summaries, internal emails, and screenshots from the EPA’s computer system, along with interviews with whistleblowers and other EPA scientists, show that the agency’s New Chemicals Division has avoided calculating the exposure to — and thus the risk posed by — hundreds of chemicals and have repeatedly resisted calls to change that policy even after scientists have shown that it puts the public at risk."
-->Ever carful not to offend the large chemical companies, the NYT did not print this story of yet another corporate takeover of a regulatory agency.
"The U.S. has claimed a humanitarian 'Responsibility to Protect' to justify military operations in the name of saving civilian lives from evil dictators. Most notable have been the brutal U.S.-led wars in Libya and Syria which destabilized entire regions in the name of 'civilian protection' and 'promoting democracy.' These operations relied heavily on self-described human rights NGO’s and media outlets to cultivate support among liberal sectors of the US intelligentsia. Sadly, Democracy Now has been among the most influential and insidious outlets carrying water for the humanitarian interventionist agenda.
The flagship program of the left-wing Pacifica radio network, Democracy Now (DN) and its founding host, Amy Goodman, are regarded as standard bearers of grassroots progressivism. However, in recent years the show has become a reliable platform for uncritical regime change propaganda, demonizing targets of US empire from Syria to Nicaragua while sending a correspondent to embed with US-backed 'rebels' in Libya. Now that China is in the crosshairs of the US, DN is playing host to virtually any piece of humanitarian agitprop that Washington can conjure up, while publishing a regular serving of sharply negative stories about Chinese government and society.
A review by The Grayzone of every China-related report and interview Democracy Now aired in the past year found that 3 out of every 4 painted China in a decidedly negative light, often echoing narratives emanating from the US State Department. Perhaps its most inflammatory and factually questionable report appeared this February amid an escalating wave of anti-China propaganda."
-->Say it ain't so! Our Amy an imperialist in disguise? Has the empire at last stepped on one of its long standing critics? Is her 20 year progressive run just about over?