If you need more proof that we are living in a masquerade, in a world of sham, show and deceit, in a veritable -- dare we say it? -- empire burlesque, look no further than the recent manufactured "scandal" over the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988.

Al-Megrahi, who is dying, was released on "compassionate grounds" by the Scottish government last week, and returned to a hero's welcome in his native land of Libya. As soon as he was freed, we heard howls of outrage from Washington: how could such a heinous killer be allowed to walk free? There were stern words from the UK government in London, which pretended that it had nothing to do with the Scots' decision. There was ponderous talk from various punditti about a breach in the "special relationship," even of boycotts of British goods.

All of this -- every bit of it -- was just shoddy theatrics, a puppet show for the rubes. You can bet that every single official trumpeting their moral outrage at al-Megrahi's release knew the truth of the matter: he was not released because he was dying, but because the slow-turning wheels of his appeals process was about to force the release of hundreds of pages of damning documents that would confirm, yet again, that he had been, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission put it, the victim of a "miscarriage of justice" -- a frame job by the US and UK governments which has been covered up, in admirable bipartisan fashion, for years.

Why did they frame al-Megrahi, when they knew the real instigators of the bombing? Because they needed the support of the instigators to launch the wanton slaughterfest known as "Desert Storm."

John Pilger and William Blum lay out the details. First Pilger:

No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests."

"The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft – he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognize him in the courtroom....

Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash.

...Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt canceled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr. on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group contracted by Tehran as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship’s captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr. "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer."

Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran’s support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and op-ed warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defense intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be centerpiece of Megrahi’s defense.

And that is the crux of the matter, and the reason for the release. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the case for appeal. The intelligence agency reports would have been forced into the open by a new hearing. No one wanted that. The sacred "continuity" of the militarist oligarchies in America and Britain would have been shaken if the truth of how they really operate -- regardless of which party is in office -- came out.

Here's Blum:

President Obama said that the jubilant welcome Megrahi received was "highly objectionable". His White House spokesman Robert Gibbs added that the welcoming scenes in Libya were "outrageous and disgusting". British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was "angry and repulsed", while his foreign secretary, David Miliband, termed the celebratory images "deeply upsetting." Miliband warned: "How the Libyan government handles itself in the next few days will be very significant in the way the world views Libya's reentry into the civilized community of nations."

Ah yes, "the civilized community of nations", that place we so often hear about but so seldom get to actually see. American officials, British officials, and Scottish officials know that Megrahi is innocent. They know that Iran financed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian group, to carry out the bombing with the cooperation of Syria, in retaliation for the American naval ship, the Vincennes, shooting down an Iranian passenger plane in July of the same year, which took the lives of more people than did the 103 bombing. And it should be pointed out that the Vincennes captain, plus the officer in command of air warfare, and the crew were all awarded medals or ribbons afterward. No one in the US government or media found this objectionable or outrageous, or disgusting or repulsive. The United States has always insisted that the shooting down of the Iranian plane was an "accident". Why then give awards to those responsible?

Today's oh-so-civilized officials have known of Megrahi's innocence since 1989. The Scottish judges who found Megrahi guilty know he's innocent. They admit as much in their written final opinion. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigated Megrahi's trial, knows it. They stated in 2007 that they had uncovered six separate grounds for believing the conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice, clearing the way for him to file a new appeal of his case. 3 The evidence for all this is considerable. And most importantly, there is no evidence that Megrahi was involved in the act of terror.

The first step of the alleged crime, sine qua non — loading the bomb into a suitcase at the Malta airport — for this there was no witness, no video, no document, no fingerprints, nothing to tie Megrahi to the particular brown Samsonite suitcase, no past history of terrorism, no forensic evidence of any kind linking him to such an act.

And the court admitted it: "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta to Frankfurt] is a major difficulty for the Crown case."

The scenario implicating Iran, Syria, and the PFLP-GC was the Original Official Version, endorsed by the US, UK, Scotland, even West Germany — guaranteed, sworn to, scout's honor, case closed — until the buildup to the Gulf War came along in 1990 and the support of Iran and Syria was needed for the broad Middle East coalition the United States was readying for the ouster of Iraq's troops from Kuwait. Washington was also anxious to achieve the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by groups close to Iran. Thus it was that the scurrying sound of backtracking could be heard in the corridors of the White House. Suddenly, in October 1990, there was a New Official Version: it was Libya — the Arab state least supportive of the US build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq — that was behind the bombing after all, declared Washington.

The two Libyans were formally indicted in the US and Scotland on Nov. 14, 1991. Within the next 20 days, the remaining four American hostages were released in Lebanon along with the most prominent British hostage, Terry Waite.

They overlooked hundreds of innocent people killed in a covert terrorist attack in revenge for hundreds of other innocent people killed in a celebrated, decorated state terrorist attack in order to ensure that they could kill thousands of innocent people in a pointless war to preserve the fortunes of the Bush family business partners and Western favorites, the repressive, undemocratic tyrants of Kuwait, who were having a financial and territorial dispute with the repressive, undemocratic tyrant of Iraq, who until he threatened the Bush partners had been a favorite of the West. This is the corrupt, blood-soaked reality that lies behind the trumpery of the "respectable" world.

You know what? Barack Obama was right, after all. The whole thing is a damnable "outrage."

| More...

Comments (25)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

DeanTaylor said:

spider nation "Thus it was that the SCURRYING SOUND OF BACKTRACKING could be heard in the corridors of the White House. Suddenly, in October 1990, there was a New Official Version: it was Libya — the Arab state least supportive of the US build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq — that was behind the bombing after all, declared Washington" [stress added]. Perhaps it was more portent than coincidence that a Scotsman from an earlier era remarked: "Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive!" Walter Scott (Marmion, 180 Instead of the field of fifty stars, then, possibly an image of a spider web on "Old Glory" would be more to the point. Or, barring that, trash the whole thing and start from scratch with a blank field bearing the avowal, "We're really sorry, you know?" Tell the truth, shame the devil.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

	Calling Sean! Sean! You're a mountain biker! Check this out: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1137883380?bctid=21337502001
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

el grillo said:

	... To Dean Taylor, spider nation. "Old Glory" would be more to the point. Old Gory. Tell the truth, shame the devil. He's shameless
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Ovid said:

	... Good post. I for one am not convinced of that story about Iranian retaliation for the downing of their jet either. That's a little pat, and the only evidence of it is that some sources said it. I think it's a little odd that two CIA guys were apparently going back to Washington to raise questions that others didn't want asked. Who knows.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +2

Sean O'Neil said:

Jimmy -- oh yeah. Danny MacAskill is a phenomenally talented rider. Graceful. Athletic. Powerful. Metaphorically -- if he were a politician in America, he would transform America. What he does on a bike is beyond what anyone else is doing or has done. That linked video is impressive, but there are others that will blow your mind even more wide open. Google his name. See what you find. And prepare to be awestruck with every video. The song by Band of Horses playing in the background isn't too bad either. Thanks for linking that. It's proof that humans have immense individual talent and power. It's just too bad that so many who go into government or corporate work use analogous talents and power to such ill ends. And that would explain why I gave up lawyering to ride bikes and ski.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

Now, as to Mr Floyd's essay... ...I can only say this: while many of Obama's supporters consider him the Danny MacAskill of politics (as it were), Obama is a bit more like Napoleon Dynamite. He'd try to do a simple jump of 6" elevation and would end up racking his balls on the bike's top tube. But he'd prance and preen afterward as if he just broke a world record. Mr Floyd's essay reveals such grim truths that the Danny MacAskill video is a welcome change from the steady stream of sewage issuing from Washington DC.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Yankee 30 said:

... "You can bet that every single official trumpeting their moral outrage at al-Megrahi's release knew the truth of the matter:" The remorseless lying, the psychopathy, the endless lying. In an interview I once read with Ralph 'Sonny' Barger, who was a founding member of the Oakland chapter of Hell's Angels, he pulled out the proverbial "there are three kinds of people in this world, those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened." I try to walk a wise and caring path in the second category, but I feel immensely oppressed by many in the first category. And I feel thoroughly dejected by the MULTITUDES in the third category. Psychopaths and retards. I can't reason with either.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +2

wildsilver said:

... Yeah Ovid, not to forget the other big story going down, ahem so to speak, around the same time was the Iran Contra Deal and the election of our first Bush. Looks like the chickens were coming home to roost and some low life activities were about to embarress the new Pres even before taking office. US inteligence knew an attack was planned, the Moscow US Embassy staff were warned not to fly but the Naval Intelligence blokes heading home with suitcases full of evidence to expose the new boss weren't told, looks like they were the real target. Btw they were with the same Naval Intelligence Dept that copped a 'plane' through the office window at the Pentagon on 9 11, something to do with removing evidence of illegal 10 yr govt bonds (issued to 'buddies' to buy up the former USSR) coming due. Cheers, Barry

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +2

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Yankee30 -- I try to walk a wise and caring path in the second category, but I feel immensely oppressed by many in the first category. And I feel thoroughly dejected by the MULTITUDES in the third category. Me too.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +1

Ovid said:

... Wildsilver/Barry Interesting. I don't pretend to know what was really going on with Lockerbie, but I could certainly believe it involved huge amounts of money and/or our many nefarious oil-related intrigues in the Middle East. Likewise, I don't know what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 that killed those auditors and other troublesome or unimportant personnel, instead of Rummy or the JCS, but like you i'm sure it wasn't what we've been told. In fact, as a rule of thumb, just based on history the one story that can almost universally quickly be ruled out is the official story. THAT is never true. I can't even think of an instance where it has been.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

erratum... In the interest of "balanced reporting"--and, lest we forget... Apologies for an egregious lapse in the "American heroes" series, to wit: "John Brown, Thoreau, Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Joe Hill, Dr. King and the Freedom Riders, the students at Cal-Berkeley in the sixties, the Berrigan brothers, Daniel Ellsberg." Who, then, is conspicuous in his absence? Please consider [from Wiki]: "David Dellinger (August 22, 1915 – May 25, 2004), one of the most influential American radicals of the 20th century, was a pacifist and activist for nonviolent social change.... "Dellinger achieved peak notoriety as one of the Chicago Seven protesters whose disruption of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago led to charges of conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting a riot. The ensuing court case was turned by Dellinger and his co-defendants into a nationally-publicized platform for putting the Vietnam War on trial.... "Dellinger was born in Wakefield, Massachusetts to a wealthy family. His father was a lawyer and a prominent Republican. A Yale University and Oxford University student, he also studied theology at Union Theological Seminary. Rejecting his comfortable background, he walked out of Yale one day to live with hobos during the Depression, whilst at Oxford he visited Nazi Germany and drove an ambulance during the Spanish Civil War. During World War II, he was an imprisoned conscientious objector and anti-war agitator. In federal prison, he and fellow conscientious objectors — including Ralph DiGia and Bill Sutherland — protested racial segregation in the dining halls, which were ultimately integrated due to the protests. "During the 1950s and 1960s, Dellinger joined freedom marches in the South and led many hunger strikes in jail. As US involvement in Vietnam grew, Dellinger applied Gandhi's principles of non-violence to his activism within the growing anti-war movement, of which one of the high points was the Chicago Seven trial." From Noam (from the dustjacket of From Yale to Jail): "Before reading [his autobiography], I knew and greatly admired Dave Dellinger. Or so I thought. After reading his remarkable story, my admiration changed to something more like awe. There can be few people in the world who have crafted their lives into something truly inspiring. This autobiography introduces us to one of them." and, a belated "Rest you well Dave--you fought the Good Fight." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dellinger

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +1

DeanTaylor said:

"I like to watch": moral voyeurism is a chimera... "those who WATCH things happen" [stress added]. "I try to walk a...CARING path..." [!; stress added]. How, pray tell, does WATCHING translate into CARING? Is that something akin to Forwardlooking's "caring"? That is, at a recent White House press conference--so-called--a "reporter"--again: so-called--pointed out the fact of children of indigent families in California (the home of real-estate "flipping") residing with said families in cars, and actually reporting to school in the morning. Forwardlooking: "And, you know, it causes me heartaches when I think of it. Okay! Next question! Helen--Helen Thomas, I believe you were next..." That's not "caring" in any meaningful--or even sane--sense of the word. That's more akin to "Fuck you kids! I got 'mine'--you didn't get 'yours'?" And, again, we beg your pardon for calling to mind the "psychopaths" who make things happen: John Brown, Thoreau, Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Joe Hill, Dr. King and the Freedom Riders, the students at Cal-Berkeley in the sixties, Dave Dellinger, the Berrigan brothers, Daniel Ellsberg." Promise: we won't ask you to dip into the trust fund that Mater and Pater set aside for their darling (or are there "darlings"--i.e., plural-- present at this blog?). That is, you are "safe"--for the moment, at any rate. "I like to watch," a line from Jerzy Kosiński's Being There--i.e., his "retard" has trespassed into your "second category, it would seem. Either that or he belongs there.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

jo6pac said:

	Greed It's all about Greed every time and we're the losers in the game at this time. Thank Kris
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Yankee 30 said:

... Watching, it's true, is fairly passive, though it lends itself nicely to comprehension. Caring, on the other hand, can be quite active, if often benign. Living by example (honest, fair, non violent) is about all that I can muster. I said that I feel immensely oppressed by MANY in the first category. Come on, Dean, pay attention. It's clear to me, at least on the public stage, and certainly within the halls of power, that the psychopaths far outnumber the ambassadors of goodwill. By the way, Dean, what's with all the onanist, fellatrix, voyeurism digs? You have dick on the brain or something? Well, get a grip son. Or would that be father? And while I'm bitching.... by the way that you have, more than once, disparaged the utility of the bloggers commentary, how is it that yours is the longest winded voice I've heard around here?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 06, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

DeanTaylor said:

Sensitivity Training, 1101 to Épater la bourgeoisie... and a clarification of terms: "those who make things happen" My take on YOUR use of the phrase--and, among other comments revealed, seeing as how you cited Charles Manson on an Electra-Glide in doing so--would be a pejorative one. Scot : "most of the readers here are upper middle class with leisure time on their hands..." Not you though? Not Sean? Someone else no doubt...I beg your pardon. Scot's term, "upper middle class," implies among other things, a panicked parsimony, and an avoidance of the "partisans"--i.e., those with less. Why involve moi with the proletariat when I can adopt the vanguard elitist persona. Better--and safer, as it prescinds from involvement: logorrhea as incessant bickering. In the probably thousands of words I've posted a certain economy was revealed in the repeated showing of many specific ideas, terms, words, concepts when they are à propos to the argument. You are telling us that you see just three: onanist, fellatrix, voyeurism. That is about YOUR focus, not mine, dear. To clarify further, and politics aside for the moment, I concluded that there were academic peers present in the mix, i.e., students of, possibly, Derrida, Foucault, Marx, Lacan, and Fredric Jameson, for example. As such, the idea of Power viewed as LIBIDINOUS would not be lost upon those fellow scholars. Quelle audace! The term is NOT about being sexually suggestive--as you inferred. Rather it is a comment upon the mindless, incessant striving after what is, in fact, not there, i.e., the definition of Freudian "desire" as it has currency in social theory. Said another way, the heedless, often gratuitous pursuit of Power is, in fact, akin to the sex act as often defying rationality save the obsessive pursuit for its own sake, e.g., as seen in satyrs--but NOT limited to that extreme example. "disparaged the utility of the bloggers commentary..." Not so. What I ACTUALLY stated was the contrary, i.e. that it DOES, in fact, have utility. However, I qualified that by stating--correctly it would seem--that the utility is LIMITED utility, i.e., vis à vis Marx: "Philosophers seek to interpret the world; the point, however is to change it." Again, I had thought that I was in the company of fellow grad students with whom that exceedingly familiar quote would not be lost. To continue, the term socio-political onanism is familiar to any first-year grad student delving into Derrida, Lacan, etc. It implies--voila!--the philosopher "jacking-off", so to speak, on blogs, i.e., activism-as-posting--and utterly content to remain doing so--i.e., without "partisanship," as your girlfriend puts it. I erred when I gauged your intelligence as equal to understanding the concept. Let it be said: You and Sean are both quite intelligent--although, and even though Sean took pains to make known his JDL degree, this amounts to CAREER TRAINING, and NOT an EDUCATION, in the sense of a liberal arts immersion in the Humanities. I was happy to invest you both with the FORMAL education that it now appears you both lack. Mea Culpa. Let's cut out the nonsense and establish a few core truths: neither you, nor I, nor Sean have ANY legitimate claim to being SENSITIVE. That term may, in fact, hold for others but not here. This is about RAGE--NOT primarily directed at each other, but misunderstandings will occur--and, if you have a modicum of honesty you will concede the point after considering everything you've written in, say, the last three months. I wouldn't posit this proposition to Sean as he seems intent on being the self-appointed resident intellectual and political savant as arbiter of all that is correct and erroneous at this blog, i.e., the non-partisan. Fine. His virginity remains as intact as does his dogmatism.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 07, 2009
Votes: +0

P Jerome said:

It had nothing to do with Iran Mr. Floyd's piece, echoing (and quoting from) Mr. Pilger's piece, completely misses the boat on the Lockerbie shoot-down. The story has been thoroughly exposed by the Toronto Star newspaper, with further evidence provided by (of all sources) Fortune and Time (27 April 1992) magazines. Listen to Ralph Schoenman & Mya Shoen's detailed and documented account on Taking Aim (http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html, "Libya and Lockerbie: The Untold Story." Then there is, of course, the detailed report prepared by the investigative consultancy, Interfor, which was retained by Pan Am after the bombing. Interfor, which consists of former Israeli, US and British intelligence agents now "out from the cold," conclusively determined that the Pan Am flight was destroyed to prevent exposure of a CIA/DEA drug-running scheme. The plane was shot down by US intelligence, to cover up a massive drug-dealing ring centered in the Near East. The operation was a part of the Iran-contra scheme, involving the trading of weapons for drugs and money. Disgruntled US intelligence agents were on the flight, planning to blow the whistle on the planned expansion of the drug trade, featuring importation of heroin in US cities. Here is a good but brief summary of the real story from the Pakistan Daily (August 27, 2009) (http://www.daily.pk/megrahi-li...ubts-9630/): [O]n Oct. 30, 1990, NBC reported: “NBC news has learned that Pan Am flights from Frankfurt, including [Flight] 103, had been used a number of times by the DEA as part of its undercover operations to fly information and suitcases of heroin into Detroit as part of a sting operation to catch dealers in Detroit. The undercover operation, code-named Operation Courier, was set up three years ago by the DEA in Cyprus to infiltrate Lebanese heroin groups in the Middle East and their connections in Detroit … “nformants would put suitcases on the Pan Am flights, apparently without the usual security checks, according to one airline source, through an arrangement between the DEA and German authorities. Law enforcement officials say the fear now is that the terrorists that blew up Pan Am 103 somehow learned about what the DEA was doing, infiltrated the undercover operation and substituted the bomb for the heroin in one of the DEA shipments” so the bomb would sail through the security loophole, undetected. ABC produced a similar report the next day, and also claimed that Khalid Jaafar was one of the drug couriers. The DEA investigated itself in the wake of these stories, and declared itself clean to a House subcommittee. The DEA claimed only three drug operations had been run through Frankfurt, and none in December of 1988 when the bombing took place. In 1992, long after the DEA’s denials, a new report supporting the Interfor Report surfaced, in Time magazine of all places, supporting some of the reports core allegations. The article, by Roy Rowan, stated that Ahmed Jibril used a Middle Eastern heroin traffic operation to get the bomb on the plane, and that McKee was heading back to Washington to expose the CIA unit’s operations with the drug dealers"

report abuse vote down vote up

September 07, 2009
Votes: +0

skyblu5555 said:

	... has proven himself unworthy of enlightenment? of democratic governance? we don't need no CIA, no DEA or Presidential czar appointments... spare us, please, the thinkless tanks, MBAs and private bank maniuplators..just give us freedom; liberty; justice, tranquility, and independence in all things, i.e. self-reliance; and freedom and independence of the press.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 07, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... Dean, you are behaving as a spoiled child when you take pot-shots at me. I mention my background only when it is relevant to a point I'm addressing. That you feel I'm bragging merely shows an insecurity at your end. I'm sorry you feel so insecure that you need to offer a whole lot of irrelevant pseudo-intellectualism (por ejemplo, Lacan, Derrida, and the semiotic frauds). Perhaps one day you'll find a way to make your points directly, without the puking-up of book-bound "knowledge" that you've appropriated yet barely understood.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 07, 2009
Votes: +0

Yankee 30 said:

... Dean, On August 4th you wrote, referring to me..."--when you haven't got your member in one hand and your fingers of the other covering the letters "h" and "a"--was it taxing keeping track of the proper sequence?" So, yes, I still think you're playing some kind of semantical musical chairs, but yes, let's move on... "Perhaps one day you'll find a way to make your points directly,..." For the record, my formal schooling was in fine arts and even there I flaked off before getting a degree. There are GAPING holes in the old reading list, but I got to see Chiang Rai and Mandalay, a snowed-in Srinagar and the Golden Temple at Amritsar, the markets of Peshawar, the Khyber pass, and a pre-soviet(only just)Kabul. And much more. And not from a tour bus window, I can assure you. Privileged, I certainly am, but don't be too presumptuous.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 07, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

the idle rich amongst us... I still think you're playing some kind of semantical musical chairs..." How about the "musical chairs" occuring in your fucking effete brain? The reason that you were on the receiving end of my contempt for you--and will continue in that vein--was what? How well is your memory working--not the selective memory that you and that failed shyster maniac seem to have cultivated? What prompted the insult to your person? Again, this is YOUR focusing upon what titillates YOU. What did you do--enter it into your gold-embroidered diary that day? You're a jerk-off, man--a privileged one, it's true, but a jerk-off none the less. And a phony to boot. The idle rich...Fuck the idle rich...i.e., fuck you and young Sean Dershowitz. As Scott has declared (one of your own, in fact, i.e., the irregular "regulars"): Sean is both unreasonable and nuts. And who am I--an outsider looking in--to argue with this group of privileged snots offering unsubstantiated opinion when substantiated argument is called for?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

the idle rich... II. Privilege becomes entitlement. Hence, the "non-partisan" horse-shit... You and "the nut" don't want to change a fucking thing, i.e., you are quite comfy right at this moment--and, have been all along, it is imagined. Hence, the endless, vague "opinions," the mountain-bike referrals, the other clubby cross-talk amongst the clique. And whack-job is the self-appointed guardian of this gate: outsiders need not apply. The "nut" purports to be Chris' friend. I don't think so, as his role seems to be to drive away with relentless, lawyer-like hectoring, anyone deemed "outside" the clique. As another writer here stated last week, he's "polluting" the blog. The "nut," then, is like a cross between Little Lord Fauntleroy and Norman Bates. Sean as victim of multiple personality disorder--he writes, but has no recall about having written his vicious remarks. You fit that equation as well... What you and your ridiculous girlfriend have in mind is what network studio exec's mean when they refer to "concision": arguing for the status quo by limited, meaningless opinion. To argue against the grain requires developing the argument, as well as citation as quoted material. This implies "text." Got it--finally? So Scott WAS referring to you both when he spoke of the well-to-do? Well, fuck you both. His telling comment speaks VOLUMES.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

checking under the bed for frauds... And, just to recap the tally of "frauds" by the Nut: Jacques Lacan is a fraud Jacques Derrida is a fraud Fredric Jameson is a fraud (he cites Derrida as a positive example of 20th. C. Social Theory) Michel Foucault is a fraud Ray McGovern is a fraud Glenn Greenwald is a fraud David Lindorff is a fraud Alex Cockburn is a fraud He probably believes Chomsky is a fraud but has not the BALLS to come right out and declare his imbecilic, lawyer-like "point of view"--quote-unquote. And this, coming from someone with "career training" in lieu of a formal education! A fucking lawyer no less! How did you manage to slip one hand free of the straight jacket and get on-line? It's a neat trick Sean! Do your shrieks at night annoy the neighbors much? The resident paranoid schizophrenic and his shrill attacks upon "the world of frauds."

report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	... It pains you to learn that the emperor's new suit is a ruse, doesn't it Dean? So now you must create a caricature of me, because I disagree with you. And that makes me a nut. Please keep spamming this place with your insane blatherings. It helps everyone... immeasurably.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +0

DeanTaylor said:

Goodbye "John Floyd" Aside from the erudite, gentleman host--and neither quality do I pretend to lay claim to--some in this group require more work than I can possibly administer at this point. Teaching, we are aware, takes time and patience. But, the labor becomes all the more onerous when several participants amount to over-indulged brats with a penchant for dissembling they are oblivious to--so they claim. Having cleaned out the Port-o-Sean several times myself already--scoop after noxious scoop--only to find that it had welled-up, often within hours, I must now delegate that exciting task to those in possession of less self-respect than I feel that I have a right to. Or, I delegate the chore to those unaware of just what it is they are buying in to. I never signed on in order to locate Pen Pals, engage in tedious, pointless cross-talk amongst the clique, or partake of the High-School Debating Society offerings. To those that relish these interests, have at it. My sense of the matter is that they are accomplished in the service of ego flattering, usually one's own. Fine. Take it. Of late, it was like having one's own "John Floyd" hovering about, without benefit of a "delete" switch to dispatch the provocateur. By picking up and hurling back the handful of mud flung my way, I have demeaned myself here more than I care to admit at this point. To those who looked on aghast, I apologize for my part in the stupidity... As Joe Hill declared on his way out of Utah: "Good Luck to All of you!"

report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

aaaahhhh... now with the "victim" strategy. Yes, because you can't keep sanity within reach, you're a "victim" now Dean. Maybe if you hadn't assumed you could "teach" any of us something, you might have fared better. I suggest starting your own blog where you rail against the spirits, ghosts, phantoms and specters you've created as effigies to pillory, hang, and then burn here at Mr Floyd's. Those of us who have received your bizarre melange of scorn, distortion and misreading will miss you, but probably not for the reasons you'd wish. Enjoy your journey.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 08, 2009
Votes: +0