Why the Viet Nam Anti-War Movement’s Work Is Not Yet Done

AlterNet / By Frank Joyce
The Viet Nam War may have ended over four decades ago, but the issues stemming from it are very much with us.
vietwar-choppers-The Daily Stash26
Most US citizens these days don’t consider Viet Nam at all. Of  those who do, many believe that all is well. And in some ways it  is. Viet Nam has normal diplomatic relations with the US, belongs  to the World Trade Organization, accepts investment by US based  multi-national corporations and is allied with US foreign policy on  some geopolitical issues including concerns over China’s intentions regarding “disputed” territory in the South China Sea.
On the right and the left, some believe war related issues don’t  matter much because Viet Nam has gone off the “capitalist cliff” or  isn’t conforming sufficiently to some other Western template. (The  New York Times recently featured a front-page story along these  lines.)
I disagree. I think Viet Nam war issues are still very much with  us. And if the Obama administration has its way, for all the wrong  reasons, they are going to be with us for a long time to come.
Because I have an eye out for these things, I notice news coverage  that touches on the Viet Nam war. For example, earlier this year,  Jimmy Lee Dykes, made news because he killed a school bus driver,  then kidnapped a five-year old boy on the bus and held him hostage  in his survivalist bunker. He was identified as ”a decorated Viet Nam  war veteran.”
It is not unusual to see Viet Nam vets associated with these kinds  of stories. Even more common are stories about vets of any and all  wars struggling with issues of unemployment, homelessness and  difficulties with navigating the Veterans Administration bureaucracy.
Last month there were numerous stories about a Viet Nam war  anniversary. Which one? Forty years ago, on March 29, 1973  the last US troops left Viet Nam. Many US media outlets featured  interviews with some of those veterans.
Missing from the news coverage of the 40th anniversary of the troop  return was the basis for them leaving Viet Nam in the first place.  The date certain for their homecoming was set by the Paris Peace  Accords which were officially signed on January 27, 1973.
There was not one single story in the US media about that 40th  anniversary.
In Viet Nam however, honoring the Paris Peace Accords was a big  deal. I know because I was one of several anti-war activists from  around the world invited to participate in events commemorating the  agreement.
An official ceremony in Hanoi was carried live on national TV and  the occasion was marked in numerous other ways throughout the  country. All acknowledged the contribution made by U.S. civilians  and soldiers who resisted the war. Anti-war activists at the event  were given VIP treatment.
Vietnamese leaders want young people to understand the war and  its place in Viet Nam’s past, present and future. They are well aware  that 80 percent of the population was born after the war ended.
Many young Americans were also born since the Viet Nam war  ended. A significant number are the children of parents who  supported the anti-war movement. Others have parents who fought  in Viet Nam, Cambodia or Laos.
Barack Obama and the rest of the “establishment” want to sanitize  what the US military was ordered to do in Southeast Asia and  obliterate the role of the anti-war movement in bringing the whole ugly  mess to an end.
Why they do so might seem obvious. Predator drones as a symbol of “automated warfare” notwithstanding, the US war machine still needs  plenty of humans. In addition to the wars already underway, many  others are on the drawing board. Anything that might somehow make  military service less attractive is best washed away. That certainly  includes the truth about Viet Nam.
Beyond that, every Presidential administration needs to win popular  support for permanent war as essential to preserving the “American  way of life.” You have to be pretty old to have lived during a time  when the US was not making war on one or more countries.
Since 1941, but for a few short breaks, the United States has been  making war one place or another: Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, El  Salvador, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq, Bosnia, Irag again, Afghanistan,  Pakistan, Yemen, Africa and Iran. That doesn’t even include the  current phase of the war against Cuba that started in 1959 and  continues to this day.
Whether Democrats or Republicans were in “power” has made  no difference whatsoever. It is a bipartisan condition. US war has  become so much a part of daily reality that we hardly notice. Most  Americans think it completely normal and why not? That is exactly  what it has become.
Obfuscating new “normal” is partly the job of the media. It’s no  surprise therefore that coverage of the 10th anniversary of the  invasion of Iraq did not set it in the context of our continuous military  interventions in other nations over the last 75 years.
Virtually all media stories treated the Iraq war as a self-contained  event. The reality that the machinery of perpetual war is now utterly  and completely integral to our economy, politics and culture was  thereby concealed.
If we are to disrupt the cycle of endless war however, it is vital  that we look at the forest and the trees of our present global death  machine. A good place to start goes back to when the now mature  forest was first planted.
Slavery.
The truth is that the United States is exceptional—although not in the  “we are the chosen people of God who can do no wrong” way that  many prefer to believe.
Never before in human history did a spanking new nation birth its  economy and its government on a foundation of capitalist slavery.  That is truly unique. The consequences of that “birth defect” are very  much with us today. One of them is that we are loathe to recognize  how much the consequences are with us today.
The fact of slavery required a moral justification for slavery. You  can see several such rationalizations offered in the movie Django  Unchained. And they are still going on. At the Conservative Political  Action Convention (CPAC) in March young activists proclaimed that  slave owners had been doing their slaves a favor all along.
When slavery ended, it was replaced by the Jim Crow segregation  that had long been in place in the North. That then required  the moral defense of the Jim Crow system. Today, because of  institutionalized racism African Americans are still dramatically worse  off than whites. This also requires a complex system of blaming-the-  victim mental gymnastics.
Historian Edward Braithwaite has called this “social processing”.  Centuries of rationalizing slavery (and genocide) form patterns and  paths that are part of the cultural DNA of our citizenry. Avoidance,  denial, and hypocrisy are essential ingredients.
What has evolved is a template for how to do it. One consistent  theme is that our intentions are always noble and mighty. “Their”  motives are always crass and evil. Oh and we always fight “clean.”  They always fight dirty.
So it is that our leaders not only have yet to acknowledge our  decades long 20th century brutality in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos.  Rather, the powers that be are actively working to perpetuate exactly  the opposite story.
President Obama is leading the way. Last year on May 28 in a  speech aimed at Viet Nam war veterans he said, “You were often  blamed for a war you didn’t start, when you should have been  commended for serving your country with valor. You were sometimes  blamed for misdeeds of a few, when the honorable service of the  many should have been praised. You came home and sometimes  were denigrated, when you should have been celebrated.”
The president called the treatment of returning Viet Nam veterans a  national shame and a disgrace that should never have happened and  accused the Vietnamese of brutality. He also issued a proclamation  calling for “a 13-year program to honor and give thanks to a  generation of proud Americans who saw our country through one of the most challenging missions we have ever faced.”
Really? Is Obama unaware or deliberately ignoring the devastating  atrocities against the Vietnamese population ordered by those at the  highest levels of the Pentagon and the CIA? Like every American, he  would benefit greatly from reading the true history of the war in the  recently published book by Nick Turse, Kill Anything that Moves.
Of course, the Vietnamese know all too well the ugly reality the book  reveals, including the loss of 3 million civilians deliberately killed  by the US. The Vietnamese population also still suffers continuing  birth defects from the millions of tons of Agent Orange dumped  throughout the country as well as death and injury from unexploded US ordnance. Among our most touching experiences in Viet Nam  were visits to schools attended by children born with disabilities from  Agent Orange or disabled by encounters with unexploded ordnance.  Laos and Cambodia face the same problems.
Tragically for us and the world, too many Americans have just asm sanitized a view of the atrocities committed against Asians in Viet  Nam, Laos and Cambodia as they do of the brutalities of slavery or  the modern day prison industrial complex.
As with his Nobel Peace Prize winning colleague Henry Kissinger,  Barack Obama is committed to keeping it that way. He is counting on  the mainstream media for help. He does not expect them to report  on either the brutality and torture we inflicted as a matter of national  policy or the contribution made by those who opposed the war to bringing it to an end.
Given these lies and distortions it becomes almost inevitable that  we make the same mistakes again and again in trying to force other  nations to bend to our will and “way of life.” One bad war begets the  next.
What makes it all the worse is that we fail to connect the viciousness  we visit on other countries with the brutality that defines our own  culture. Does anyone seriously think we can control gun violence at  home when we commit massive violence every day in countries all  over the world? Or that “PTSD” homicides, suicides and domestic violence are not “blowback” from foreign aggression?
Should we be surprised that we elevate a distorted view of the  second amendment, which was used for purposes of slave  control, among other things, to a preeminent position in the U.S.  constitution? Or that we are routinely urged to live in a constant  state of fear despite having the most massive “defense” spending in  the history of the world, police with military grade firepower and the  largest number of “criminals” locked up of any nation on the planet?
There is, fortunately, another side to this story. The history and  traditions of our nation also include an abolitionist movement. Whites  died in the struggle to end Jim Crow segregation in the South. A  broad cross section of the population vigorously opposed the U.S.  wars against Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia. Some died in that struggle as well. And the anti-war movement did make a difference  in bringing the war to an end more quickly than would otherwise have  been the case.
These struggles are anything but finished. Regarding Viet Nam,  Laos and Cambodia in particular, Obama and Hagel have made  clear they intend that their version of history will prevail.  We will pay a heavy price if they succeed. So apparently we will  have to have this argument all over again.
Fortunately, we have powerful resources on our side now just as  we did during the fight against the war. Embers of War by Fredrik  Logevall just won the Pulitzer Prize for History. His book details US  efforts to prevent independence for the Vietnam as early as 1919.  Fred Branfman recently wrote an excellent piece here on AlterNet setting the record straight on the many war crimes instigated and  advanced by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Viet Nam  Laos and Cambodia.
The voices of ordinary citizens are eloquent and essential too. David  Ledesma recently put it beautifully in a letter to the editor of the  Mercury News in San Jose, California:

Then as now, the peacemakers are the true heroes. The sooner we  more widely understand what was done in Viet Nam in our name,  the sooner we will make real headway at dealing with injustice and  violence here at home and stop waging immoral and stupid wars  abroad.

Frank Joyce is a life long activist and author.  He can heard on Dave Marsh’s radio program  “Live from the Land of Hopes and Dreams,” on SiriusXM channel 127 from 1-4 Pm Eastern time.




After Plant Explosion, Texas Remains Wary of Regulation

Texas: A reactionary state oozing capitalist infections from every pore at the expense of the environment, people and animals.  The New York Times’ coy headline does not come close to reflecting the repulsive reality that defines Texas today as it has for many decades, the handiwork of a runaway, corrupt, hyperindividualist culture of ranchers and oilmen and their abject political and cultural minions, mirroring the worst of the plundering tradition inherited from Europe. The piece below is reproduced as editorial commentary. Sadly, despite its enormous conceits, its evocative cultural aura, Texas remains a lawless playground for the rich, a plutocrats’ fiefdom, a paradise for libertarians and laissez-faire fanatics, a banana republic, a glorified social lottery, encrusted in the rotting body of the United States, blustering and strutting around and accelerating the decay of the nation with its appallingly backward mores. ±Eds

By  and Published: May 9, 2013

Adrees Latif/Reuters

The explosion in April of a fertilizer plant near West, Tex., was so powerful that it registered as a 2.1-magnitude earthquake. McLennan, the county that includes West, has no fire code.

By  and Published: May 9, 2013

WEST, Tex. — Five days after an explosion at a fertilizer plant leveled a wide swath of this town, Gov. Rick Perry tried to woo Illinois business officials by trumpeting his state’s low taxes and limited regulations. Asked about the disaster, Mr. Perry responded that more government intervention and increased spending on safety inspections would not have prevented what has become one of the nation’s worst industrial accidents in decades.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, left, and West’s mayor, Tommy Muska, are skeptical that tougher rules would have saved the town. (Kirsten Luce for The New York Times)

“Through their elected officials,” he said, Texans “clearly send the message of their comfort with the amount of oversight.”

This antipathy toward regulations is shared by many residents here. Politicians and economists credit the stance with helping attract jobs and investment to Texas, which has one of the fastest-growing economies in the country, and with winning the state a year-after-year ranking as the nation’s most business friendly.

Even in West, last month’s devastating blast did little to shake local skepticism of government regulations. Tommy Muska, the mayor, echoed Governor Perry in the view that tougher zoning or fire safety rules would not have saved his town. “Monday morning quarterbacking,” he said.

Raymond J. Snokhous, a retired lawyer in West who lost two cousins — brothers who were volunteer firefighters — in the explosion, said, “There has been nobody saying anything about more regulations.”

Texas has always prided itself on its free-market posture. It is the only state that does not require companies to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage. It boasts the largest city in the country, Houston, with no zoning laws. It does not have a state fire code, and it prohibits smaller counties from having such codes. Some Texas counties even cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.

But Texas has also had the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas’ more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012. Compared with Illinois, which has the nation’s second-largest number of high-risk sites, more than 950, but tighter fire and safety rules, Texas had more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs.

As federal investigators sift through the rubble at the West Fertilizer Company plant seeking clues about the April 17 blast that killed at least 14 people and injured roughly 200 others, some here argue that Texas’ culture itself contributed to the calamity.

“The Wild West approach to protecting public health and safety is what you get when you give companies too much economic freedom and not enough responsibility and accountability,” said Thomas O. McGarity, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and an expert on regulation.

Since the accident, some state lawmakers began calling for increased workplace safety inspections to be paid for by businesses. Fire officials are pressing for stricter zoning rules to keep residences farther away from dangerous industrial sites. But those efforts face strong resistance.

Chuck DeVore, the vice president of policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative study group, said that the wrong response to the explosion would be for the state to hire more “battalions of government regulators who are deployed into industry and presume to know more about running the factory than the people who own the factory and work there every day.”

This antiregulatory zeal is an outgrowth of a broader Texas ideology: that government should get out of people’s lives, a deeply held belief throughout the state that touches many aspects of life here, including its gun culture, its Republican-dominated Legislature and its cowboy past and present.

Texas is one of only four states with legislatures that meet as infrequently as possible, once every two years, as required by the state’s 137-year-old Constitution. From the freewheeling days of independent oilmen known as wildcatters to the 2012 presidential race, in which President Obama lost Texas by nearly 1.3 million votes, the state’s pro-business, limited-government mantra has been a vital part of its identity.

That is particularly true in the countryside. “In rural Texas,” said Stephen T. Hendrick, the engineer for McLennan County, where the explosion occurred, “no one votes for regulations.”

Debating a Fire Code

Texas is dotted by more than 700 fertilizer depots like the one near West. Many store ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer that exploded near West, which is spread on the soil to supply the nitrogen that crops need. Consisting of white pebbles that resemble coarse table salt, the chemical can explode when heated. In the wrong hands, it can be deadly. About two tons was used in the bomb that destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Fertilizer accidents are rare across the nation. Texas was, however, the site of the deadliest industrial accident in United States history in April 1947, when nearly 600 people were killed in Texas City in an explosion on a ship carrying ammonium nitrate.

It is impossible to know whether tougher regulations would have prevented the disaster near West, especially since investigators remain unsure what sparked the fire that caused the fertilizer to explode. McLennan is among the counties without a fire code.

But federal officials and fire safety experts contend that fire codes and other requirements would probably have made a difference. A fire code would have required frequent inspections by fire marshals who might have prohibited the plant’s owner from storing the fertilizer just hundreds of feet from a school, a hospital, a railroad and other public buildings, they say. A fire code also would probably have mandated sprinklers and forbidden the storage of ammonium nitrate near combustible materials. (Investigators say the fertilizer was stored in a largely wooden building near piles of seed, one possible factor in the fire.)

“It’s tough to overstate the importance fire codes would have made,” said Scott Harris, a former emergency management coordinator in Texas for the Environmental Protection Agency, who is now with UL Workplace Health and Safety, a safety science company. “Texas just hasn’t wrapped its brain around this fact yet.”

In chemical fires, firefighters often bear a heavy toll. Ten of the at least 14 people who died in West were firefighters, and two more were residents helping fight the flames. This week, officials from the state firefighters’ association said the 50-foot-tall memorial to volunteers killed in the line of duty, on the Capitol grounds in Austin, had no room left for new names, not even those from West.

State Senator Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said enough was enough. “We can dance around it all we want to,” said Mr. Ellis, who has called for more frequent inspections of plants like the one near West. “But the laissez-faire attitude about government oversight and government regulation has to have some impact on safety measures.”

Gaps in Oversight

The night of the accident, Mr. Muska, 55, was not just serving as West’s mayor; he was also among the firefighters on the scene. And he became one of his town’s victims: the home where he lived with his wife and 14-year-old daughter was ruined. Five of his friends, fellow members of the West Volunteer Fire Department, were killed.

The blast, 20 minutes after a fire broke out at the fertilizer depot, was so powerful that it registered as a 2.1-magnitude earthquake, decimating the 11-building, 10-acre plant on the edge of town. It left a crater 93 feet wide and sent a gray mushroom cloud into the sky that reminded many residents of the images they had seen of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Many families in West — population 2,800 — share the bonds of Czech heritage, including Mr. Muska. The Best Western is known as the Czech Inn. Regular travelers on the interstate make a habit of stopping in West for gas and a box of kolaches at a bakery, the Czech Stop.

Like other communities in central Texas, West is home to cattle ranchers and farmers, welders and deer hunters. Its hills and wide open spaces are so green it is easy to forget that other parts of the state remain in a drought, and the roads on the outskirts of town are so tranquil it is hard to remember that Dallas is just an hour north.

The fertilizer warehouse opened in 1962 to supply local corn and cotton farmers, changing ownership and names several times over the decades. It was built far from West’s downtown, but the town expanded in recent years toward the fertilizer depot. Before long, a middle school, a nursing home and an apartment complex were just blocks away.

Residents, including Mr. Muska, never viewed the plant as a potential tinderbox capable of obliterating half their town. To many, it was a respected employer and, as some local and state leaders put it, a “good corporate citizen.” With fewer than 10 employees, the depot was owned by Donald R. Adair, 83, a lifelong resident and active member of the West Church of Christ.

“It was a friendly convenience,” said Ronnie Gerik, a farmer who bought fertilizer, fuel and tools once a week from the depot. “It meant you didn’t have to drive 20 minutes to Hillsboro or Waco to get what you needed.”

West Fertilizer fell under the purview of at least seven state or federal regulatory agencies, each with its own objectives. None had primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of the hundreds of tons of ammonium nitrate stored there or that of the workers or residents nearby.

Zak Covar, the executive director of the state environmental regulatory agency, has said his office is not responsible for tracking ammonium nitrate. He pointed to the Office of the Texas State Chemist. Tim Herrman, the state chemist, said his agency monitors whether fertilizers are labeled correctly and not their safety. “It’s fair to say we are not fire-safety experts,” he said.

In Austin, two hours south of West, a handful of lawmakers say the time may be right to push, incrementally, for change.

Walter T. Price IV, a Republican state representative from Amarillo, sponsored a bill to give smaller rural counties the option to impose fire codes. Though it is a straightforward bill, Mr. Price said, he has already heard complaints from business owners that such requirements could be financially burdensome.

State Senator Brian Birdwell, a Republican whose district includes West, declined to say whether he would back the bill.

Mr. Perry, who toured the blast site and met with town leaders and emergency responders, is similarly noncommittal. Asked whether the governor would support Mr. Price’s proposal, a spokeswoman, Lucy Nashed, said that the governor would review any bill that made it to his desk, but that the investigation into the blast was continuing.

This week, Mr. Perry’s press office announced that Texas had been ranked for the ninth year in a row as the country’s most pro-business state, according to a survey by the magazine Chief Executive. Texas accounted for nearly a third of all private sector jobs created over the last decade, according to federal labor data. And under Mr. Perry, it has given businesses more tax breaks and incentives than any other state, roughly $19 billion a year.

Keith R. Phillips, senior economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, agreed that Texas’ formula helps generate jobs and draw businesses, though factors like the state’s oil economy and its low cost of living play a role, too. “Growth is going to occur where businesses can maximize profits and where workers and retirees want to live,” he said.

Paul Burka, senior executive editor at Texas Monthly, said he did not imagine that the West disaster would lead to much in the way of change. Tragedies rarely do, he said. “We’re not going to spend our money telling businesses what we should do with their premises,” said Mr. Burka, who grew up near Texas City, the site of the 1947 explosion.

Indeed, days after the accident near West, state lawmakers killed a proposal to provide $60 million in training and resources for volunteer firefighters. And a lobbyist for state firefighters, who backed Mr. Price’s effort, said the bill had little chance of passing because of resistance from the real estate industry.

“Businesses can come down here and do pretty much what they want to,” Mr. Burka said. “That is the Texas way.”

Kitty Bennett contributed research from St. Petersburg, Fla., and Annie Lowrey contributed reporting from Washington.

A Neighborhood Nearly Obliterated by a Blast
Related

Chemical Depots Fall Under a Patchwork of Rules (May 10, 2013)
___________________________




Global corporations and the Bangladesh building collapse

Peter Symonds, wsws.org
Update: The casualty count is now approaching 900, and there’s news of another building collapse with hundreds of victims. 

While the world of fashion trots out their pampered creatures in front of avid cameras all over the world, the actual makers of these garments suffer poverty and death through hyper exploitation.

While the world of fashion trots out their pampered creatures on the red carpet all over the world, the actual makers of these garments suffer poverty and death through hyper exploitation. You know who Heidi Klum is, but do you know who this person is? In the world of power and fame, anonymity is death.

 

Two weeks after the Rana Plaza building collapse, global retail giants that source their garments in Bangladesh such as Walmart, Primark, Benetton and others are engaged in a cynical public relations exercise to distance themselves from the tragedy and preserve their image and their profits.

As of yesterday, the official death toll had reached 705, with hundreds more injured, making the collapse the worst industrial disaster in country’s history and one of the worst ever in the world. Rana Plaza is typical of the thousands of shoddily built, unsafe sweatshops in Bangladesh employing workers at $38 a month to churn out orders for some of the world’s largest corporations.

A well rehearsed media operation swung into action as soon as news of the April 24 disaster began to emerge. The well-resourced PR departments of the corporations directly or indirectly involved immediately issued statements expressing their “shock” and “sadness” over the loss of life. Most attempted to deny any involvement with the five garment factories housed in the building, no doubt advised by their equally well-resourced legal departments. A few acknowledged their connection to the Rana Plaza suppliers.

The crocodile tears and declarations of “shock” are completely hypocritical. The very reason some of the best known international brands source their goods in Bangladesh is that the country has the lowest costs—not only low wages, but low overheads due to the lack of regulation. Safety and building standards exist largely on paper, as the government employs very few inspectors to enforce the codes in a country that is notorious for corruption and bribery.

[pullquote] As long as the world’s governments remain in the hands of the superrich, nothing will change, except for occasional cosmetics. In the wake of this disaster the utterly corrupt and incompetent government of Bangladesh is working with the corporate elites who own the brands and governments in the developed world to put a mask of contrition and “reform” on the catastrophe. A revolting spectacle for anyone who can see the hypocrisy of the situation.—Eds.[/pullquote]

Many corporations maintain a façade of concern by setting guidelines for their suppliers backed by a system of “audits”, supposedly to ensure that standards are met. Auditing for safety and working conditions has become an industry in itself, in which non-government organisations (NGOs) are involved. The guidelines are ignored and orders are commonly subcontracted to smaller sweatshops. The audits are little more than occasional nuisances as manufacturers cut costs to meet the price demanded.

One monitoring group, the Business Social Compliance Initiative, based in Brussels, has admitted that its auditors approved two of the garment factories inside Rana Plaza on behalf of their clients. The structural soundness of the building was simply not on the check list.

A man holds his daughter's photo and ID card which she used while working at a garment factory which collapsed last week in Savar near Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sunday, May 5, 2013. Police said more than 600 bodies have now been recovered from the ruined building on Sunday and the grim recovery work continues. (AP Photo/Ismail Ferdous)

A man holds his daughter’s photo and ID card which she used while working at a garment factory which collapsed last week in Savar near Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sunday, May 5, 2013. Police said more than 700 bodies have now been recovered from the ruined building on Sunday and the grim recovery work continues. (AP Photo/Ismail Ferdous)

The sheer scale of the Rana Plaza disaster, which has horrified people around the world, has compelled the retail giants to consider moving their business elsewhere. The New York Times highlighted the fact last week that the Walt Disney Company, the world’s largest licenser with annual sales of nearly $40 billion, had issued a directive in March ordering an end to the production of branded merchandise in Bangladesh and several other countries. Disney products had been found in the ruins of the Tazreen Fashion factory that was gutted by fire last November, killing 112 workers.

At the time, the fire was the country’s worst industrial disaster. However, Disney’s directive to pull out was a purely commercial decision. The cost to its corporate image simply outweighed the relatively small impact on its profits, as only a tiny proportion of its products are produced in Bangladesh. In its statement, Disney announced that production would be phased out over a year. It left the door open to returning if factories began cooperating with the Better Work program jointly run by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Finance Corporation, connected to the World Bank.

Corporations that are in no position financially to withdraw have called on the services of the ILO, the trade unions and various NGOs to pressure the Bangladeshi government and manufacturers to make cosmetic changes to safety and building standards. Last week, the Bangladesh Garment Manufactures & Exporters Association (BGMEA), which is desperate to retain its global customers, met with representatives of 40 buyers, including H&M, JC Penny, Gap, Nike, Li & Fung and Tesco. It promised to carry out building inspections of all its members.

Some corporations, such as Primark, are promising to pay compensation of around $1,200 to each of the families of the victims of the Rana Plaza disaster. Walmart, which was directly implicated in the Tazreen Fashion disaster, has refused to pay what amounts to hush money, but has donated $1.6 million towards a token fire safety training program in Bangladesh. The amounts are a pittance, undoubtedly calculated through the methods of cost-benefit analysis used by Disney to reach its decision.

The European Union, acting on behalf of Europe’s retailers, issued a statement last week threatening to withdraw preferential trade access to EU markets for Bangladesh. Foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and trade commissioner Karel De Gucht declared that the EU was considering “appropriate action” to “incentivise responsible management of supply chains involving developing countries.” Some 60 percent of Bangladesh’s garment exports go to Europe.

The EU posturing has nothing to do with improving the lot of Bangladeshi workers. EU officials told the Financial Times that the withdrawal of trade preferences would be “an extreme measure” which was “unlikely” to take place. As one European Commission official told the newspaper, the statement directed at Bangladeshi authorities was only to “put a fire under their feet a little bit.”

If trade preferences were withdrawn, or major corporations followed Disney’s example, the impact on the Bangladesh economy would be devastating. Garments constitute about 80 percent of the country’s exports and more than 3 million workers are directly employed in the industry. Many would lose their jobs, compounding the widespread poverty that already afflicts the Bangladeshi masses.

Moreover, any corporate exits from Bangladesh would only be to another cheap-labour platform, possibly with even lower costs. Burma (Myanmar) is being touted as a possible alternative, where the military-dominated regime would ensure a docile workforce with few safety regulations. The rush to meet the new demand would ensure that buildings were flung up in a similar haphazard and shoddy fashion. Other possibilities include Pakistan, where nearly 300 workers died in a Karachi garment factory fire last September, or the sweatshops in countries such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Haiti.

Far from improving safety standards and working conditions, the corporate giants are engaged in a dog-eat-dog competition against their rivals that is intensifying amid the global breakdown of capitalism. The relentless drive for profits is undermining the health, safety and living standards not only of workers in the developing countries, but also in the economically advanced nations. The only means for ending the tragic loss of life and limb is a unified -struggle by workers throughout Asia, Europe, the US and the world to put an end to the outmoded capitalist system and establish a rationally planned world socialist economy to meet the pressing needs of humanity.

Peter Symonds writes for wsws.org, an information resource of the Socialist Equality Party. 




Howard Kurtz’s Belated Comeuppance: The Media Critic’s Firing Comes After a Long History of Journalistic Abuses

  MEDIA  |  

Throughout his career, he has consistently -– and unfairly -– punished journalists who had the courage to ask tough questions and pursue truly important stories.
howardKurtz90

For nearly a quarter century, Howard Kurtz has served as hall monitor for Washington’s conventional wisdom, handing out demerits to independent-minded journalists who don’t abide by the mainstream rules. So, there is some understandable pleasure seeing Kurtz face some accountability in his ouster as bureau chief for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

 

However, the more salient point is that Kurtz, who continues to host CNN’s “Reliable Sources” show, should never have achieved the level of influence in journalism that he did. Throughout his career, he has consistently – and unfairly – punished journalists who had the courage to ask tough questions and pursue truly important stories.

When one looks at the mess that is modern journalism in the United States, a chief culprit has been Howard Kurtz. Yet, his downfall did not come because of his smearing of fellow journalists – like Gary Webb and Helen Thomas – but rather from a blog post that unfairly criticized basketball player Jason Collins after he revealed that he was gay.

Kurtz faulted Collins for supposedly not revealing that he had once been engaged to a woman, but Collins had mentioned those marriage plans. Twitter exploded with comments about Kurtz’s sloppy error. On Thursday, The Daily Beast retracted the post, and the Web site’s editor-in-chief Tina Brown announced that Kurtz would be departing.

However, Kurtz has committed far more serious offenses during his years destroying the careers of journalists who dared make life a bit uncomfortable for Official Washington’s powerful elites. For instance, Kurtz played a key role in the destruction of investigative reporter Gary Webb, who had the courage to revive the long-suppressed Contra-cocaine story in the mid-1990s.

Working at the San Jose Mercury-News, Webb produced a multi-part series in 1996 revealing how cocaine that was smuggled into the United States by operatives connected to the Nicaraguan Contra war of the 1980s had contributed to the “crack cocaine” epidemic that ravaged U.S. cities. Webb’s articles put the major U.S. news media on the spot because most mainstream outlets had dismissed the Contra-cocaine allegations when they first surfaced in the mid-1980s.

My Associated Press colleague Brian Barger and I wrote the first story about the Contra-cocaine scandal in 1985 and our work was met with a mix of condescension and contempt from the New York Times and the Washington Post, where Kurtz worked for many years. Even after an investigation by Sen. John Kerry confirmed – and expanded upon – our work, the big newspapers continued to dismiss and downplay the stories.

It didn’t matter how much evidence was developed on the Contra-cocaine smuggling or on the Reagan administration’s role covering up the crimes; the conventional wisdom was that the scandal must be a “conspiracy theory.” Journalists or government investigators who did their job, looking at the problem objectively, risked losing their job.

Career Consequences

Journalistic up-and-comers, such as Michael Isikoff (then at the Washington Post), advanced their careers by focusing on minor flaws in Kerry’s investigation rather than on major disclosures of high-level government complicity with drug trafficking. Newsweek’s “conventional wisdom watch” mocked Kerry as “a randy conspiracy buff.”

So, when Gary Webb revived the Contra-cocaine scandal in 1996 by pointing out its real-world impact on the emergence of crack cocaine that ravaged inner cities across the United States in the 1980s, his stories were most unwelcome.

At first, the mainstream news media tried to ignore Webb’s work, but African-American lawmakers demanded investigations into the scandal. That prompted a backlash from the major news organizations. Webb’s articles were dissected looking for tiny flaws that could be exploited to again discredit the whole issue.

On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb’s series, although acknowledging that some Contra operatives indeed did help the cocaine cartels.

The Post’s approach was twofold: first, the Post presented the Contra-cocaine allegations as old news — “even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers,” the Post sniffed — and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one Contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted in his series, saying that it had not “played a major role in the emergence of crack.” A Post sidebar dismissed African-Americans as prone to “conspiracy fears.”

Next, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times weighed in with lengthy articles castigating Webb and his “Dark Alliance” series. The big newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 — almost a decade earlier — that supposedly had cleared the spy agency of any role in Contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA’s cover-up began to unravel on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, and the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Sealing Webb’s Fate

By then, however, Webb had already crossed over from being a serious journalist to an object of ridicule. Washington Post media critic Kurtz effectively sealed Webb’s fate with a series of articles confirming Webb’s new status as a laughable pariah.

For instance, Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the Contra war was primarily a business to its participants. “Oliver Stone, check your voice mail,” Kurtz chortled.

However, Webb’s suspicion was no conspiracy theory. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s chief Contra emissary, Robert Owen, had made the same point in a March 17, 1986, message about the Contras leadership. “Few of the so-called leaders of the movement . . . really care about the boys in the field,” Owen wrote. “THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM.” [Emphasis in original.]

In other words, Webb was right and Kurtz was wrong. Even Oliver North’s emissary had reported that many Contra leaders treated the conflict as “a business.” But accuracy had ceased to be relevant in the media’s bashing of Gary Webb.

While Webb was held to the strictest standards of journalism, it was entirely all right for Kurtz — the supposed arbiter of journalistic standards — to make judgments based on ignorance. Kurtz faced no repercussions for disparaging an embattled journalist who was factually correct. (Kurtz’s sloppiness regarding Webb was similar to Kurtz’s cavalier approach to Collins’s brave announcement as the first player in a major U.S. team sport to declare that he is gay.)

Yet, with Kurtz’s imprimatur, the Big Three’s assault on Webb — combined with their derogatory tone — had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos, who had his own corporate career to worry about, was in retreat.

Webb was forced out of his job to the satisfaction of Kurtz and many in the mainstream media. Webb’s humiliation served as a vindication to their longstanding dismissive treatment of the Contra-cocaine story.

Even when CIA Inspector General Hitz determined that, indeed, the Contra movement had been permeated with cocaine traffickers and that the CIA had shielded them from law enforcement, the mainstream media’s focus remained the alleged shortcomings in Webb’s journalism. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History.]

So, while Kurtz and other Contra-cocaine “debunkers” saw their careers soar, Webb couldn’t find decent-paying work in his profession. Finally, in December 2004, despondent and in debt, Webb took his own life. Even after his death, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and other major news outlets continued disparaging him. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Warning in Gary Webb’s Death.”]

Hooting at Democracy

As the 1990s ground to a close with the Washington news media obsessing over “important” issues like President Bill Clinton’s failed Whitewater real-estate deal and his sex life, Kurtz and his fellow-travelers were setting the sorry standards for modern U.S. journalism. Many were swooning over the manly man George W. Bush and happily hazing the wonky Al Gore.

Though Gore won the national popular vote in Election 2000 and would have prevailed in the swing state of Florida if all the legal ballots had been counted, five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court stopped that counting and installed George W. Bush in the White House – with little protest from the national news media.

That pro-Bush/anti-Gore attitude grew stronger after the 9/11 attacks when a group of news organizations completed an unofficial tally of the ignored Florida ballots, which showed that Gore would have carried that key state. Yet, instead of simply telling the American people that the wrong guy was in the White House, the major U.S. news outlets twisted their own findings to protect Bush’s fragile “legitimacy.”

Out front defending that journalistic malfeasance was Howard Kurtz. He rallied behind the decision of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and other heavy-hitters to focus on hypothetical partial recounts rather than what the Florida voters actually voted for, i.e., a Gore victory.

On Nov. 12, 2001, the Post’s headline was “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush” and Kurtz backed that judgment up by dismissing anyone who actually looked at the statistical findings of the recount as a kook. Kurtz’s sidebar – headlined, “George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever” – ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists” those who thought Gore had won.

“The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,” Kurtz wrote. “That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.”

Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. “Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century – and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?” he wrote.

After reading Kurtz’s dismissive tone, it was a bit jarring to examine the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots. “Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post admitted in a box buried on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times’ graphic revealed the same outcome.

However, based on the “journalism” promoted by Howard Kurtz, any reporter who actually read and reacted to the real findings would be risking his or her career. Thus, millions of Americans continued to believe that Bush was the legitimate winner in Florida when the facts showed otherwise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Sandra Day O’Connor’s ‘Maybe’ Regret.”]

Demonizing Helen Thomas

Given Kurtz’s history as hall monitor for the conventional wisdom, it surely should come as no surprise that he would join in the demonization of longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas, known for her courage in asking uncomfortable questions and for her critical views toward Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

When Thomas made an impolitic remark about Israelis leaving what had been Palestine, her mainstream media colleagues joined the loud calls for her career to be brought to an ignominious end, her apology notwithstanding.

Kurtz penned a harsh retrospective on Thomas’s sudden retirement from journalism, giving Thomas’s critics a free shot at denouncing her for an alleged lack of “objectivity” and her supposedly off-the-wall questions to politicians.

“She asked questions no hard-news reporter would ask, that carried an agenda and reflected her point of view and there were some reporters who felt that was inappropriate,” CBS correspondent Mark Knoller was quoted as saying. “Sometimes her questions were embarrassing to others.”

“She’s always said crazy stuff,” added National Review Online columnist Jonah Goldberg, whose “journalism” career was launched as a defender of his mother, Lucianne Goldberg, after she advised disgruntled federal employee Linda Tripp to tape her conversations with President Clinton’s girlfriend Monica Lewinsky and to save the semen-stained blue dress.

“I did my bit in the trenches of Clinton’s trousers,” Goldberg once wrote. So, in the funhouse-mirror world of today’s Washington news media, Goldberg parlayed his time in Clinton’s trousers into a slot as a frequent guest on high-profile TV news shows, such as ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “Nightline,” MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” CNN’s “Larry King Live,” and, of course, many Fox News programs.

As examples of Helen Thomas’s “crazy stuff,” Kurtz cited some of her questions as if the very words proved her unfitness to work as a national journalist. For instance, he wrote: “In 2002, Thomas asked [White House press secretary Ari] Fleischer: ‘Does the president think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression?’”

Apparently, no further comment was needed for Washington Post readers to understand how outlandish such a question was. Kurtz continued: “Four years later, Thomas told Fleischer’s successor, Tony Snow, that the United States ‘could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon’ by Israel, but instead had ‘gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.’ Snow tartly thanked her for ‘the Hezbollah view.’”

Praise for Critics

Kurtz also praised some of Thomas’s colleagues who alerted the world to the dangers of Helen Thomas earlier. He wrote: “A handful of journalists questioned her role over the years. In a 2006 New Republic piece, Jonathan Chait accused Thomas of ‘unhinged rants,’ noting that she had asked such questions as: ‘Why are we killing people in Iraq? Men, women, and children are being killed there … It’s outrageous.’”

Again, Kurtz appeared to believe that the absurdity of Thomas’s statement was self-evident.

Yet, as President George W. Bush’s unprovoked invasion and bloody occupation of Iraq claimed the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, perhaps the greater absurdity was that Helen Thomas was often alone in asking such impertinent questions.

Thomas also had the integrity to refuse to allow her name and reputation to be used by South Korean theocrat (and right-wing funder) Sun Myung Moon when he took over United Press International in 2000. Then the best-known journalist at UPI, she resigned as an act of principle.

Though Moon was a notorious propagandist who had founded the Washington Times in 1982 as a vehicle for supporting some American politicians (such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) and for tearing down others (such as John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Al Gore), much of the “objective” Washington press corps tolerated and even promoted Moon’s curious newspaper.

In the mid-1980s, after Moon’s newspaper signed up for the Associated Press wire service, AP executives told AP staffers, including me, that we were no longer allowed to mention Moon’s connection to the newspaper when we cited the Washington Times’ reporting in AP copy. That policy change meant that readers of AP stories around the world wouldn’t be alerted to the propaganda element of Moon’s operation.

Other respected Washington news figures, such as C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb, actively promoted Moon’s newspaper by hoisting up its articles before viewers, many of whom had no idea that the Times’ owner was a religious cult leader with mysterious ties to foreign intelligence services and to international crime syndicates. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

So, while Moon’s newspaper was influencing the U.S. political debate with propagandistic articles – and while Moon was spreading around money for political and journalism conferences – Helen Thomas was one of the few prominent figures in the Washington press corps to object. (After resigning from UPI, she took a job as a columnist for the Hearst newspapers.)

Nevertheless, at the end of her long and groundbreaking career as one of the first women to operate in the male-dominated Washington press corps, Helen Thomas was the one pilloried as crazy and unprofessional by the arbiter of all that is good in journalism, Howard Kurtz.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).




Inside the Collapsing Media Empire of Deceased GOP Sleaze-Peddler Andrew Breitbart

Not Safe for Work Corporation / By Mark AmesMax Blumenthal

beavis&butt
In the year after Breitbart’s death, his heirs have produced a string of grotesque episodes that have embarrassed even their own impossible-to-shame allies on the right.
May 5, 2013  |  

This article first appeared at Not Safe for Work Corporation.

This March was a cruel month for the American press. The 10th anniversary of the Iraq War briefly punctured the country’s cultural amnesia, forcing hacks to sweat out another round of cringing mea culpas.

March was also the anniversary of another less epic media failure, but this one came and went without a whimper: The death of Andrew Breitbart, on March 1, 2012.

In the immediate aftermath of Breitbart’s death last year, at age 43, the Beltway media reflexively whitewashed and glorified his work and legacy, canonizing a reactionary circus barker as some kind of American Icon, a gonzo iconoclast, a conservative punk rocker, or a “Zany, Magnetic Media Hacker,” as Wired’s Noah Shachtman put it. Publications ranging from Time, the Washington Post and Slate sang Breitbart’s praises; scores of ambitious up-and-coming media figures burned both ends of the candle to compose the seminal Andrew Breitbart funeral tribute.

Some examples:

  • The Los Angeles Times: “His genius was rooted in the realization that in the new media universe, being outrageous often gets far more attention than being authoritative…In many ways, Breitbart was a throwback to the subversive media manipulators of the 1960s, especially counterculture provocateurs like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. They courted the media with bizarre antics. Breitbart often did the same.”
  • Jack Shafer in Reuters: “I admired the way he ignored journalistic convention and the usual ethical standards to pursue the stories that were important to him. I admired his entrepreneurial approach to journalism and his disdain for the credentialed, self-important press corps.”
  • Time: “Breitbart gave hard and must have expected to get it back hard. He came out of the American political tradition that if you cared about things, then you fought about them…Part of Breitbart’s legacy is a rise in the power of openly partisan journalism outlets and contested news. But if another part of his legacy–as exemplified by the first reaction to his death–is a rise in skepticism, alertness and critical reading of the media, that’s not entirely a bad thing.
  • The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza: “Andrew Breitbart was complicated. He clearly saw around the corner of where journalism was headed but the ways in which he used that insight rightfully raise questions about his ultimate motives… If you loved him, you really loved him. And if you hated him, well you really hated him. Having met Breitbart on a few occasions and corresponded with him infrequently over the years, I can’t imagine he would want it any other way.”

This is how the mainstream press describes great iconoclasts, not paid hatchet-men and extraction industry tools like Breitbart. It’s uncanny how these major media obits synced with the rebel-washed image of himself that Breitbart pushed on the public, as for example this quote from his book “Righteous Indignation”:

“My mission isn’t to quash debate — it’s to show that the mainstream media aren’t mainstream, that their feigned objectivity isn’t objective, and that open, rigorous debate is a positive good in our society. Man, how I long for the days of Sam Kinison, Richard Pryor, Abbie Hoffman, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, George Carlin, and Lenny Bruce.”

Slate’s Dave Weigel quoted that very excerpt in his Breitbart obituary; what’s interesting is Weigel’s smart decision to edit the next sentence in that quote:

“Today, the only people upholding their free-speech legacies are conservatives like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.”

Weigel’s decision to edit out that sentence from his Breitbart quote changes everything — put that sentence in, and Weigel’s Breitbart is suddenly a lot less interesting and unique and trailblazing. That edit was emblematic of the mainstream media’s love affair with an otherwise garden variety GOP sleaze-peddler.

Breitbart, of course, had nothing in common with the comedians whose anti-establishment spirit he claimed to embody. Richard Pryor and Lenny Bruce came up from poverty and overcame anti-Semitism and entrenched, violently enforced racism to wield their wit against powerful forces. Bruce was hounded throughout his career by the FBI, local cops and eventually blacklisted from nearly every comedy club in the United States. Whereas Breitbart collaborated with the FBI and New York police to spy on Occupy Wall Street protesters. Perhaps the only thing Bruce had in common with Breitbart, who spent his career in a mostly uncritical national limelight, was his untimely death at age 40 while in the throes of paranoia and emotional collapse.

Breitbart, the adopted son of a wealthy West Los Angeles restauranteur, used his privilege to immiserate the most marginalized, impoverished, widely demonized groups of Americans. He was a faithful errand boy for rich, Scrooge McDuck tycoons like Peter Thiel, Foster Friess, and the Koch Brothers, wielding smear journalism against anyone or any interest that threatened their power — usually African-Americans or groups like ACORN, serving impoverished, neglected inner city communities.

There was nothing innovative or new about Breitbart’s smear operation. Indeed, he walked a trail blazed by the now-forgotten snitches and smear artists of the McCarthy era – quasi-eccentric figures like Matt Cvetic and Henry Matusow. Cvetic drank himself to death a few years after McCarthy’s fall; while Matusow recanted, was jailed for perjury, and spent the last decades of his life begging for money and working as a clown for children’s parties. Breitbart, for his part, collapsed on a sidewalk outside his home in Brentwood at the tender age of 43.

It will never be known if Breitbart’s death was brought on by decades of Amy Winehouse-style partying around the glass coffee tables of West Hollywood – exactly the sort of practice that can transform a healthy heart into a dried apricot — or whether he succumbed to a “natural cause” like the hysterical, unchecked hatred that seemed to have consumed his entire, physically precarious being. Though he was the father of four young children, Breitbart seemed to have spent much of his time on Twitter, baiting his perceived enemies with scatological and graphically sexualized taunts. After 25,901 Twitter entries, Breitbart reached his tweet limit, leaving behind a vast right-wing online media empire that still remains largely unexamined.

While pundits gushed over Breitbart’s provocations, ignoring race-baiting blunders like the Shirley Sherrod affair and whitewashing his increasingly unhinged behavior – “Stop raping people!” he bellowed at Occupy Wall Street protesters shortly before dropping dead — as a form of “political performance art,” no one bothered asking what would come next. Who would take the reigns of Breitbart’s websites and how would they preserve whatever undeserved credibility Breitbart managed to maintain in the eyes of the media, which proved to be easy prey to his bullying tactics?

Breitbart’s Doomsday Machine

By now, it has become clear that in the months before his death, Breitbart had constructed a journalistic Doomsday Machine and programmed it for an apocalyptic episode of self-destruction. Perhaps it was convenient that Breitbart’s heart exploded when it did; as a martyr, he did not have to witness the implosion of his media empire or bear the responsibility he deserved for its rapid demise.

In the year after Breitbart’s death, his heirs and associates produced a string of grotesque episodes that have embarrassed even their own impossible-to-shame allies on the right, including:

  • Spreading the lie that Chuck Hagel took money from a non-existent group called “Friends of Hamas.” What began as a New York Daily News reporter’s burlesque joke-hypothetical question to a Senate staffer was recycled by Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro [see below] and reported as fact from “Senate sources.” From Breitbart, the reporter’s joke traveled onto the Senate floor and nearly sank Hagel’s confirmation as Obama’s new Defense Secretary. Even after the story was completely debunked and disavowed even by fellow right-wingers, Breitbart.com remains the only media outlet in the world that continues to stick by its debunked story;
  • In mid-March, Breitbart published a straight news story claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy. The story was sourced from an online news parody site, The Daily Currant;
  • Also in March, Breitbart’s most famous protege, video smear-artist and convicted criminal James O’Keefe, wasforced to pay a six-figure settlement to one of the victims of his heavily-edited ACORN videos, which was deceptively re-edited to give the impression that ACORN employees were willing to participate in sex trafficking. ACORN was once a powerful community activist organization working in mostly poor minority communities. O’Keefe’s video, which was heavily promoted by Breitbart, helped destroy ACORN and ruin the careers of many of its employees. Other lawsuits against Breitbart associates continue, including one filed by Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the Department of Agriculture who was fired after Breitbart pushed a heavily-edited video manipulated to make Sherrod appear as if she was anti-white. O’Keefe’s work has been underwritten by everyone from billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel to the billionaire Koch brothers and the billionaireFoster Friess;
  • At the most recent CPAC conference in 2013, Breitbart.com’s sponsored panel bashing Muslims was considered too hateful and extremist by CPAC’s organizers and banned from the official CPAC agenda — despite the fact that Breitbart News Network is a major sponsor of CPAC.

Pull the camera back a bit further, looking back on the year since Breitbart died, and the same pattern of appalling failure, journalistic fraud, and malevolence repeats itself on a broader scale. The actual record of Breitbart’s legacy — not the manufactured, iconoclastic legacy cooked up by Breitbart’s fanboys in mainstream media, but his real legacy — turns out to be much less than advertised.

What Breitbart really left behind is not so much a media business as an asylum for fringe-right degenerates, a motley collection of depraved losers, beer hall rage-a-holics and downright freaks offering themselves up as mercenaries for the rich and powerful, taking dirty jobs no one with a shred of self-respect would consider. As hired-assassins who couldn’t hit the side of a barn if their lives depended on it, the unlikely heirs Breitbart once hired as sycophantic underlings come off as a comedy troupe of slapstick fascists — and it would be funny, if not for the powerful corporate forces sponsoring their attempts at sectarian smears and top-down class warfare.

“A Major Letdown”

The string of Breitbart.com’s epic failures began with Andrew Breitbart’s final act — what he promised would be his biggest bombshell of all, bigger than the Anthony Weiner boner-tweet, bigger than the destruction of ACORN or Shirley Sherrod. In a speech to the 2012 CPAC conference, Breitbart titillated his conservative groupies with what he said was video evidence that Barack Obama was a Manchurian candidate programmed and set upon America by Marxist Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. “Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I was there,” Breitbart snarled.

Looking haggard and swollen as he stood before the CPAC audience, slurring his words, Breitbart described the nefarious plot that his bombshell video would soon expose, bringing down the Obama presidency:

“the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that!”

The speech was just inane and incoherent enough to be taken seriously by Glenn Beck. It should have been a warning sign; it should have been greeted with derision by everyone in the media purporting to do their job — but they were too enamored of Andrew Breitbart, too easily seduced by his marketing power, his “brand,” his celebrity, his vulgar attempt at gonzo-McCarthyism… too intellectually insecure to dismiss Breitbart’s fake populism for what it was: race-baiting corporate propaganda, handsomely rewarded.

Less than a week after Breitbart’s heart popped like a water balloon, the heirs to his legacy were revealed on Fox News’ Sean Hannity Show. Seated together in a remote studio were Breitbart’s new editor-in-chief Joel B. Pollak, and his mini-me, a weasel-faced anti-masturbation crusader named Ben Shapiro. Before an utterly underwhelmed and clearly disappointed Hannity, the duo unveiled the dramatic Obama video.

What Breitbart’s young heirs delivered — what Andrew Breitbart’s corpse delivered, posthumously — turned out to be a monumental dud. The video showed President Obama as a Harvard law student, affecting the same relaxed, monotone-dull, soporific way of speaking that soothed voters in the 2008 election. The video needed explaining — the African-American Harvard Law professor, Derrick Bell, was a race- and class-war radical, Breitbart’s heirs tried to argue. And Obama hugged him — and embraced him.

To the average viewer, it was hard to get worked up over an arcane doctrine called “critical race theory,” which needed explaining. Jeremiah Wright’s rants needed no explaining. But Derrick Bell’s did.

The anti-Obama right was visibly angry. Hannity tried his best to contain his anger at Pollak and Shapiro, but fellow Fox commentator Juan Williams, the network’s token liberal, called it a clunker right on the program:

“I must say, I thought this was going to be so much more,” said Williams. “I thought this was going to be a smoking gun… But it really didn’t come to much.”

Even Glenn Beck was sorely disappointed — and his bar is notoriously low — telling his radio listeners:

“The Obama college tape — wasn’t that a major letdown? I mean I feel bad for Andrew that that was the thing that came out right after [he died] because it was a little disappointing. I think that’s because, you know, if you die you say to your wife, ‘Oh honey, I have something really important to tell you, don’t let me forget.’ And then you go and die. And then she finds the note. And it’s like, ‘Please remind me, I have a doctor’s appointment tomorrow.’ That’s really kind of disappointing, you know. Because you’re like, ‘I thought he had something really important to tell me.’ … This thing came out and it was like, ‘The. Last. Story. Andrew. Breitbart. Did: Very. Important. Video.’ And you’re like…[shakes head ‘sadly, no’] ‘Not so much.'”

And from there, it’s been all downhill for Breitbart.com.

Indentured Servitude Limbo

Part of the problem was the “talent” charged with pitching and selling the video to the public. Leaving aside whatever demons Breitbart battled with and lost, his legacy is a company racked with infighting, lawsuits, scandals, embarrassments, and is staffed at key levels with sexual predators, police informants, and genocidal sociopaths.

Right-wing radio host Dana Loesch, editor-in-chief of Breitbart’s “Big Journalism” site, would have been the closest thing to a number-two presentable face after Breitbart himself. But weeks before Breitbart died, Loesch had been put out to pasture from her brief stint as a CNN contributor after she came out in support of defiling enemy corpses. Early in 2012, US Marines in Afghanistan photographed themselves defiling and urinating on Taliban corpses, in violation of American military and international law; Loesch went on the air supporting the soldiers, adding that she too would gladly pull her pants down and defile their corpses if given the chance:

“I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Andrew Breitbart stood by Loesch, but he was alone; even Rush Limbaugh denounced the corpse defiling.

Problems with Loesch only got worse after Breitbart’s demise, culminating in a lawsuit she filed in late 2012, accusing Breitbart’s heirs of “forcing her into ‘indentured servitude limbo.'” Loesch’s lawsuit asked for a relatively modest $75,000 in compensation (given Breitbart’s billionaire sponsors), and demanded that Breitbart.com LLC release her from her contractual duties.

Loesch’s lawsuit, filed at the end of 2012, offers a rare insight into the chaotic and poisonous corporate culture that Andrew Breitbart left behind.

The lawsuit describes Breitbart.com LLC as “poorly managed” and describes Breitbart’s heirs as a “vindictive party” determined “to sabotage the reputation and career” of Dana Loesch.

Claiming that she’d been identified as “the face of the Breitbart empire” in the fall of 2012, Loesch’s lawsuit alleges “internal difficulties the new company had with managing the media ‘empire'” and claimed “the working environment for Loesch became increasingly hostile.”

Loesch claimed her contract allowed her to terminate their agreement with a 30-day written notice; Breitbart.com LLC responded that she was bound by the contract to continue with Breitbart.com, yet at the same time, denied her access to the website, effectively muzzling the media company’s only media semi-celebrity.

With Loesch out of the picture, the “face of Breitbart.com” title has mostly gone to the same two clowns — Joel Pollak and Ben Shapiro — who botched the Obama student video on the Sean Hannity Show, and started Breitbart down the long slide into the fringe-right margins.

And that is just how Pollak and his little sidekick Shapiro, a pair of ambitious celebrity-seekers, like it. Pollak and Shapiro both harbor deluded fantasies of becoming the telegenic faces and voices of the conservative movement. The only thing holding them back: their faces and voices.

The Dorm Troll

Joel Pollak was born in South Africa, and moved to suburban Chicago at a young age, becoming a US citizen by age 10. Pollak enrolled in Harvard in the mid-90s, telling a local paper that his dream was to become the Ted Koppel of his generation, with his own TV program like Nightline. It explains a lot — as the idealistic part of that dream soured, all that has remained is the childhood ambition to be a TV talking head; the content is fungible.

In every way Joel Pollak of the 1990s was a different creature, conforming to the politics and mood of the Clinton era: Photographs of Pollak as an undergrad show him proudly sporting an expansive “Jewfro” — he looks much happier and almost likeable, if not human, in his Jewfro. Pollak was a Democrat student activist in his undergrad years. Another photograph shows young Joel Pollak, with his Jewfro cropped, smiling as he screams in unison with other pro-Clinton activists protesting against the Clinton impeachment hearings.

We spoke to several former Harvard classmates of Pollak. Each offered a uniform description of an extremely aggressive, often blundering, always self-promoting character who knew no shame. One former classmate who knew him during his undergraduate years and then during his time at Harvard Law School told us the young Pollak idolized Cornel West, the former Harvard African-American studies professor, socialist activist and critical race theory proponent.

“He absolutely loved Cornell West. He would try to present himself to us as West’s darling. Some Harvard students like to collect relationships with famous professors so it was also part of that.”

In 1999, Pollak graduated Harvard, and moved back to his native South Africa, where he remained until at least 2006, working as a speech writer for a controversial white, Jewish South African politician, Tony Leon, who was accused by top ANC politicians,including former President Thabo Mbeki, of racism. Leon inherited a party that had been known for its comparatively progressive politics during the apartheid-era, merged it with the pro-apartheid National Party, and made race-baiting and fear a cornerstone of his politics.

It was while working for Leon that Pollak met his future wife, Julia Bertlesmann.

Bertelsmann was the daughter of Tony Leon’s close friend, Rhoda Kadalie Bertelsmann, herself a well-known columnist and political activist with neoliberal leanings. After apartheid collapsed, Rhoda Kadalie turned against the ANC and “majoritarian” politics, favoring instead the neoliberal politics of Tony Leon’s party, and its alignment with Ariel Sharon and George Bush. As the ANC veered the country away from the special alliance it enjoyed with Israel during the apartheid era, Kadalie Bertelsmann emerged as one of South Africa’s most fervent apologists for the Israeli government, authoring a series of op-eds condemning critical comparisons of Israeli policies towards Palestinians to those of apartheid-era South Africa.

Before falling under the sway of Tony Leon’s race-baiting neocon politics, Pollak was a Clinton Democrat. When he left South Africa in 2006, Pollak says, he had become an opponent of the concept of majority rule — which in the context of South Africa means opposing black rule.

No surprise then that Pollak explicitly equated his opposition to majority rule (i.e. black rule) to his opposition to America’s first black president, which he describes in “Proud To Be Right”:

“I saw in Barack Obama’s presidency the roots of a cult of personality. I recognized in the Democrats’ eager rush to consolidate political power, and to expand rapidly the role of the federal government in the American economy — adangerous majoritarian impulse that our Constitution, and my experience in South Africa, warned against.”

Pollack’s return to the US coincided with Bertlesmann – then 18 or 19, and Pollack a decade older – enrolling in Harvard. Pollack didn’t just follow his future wife to Harvard, but according to former classmates, he also moved in to her dormroom, along with her teenage friends.

As one former Harvard student described the situation to us:

“When she was an undergrad, they were living together in her dorm room. From what I heard, it was something that people in the house there thought was kind of strange. An older law student always being there all the time with these younger students—and being his usual obnoxious self who was not even low key.”I know a few people who know Julia [Bertelsmann]…and the consistent theme is there was this really smart, promising, beautiful high school student and somehow she ended up with this guy. Dot, dot, dot, question mark – what’s up with that? It might be part of [Pollak’s] personality. He sees something he wants and goes for it.”

It was at Harvard, where he had enrolled at law school, that Pollak authored a new book denouncing Obama’s election victory, “Don’t Tell Me Words Don’t Matter: How Rhetoric Won The 2008 Presidential Election.”

“He goes up against someone big and tries to puff himself up,” the former classmate told us. “That’s kind of his formula.”

Ignored even by fellow right-wingers, Pollak’s book on Obama was published by an obscure, Illinois based company specializing in medical textbooks, HC Press — which happens to be owned by Joel’s parents, Raymond and Naomi Pollak. The future heir to the Breitbart empire was over 30 years old, living in his girlfriend’s college dorm, and tapping his parents’ money to attack welfare and Big Government handouts.

On campus, Pollak took on the role of ultra-Zionist enforcer, working closely with the pro-Israel super-lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to stamp out any iterations of Palestine solidarity activity. Pollak’s pro-Israel histrionics were on most vivid display in a class taught by Harvard law professor Duncan Kennedy, one of the most influential and renowned legal theorists of the past few decades.

Pollak and Dershowitz both loathed Duncan Kennedy’s politics, a loathing made clear by Pollak’s own personal blog rants at the time. Despite that hostility (and the waiting list) Prof. Kennedy made sure that Pollak was enrolled in his class, and he hired Pollak his research assistant. On his personal blog “Guide To The Perplexed,” which still stands as a record of his strange college years, Pollak blogged critically, almost obsessively about Kennedy.

Fellow law students recalled how a class debate on whether armed resistance by a theoretical occupied population was permissible set off Pollak into one of his notorious fits of histrionics.

According to one classmate, “He came back to class a week later and slammed a hunk of metal on the table and started shouting, ‘This is what you people are justifying! You are supporters of terrorism! This is piece of a Qassam rocket that’s fallen near [the Israeli city of] Sderot!’ Basically his behavior was embarrassing even to the other Zionists in the course.”

The classmate added, “[Pollak] is just someone who, in everything he did, speaking as someone who’s known him over the years, the persistent characteristic is a very, very deep lack of inhibition or shame.” He added, “I don’t know if it’s because he received too much positive reinforcement as a child or what. And in a way, it’s kind of admirable – he’s always willing to say something no matter how ridiculous or inappropriate it might be in the circumstances.”

In 2010, after graduating from law school, Pollak declared his candidacy for Congress as a Tea Party challenger against Democratic, Chicago-area stalwart Jan Schiakowsky. Despite an endorsement from his former taskmaster Dershowitz, a desperate deployment of his mixed-race wife to brand himself as an enlightened moderate, and an embarrassing but highly entertaining song routine (imagine a Teabagger’s version of that folk singer from Animal House), Pollak was trounced. He failed in an election where nearly every half-baked Tea Party challenger destroyed Democratic opponents. That should have been an ignominious end to his career, but then Breitbart came along with a liferaft.

From Harvard Law graduate to abject political failure, Pollak was recruited by Breitbart to help edit his growing portfolio of right-wing smear sites. And it is there that Pollak’s story of shamelessness, bizarre twists and ethically dubious behavior reached wild new lows.

Genocide Ben

Since Breitbart’s death, Breitbart.com has been defined almost as much by Pollak as it has by his tightly wound little sidekick, Ben Shapiro, now the site’s editor-at-large.

“I know this sounds pathetic, but I’ve never been to a rock concert” –Ben Shapiro, June 17, 2011

Ben Shapiro — known variously as “Virgin Ben,” “Tali-Ben,” or simply “Genocide Ben” — has constructed for himself a biography that makes him look like some sort of prodigy wunderkind. One thing Ben wants to stress is that he was 16 years old when he started college at UCLA.

“I’m twenty-one years old, a heterosexual red-blooded American male, a graduate of University of California at Los Angeles, a student at Harvard Law School, a nationally syndicated columnist, a bestselling author…and a virgin. And I’m proud of it.” —Ben Shapiro, “Porn Generation”

Ben Shapiro’s most useful talent is that he makes Joel Pollak look sane, cool and relaxed. Shapiro’s job is to fidget nervously while holding his tongue, like his bladder’s about to explode through his nose — providing needed contrast to Pollak.

As boy-wonder prodigies go, Ben Shapiro sure picked a shitty career path. A real prodigy would’ve pursued a mad artistic or science dream, or cashed in by taking a job in finance or management consulting; but Ben chose to be a lowly Republican errand boy instead, taking an almost masochistic pleasure in making as much of an ass of himself as is humanly possible.

“There are at least 100,000 child pornography websites available on the Internet. Also available: incestuous porn, bestial porn, and with extreme commonness, ‘virgin’ porn — for those guys who like to pretend that their fetish girls really haven’t done anything before taping a hard core sex video. ‘Schoolgirl’ porn is especially typical — from ‘first-time lesbian’ schoolgirls to ‘organ’ schoolgirl porn. The ‘college roommates’ idea is also big; lesbian porn between co-eds is insanely popular. The idea that the porn industry doesn’t push men to look at fifteen- to eighteen-year-old girls as sex objects is ridiculous.” —Ben Shapiro, “Porn Generation”

Some of what Ben Shapiro publishes is fascinating for the sheer Freudian freakshow entertainment value. Some are downright bizarre and raise all sorts of obvious questions, as in “How did Harvard let a deranged lughead like the author of this piece into its esteemed law school?” For example, this Ben Shapiro-authored attack on the Supreme Court. It’s a piece of pure meatheadery, beginning with the headline, “When Justices Become Dictators.” It begins:

“This week, the Supreme Court of the United States once again proved that it is a feckless, dictatorial and altogether ridiculous body. Its latest spate of decisions reveals legislative usurpation, disingenuous deference and silly inconsistency. But, of course, what else should we expect from the court that tells us our Constitution protects pornography but not political advertising, sodomy but not the Ten Commandments, and mentally disabled murderers but not private property?”

Prose that deranged and clunky wouldn’t grade a “C” in your average Californian community college expository writing course. But apparently Harvard Law School’s admission committee read that and thought, “We have our new Oliver Wendell Holmes!” Either that, or Harvard Law has a quota for fringe-right nutcases like Shapiro.

That’s the black comedy side of Ben Shapiro’s punditry. But there’s a darker side to Shapiro’s writing that reveals him as much worse than a mere silly nutcase. Ben Shapiro is on record advocating genocide against Palestinian Arabs in Greater Israel. Advocating genocide is considered a war crime — Nazi journalists were hung in Nuremberg for advocating genocide, and Hutu media personalities who advocated genocide in Rwanda have also been charged with genocide.

Yet that didn’t stop Harvard Law School’s Ben Shapiro from penning a column, “Transfer Is Not A Dirty Word,” calling for ethnic cleansing — which is legally classified as genocide and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Here is Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large at Breitbart, advocating genocide:

“Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. Any time the Jews get wise and threaten mass expulsion of Arabs, the Arabs pull out their big stick, equating Nazism with Zionism… Their spokespeople cry ‘Genocide!’ And the Jews cower in fear that they could be equated with their parents’ murderers. The Jews don’t realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. It’s time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn’t a solution.”

Actually it is genocide. And it’s the reason why Ben Shapiro came to be known as “Genocide Ben.”

Here, then, is Andrew Breitbart’s true legacy: His two leading heirs, Joel Pollak and Genocide Ben Shapiro, stepping in as the new faces of Breitbart.com to unveil the Obama student video that Andrew himself promised would bring down Obama’s presidency, just as he helped bring down ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Andrew Weiner, and a handful of tweedy NPR executives.

But without Breitbart’s privileged Brentwood demeanor to make the smearing appear vaguely respectable, the Breitbart.com operation is being pushed further into the margins of its own conservative movement, as evidenced when CPAC banished this year’s Breitbart hate seminar to the unofficial margins of the CPAC convention, which already had enough hate and racism on its agenda.

Last Refuge Of A Daily Caller Scoundrel

What’s most fascinating about Breitbart’s legacy is that these two central characters — Joel B. Pollak and Ben Shapiro — are the best they have to offer. Look at the layer below them in the Breitbart media group, and it’s like pulling up the rotted, vermin-infested floorboards in a rotted old swamp shack —where degenerates and quasi-fascist maniacs permeate the entire Breitbart culture. Here you get a look at the late Andrew Breitbart’s true personal sensibility, through the pathological tendencies of his chosen heirs. The minions who comprise the Breitbart community include:

  • John Nolte, Breitbart.com editor and blogger. Has repeatedly called for murdering teachers and mothers. During Occupy protests in November 2011, Nolte tweeted, “Teachers who take kids to protests without parents’ permission should be murdered.” In April 2012, he responded to an HBO comedy show gag involving a young girl bywriting, “whoever this little girl’s stage mom is… she should be murdered.” When police violently cracked down on Occupy protests, Nolte was sexually aroused: “Dirty, filthy #OWS hippies getting what they deserve from cops = MY PORN”; “Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes. Dirty, filthy hippies arrested with bruises and gashes…”; “sniff sniffThere’s just something about a police baton swung towards the skull of #OWS that sniff chokes a man up.#ItsSoBeautiful“.
  • Jeff Dunetz: Breitbart.com blogger nicknamed “Yid With Lid,” Dunetz, has accused practically everything alive or dead of “anti-Semitism”, from Media Matters and George Soros, toPresident Obama, and even corporations like Delta Airlines.
  • Kurt Schlichter, Breitbart.com columnist. Advocated mass-murdering peaceful American protesters on board a flotilla sent to Gaza to protest Israel’s blockade; urged conservatives to arm themselves and prepare for war against the left because “Leftists want us dead. D-E-A-D.”
  • Ali Akbar, Breitbart columnist and head of Breitbart.com-associated outfit the National Bloggers Club, is a convicted felon who was jailed and put on probation for four years for credit card fraud, vehicle burglary, and intent to commit theft.
  • Brandon Darby, FBI informant who infiltrated young anarchist protest groups and ratted them out, leading to arrests and jail time for his former friends. Darby also spied on an Arab-American school teacher and peace activist, Riad Hamad, whom Darby claimed had asked him to launder money for Middle East terrorists. Not long afterwards, Hamad’s corpse was fished out of a lake, his arms bound and his mouth duct-taped; police ruled it a suicide. After Darby outed himself as an informant, Andrew Breitbart brought him into his close circle of friends, and had Darby accompany him in public demonstrations in support of the Koch brothers.
  • James O’Keefe, convicted of attempting to illegally spy on a US Senator and forced to pay large settlements to victims of his manipulated videos which destroyed the livelihoods of several people.
  • Lee Stranahan: Breitbart.com blogger who spent years peddling photographs specializing in many of Genocide Ben’s favorite fetishes, including bondage and S&M, and Ben’s fave,schoolgirl lesbian fetishes. Stranahan covered the Steubenville rape trial for Breitbart.com, tweeting out his belief that the rape of the 16-year-old schoolgirl was not “brutal” and that many women tell him that their rapes are not “brutal” but merely “non consensual.” During the Trayvon Martin murder trial hearings last summer, Stranahan outed the name of a witness who claimed she’d been sexually abused by Martin’s killer.

If there’s one thing Breitbart’s heirs can be thankful for, it’s that there’ll always be an endless stream of degenerate right-wing failures looking for an asylum they can call home. And Breitbart.com will be there to welcome them in, weaponize them for the wealthy right-wing, and turn them on the rest of us.

Recently, the Breitbart.com Asylum welcomed another inmate:Matthew Boyle, the discredited author of the Daily Caller’s fraudulent smear articles against Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. Boyle’s article for the Daily Caller alleged that Sen. Menendez paid Dominican prostitutes for sex. That story was subsequently completely debunked by The Washington Post, after the prostitutes confessed that they were paid to lie about Menendez.

A Dominican prosecutor accused the Daily Caller of paying the prostitutes $5,000 to lie about Sen. Menendez and the site has since distanced itself from that fiasco.

The author of that smear, Matthew Doyle, today proudly describes his current job as “investigative journalist for Breitbart News Network.”

Read more of Mark Ames at eXiledonline.com and Not Safe for Work Corporation. He is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine and Beyond.

Max Blumenthal is the author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books, 2009). Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.