Occupation of Independence

The independent punditocracy is criticizing the Establishment Media for paying so much attention to the murder of Khashoggi by the Saudis, given that it has paid almost no attention to the death rained down from the skies by the Saudis onto miserable Yemen. But there is an explanation, and it shows that the Establishment has learned something from their Kavanaugh debacle. The Establishment cannot have an overhang, a positive aura, survive until the mid-term elections, to the benefit of the Republicans. They can't have voters still thinking about the deplorable behavior of the Democrat groups during Kavanaugh's confirmation. So attention must be diverted elsewhere, and quickly! If the Never-Trumpers are lucky, Trump will be seen as the defender of cruel, spoiled, despotic Saudis. And perhaps this time, the guilt will be established. It is possible the Trump is stupid enough to fall into this trap: after all, Israel and Saudi Arabia are allies in everything but name. 

I never heard of Caitlin Johnstone until a few weeks ago. Perhaps purposely I have avoided trying to find about her, and have simply been content to enjoy her essays. She doesn't overlap with me too much: she seems to be a Green. One advantage of putting up with deviations of any kind is that when they do agree with you, you feel entitled to enjoy it -- after all, you earned it! It will be interesting to see how her career evolves. Recall good ol' Ben Franklin's best friend. As young buckaroos, they went to England together, with the friend hoping to become a poet. He failed. But then he become a pundit who was actually paid to keep quiet by the opposition. That must be the ultimate compliment to any writer. (By the way, google or blogger.com should be told that I am open to negotiations on that issue...) But they probably don't do that anymore. So Caitlin's career will develop in some other way. Her personal appearance isn't that of a honey-bunny, so

There is an art to choosing which pundit to read.  A reader seeking comfort can read a pundit that they always agree with. Inevitably, this turns into disappointment. Soon you can anticipate everything the pundit will say, and you've heard it all before. On the other hand, if you disagree with everything they are about to say, you have the same problems as above, with the added benefit of being made angry. And so, the middle ground is best. You must be relieved and delighted when he agrees with you. These moments also predispose you to give him the benefit of the doubt when he disagrees with you. At least you stay good-natured about the disagreement.  That is why I have read James Howard Kunstler over the years. He has come a long way from his roots as a New York Jewish Democrat/Bolshevik (grin). His latest essay was mildly shocking -- and enjoyable.  For a moment there I thought the essay was written by Fred Reed.