Most Americans have never heard of Chris Hani or Oliver Tambo, both of whom died in 1993, and there was no fanfare in the U.S. media when Arthur Goldreich died two years ago. Since Nelson Mandela’s death last Thursday, the names of his former comrades in the anti-apartheid struggle have been omitted from the media narrative. The MSNBC hostess who last week enthusiastically credited Mandela with having “singlehandedly” ended apartheid was merely reducing to its ridiculous essence a myth that has become ubiquitous. What has been carefully omitted from the media myth — along with the names of many of Mandela’s colleagues in the African National Congress — is that the ANC was a communist-dominated party closely allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
As a public figure in the Central African Republic, President Francois Bozize did pretty well, staying in power from 2003 to 2013 and getting out with his life and, one cannot say with certainty but with a fair presumption based on precedent, a stash sufficient to keep him happy in West African and French exile.
Cant about Mandela’s legacy as a world without human rights abuses is hard to take seriously from leaders who routinely commit them. An assortment of human rights abusers turned up at his rainy memorial in South Africa, with some of them, like the mass murderer Raul Castro, given the most prominent places on the dais.
The media, of course, is treating reaction to Mandela’s death as a test of one’s civilized bona fides. Unless a public figure heaps indiscriminate praise upon Mandela, he is simply not a good person, maybe even a secret racist. In this climate, Republican pols, desperate for a pat on the head from the mainstream media, are making inane remarks about Mandela as the George Washington of South Africa. He was more like the John Brown of South Africa. His cause, ending apartheid, was admirable, but his means to that end, conducting a terror campaign for the ANC, were immoral and criminal. That is why even liberals at Amnesty International wouldn’t touch Mandela in the 1960s.
A more realistic assessment of Mandela’s legacy comes from the author David Horowitz:
If you run a police state such as North Korea (a.k.a. “The People’s Republic of North Korea”) publicity is almost always bad, so you avoid it if possible. There are occasional exceptions and the North Korea authorities spotted one a month ago. A guided tour group was about to leave after a week’s visit when, in a last-minute review of the passenger list, an operative noticed that one of the visitors had not only been a U.S. Army veteran of the Korean War, but also may have been in counter-intelligence. With that, they took Merrill Newman, a retired California businessman, off the plane and held him. He may have been on a sinister mission, they hinted.
This ran widely in short articles in U.S. newspapers and television and very conveniently obscured thinly covered reports from South Korean sources that ruler Kim Jong-un had fired his Uncle, Jang Song Thaek, the husband of Aunt Kyong-hui Kim. Jang was widely considered to be the government’s No. 2 man and was the one had been designated to teach his novice nephew the ropes when he inherited the emperor’s job upon the death of his father, Kim Jong-il.
New York Attorney General Eric “Shakedown” Schneiderman has just been walloped with an ethics complaint.
A long and meticulously detailed 228-page ethics complaint.
Filed by… Donald Trump.
While the word isn’t in the complaint, the New York State Constitution has a specific term for what Trump is describing.
That would be found in Article XIII, Section 5, which provides for the removal of state officials — including the attorney general — for “misconduct or malversation….”
What is “malversation”? Webster’s defines it this way:
improper or corrupt behavior, esp. in public office
How did Schneiderman respond?
By sending out an ex-Obama campaign staffer to denounce Trump — thereby making Trump’s point exactly. A point to which we will return.
Let’s talk malversation, shall we? Specifically the malversation of Eric Schneiderman. In chapter and verse.
There is no polite way to describe Pope Francis’s recent tirade against free enterprise, except to say his heart is in the right place in wanting to help the world’s poor and downtrodden. However, in venturing as boldly as he does into economic and political commentary, the pope makes a number of serious misjudgments.
In his 50,000-word “Apostolic Exhortation,” released by the Vatican on November 24, Pope Francis follows in the well-trod footsteps of a long line of left-wing commentators in leveling a series of wild charges against free-market economics.
He says, for instance, that “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.”
In the same way, Barack Obama continually attacks what he calls “the economic philosophy” of those who “say we should give more and more to those with the most and hope the prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”