Displaying posts categorized under


Dershowitz: Plame Story Is ‘Much, Much Worse than the Media Has Presented It’ By Debra Heine

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed the media this morning for playing down the Valerie Plame anti-Semitic tweet story after her disingenuous apology.

The former CIA operative came under intense fire yesterday on Twitter after she tweeted an anti-Semitic article that blames “America’s Jews” for all of our wars. After the backlash, it was said that she had only skimmed the Unz Review article and somehow had missed the blatant anti-Semitism.

During an appearance on Fox and Friends Friday, the professor said that this story is “much, much worse than the media has presented it.” He added that the author of the article, Philip Giraldi, is a “well-known anti-Semite.”

“In this article, he says that Jews like me or Bill Kristol, when we appear on television, should have on the bottom of the screen identification saying we’re Jews,” Dershowitz pointed out. “And he says it’s ‘like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison. Ingest at your own peril.'”

“All you have to do is read the first couple of paragraphs: Jews control the media, Jews control politics,” he exclaimed. “This is just like what was written in Nazi Germany!” He added, “she can’t now say, ‘I didn’t know what was in it.'”

Dershowitz noted that in 2014, Plame tweeted another article by Giraldi and he argued that her retweets expose “her real set of beliefs.”

“The interesting thing about Twitter, is you do it so quickly, it often reflects your real, genuine beliefs. Then you realize what you’ve said and you say, ‘Uh, oh. I’m sorry,'” he explained. “This guy, Giraldi’s articles are constantly put on neo-Nazi websites!”

“Who would imagine that a former CIA operative would retweet that and, I believe, endorse it?” Dershowitz said incredulously.

New York Times Faces Backlash After Publishing an Inaccurate Book Review Vanity Fair digs into the controversy. By Rebecca Gibian

The New York Times’ Sunday Book Review became embroiled in controversy last week when one author published an inaccurate review, Vanity Fair reports.

Michelle Goldberg reviewed Vanessa Grigoriadis’s new book, Blurred Lines, which examines the debate about consensual sex on college campuses. Goldberg offers a few pieces of praise, Vanity Fair writes, before giving a harsh critique of the book, even saying that “occasionally (Grigoriadis) makes baffling errors that threaten to undermine her entire book,” according to Vanity Fair.

But Grigoriadis defended herself and her book on her Facebook page, saying that Goldberg performed “some of her own (incompetent) journalism here.”

By the time the issue went public, a large correction had been added to Goldberg’s piece, writes Vanity Fair.

The journalism and media circles began buzzing. Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple published an account of what happened on his blog, and Vanity Fair reports that various women’s organizations chimed in as well. Goldberg took to Twitter to say that she would “give a kidney and five years of my life back” to take back the assertions, writes Vanity Fair, and expressed frustration with how the whole thing played out.

Vanity Fair says that the controversy set off “drama within the halls of the Times,” because it is a significant error. One source told Vanity Fair that it was “humiliating.” One interesting fact is that both women are part of the Times masthead. Grigoriadis is a contributing writer. Goldberg was just hired as a columnist for the Times Op-Ed desk, appointed by James Bennet, the editorial page editor who some think might someday succeed executive editor Dean Baquet. “The fact that they’re both affiliated with the Times is what makes it unusual,” a Times staffer told Vanity Fair.

Vanity Fair also writes that now people question how this will affect Bennet, since he has faced some major issues in his short year and a half at the job — such as a defamation lawsuit filed by Sarah Palin, that was later dismissed.

One further question Vanity Fair brings up is would the mistake have happened if there was a free-standing, centralized copy desk. The copy desk was eliminated from the Times this summer. But Vanity Fair writes that some people at the Times disagreed with this thought, saying it seems unlikely “even the most assiduous copy editor” would have questioned Goldberg on some of her fundamental points.

Vanity Fair writes that at the end of the day, this is just an example of the rockiness the Times is currently going through as it makes “important and necessary changes.”

Anthony Bourdain “Jokes” About Poisoning President Trump The oppressive Cuban dictatorship is more to his liking. Humberto Fontova

“Anthony Bourdain, host of ‘Parts Unknown’ on liberal CNN, said last week that he would poison Donald Trump if the celebrity chef was asked to cater a peace summit between the President and Kim Jong Un….’Hemlock,’ Bourdain simply replied when asked by TMZ what he would serve Trump and the North Korean dictator.”

OK, so Bourdain was joking. Har–Har! But here’s Bourdain from interview right after Trump’s election:

“I will never eat in his (Donald Trump’s) restaurant. I have utter contempt for him, utter and complete contempt… I’m not going. I’m not going.” (Anthony Bourdain, Eater.)

Bourdain sure seems sniffish about patronizing (much less publicizing) restaurants belonging to deviants from his political worldview. OK, fine. That’s his privilege.

But what does this say about the “principled” celebrity chef’s sniveling propagandizing for restaurants owned by the racist, mass-murdering, terror-sponsoring Castro-Family-and- Military-Crony Crime-Syndicate (habitually and grotesquely mislabeled as “Cuba” by Bourdain’s employers at The Travel Channel and CNN)?

“Yes, Go to Cuba!” gushed Bourdain at the end of a show he did from Cuba in 2011. So let’s hand it to this shameless and sniveling hypocrite, to this celebrity who wears his political principles and social-conscience on his shirtsleeve. He’s simply a corporate shill—but for one of the most profitable and unscrupulous corporations in modern history: the Castro Family.

In fact Anthony Bourdain– this “hipster” chef—has headlined several propaganda junkets (his shows from Cuba) to help secure the financial lifeline for a Stalinist regime that jailed and tortured the longest suffering black, female and gay political prisoners in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere.

Bourdain’s bootlicking services for the financial welfare of the terror-sponsors who craved to nuke his nation also included –not only a tourism commercial for the Castro family!—but also an official “Tony Bourdain’s Guide to Cuba.” Along with a handy-dandy link from Bourdain’s page to the Castro-regime-owned Hotel Nacional– for quick and easy reservations! But let some celebrity chef plug a U.S. restaurant and Bourdain turns up his nose and sneers at such a “sell-out.”

In case you hadn’t heard, amigos: As Venezuela’s oil subsidies dry up, Castro’s Stalinist regime is increasingly living off tourism. And Cuba’s Intelligence and Military sector owns 80 per cent of the tourism industry, as documented in Congressional testimony by retired Defense Intelligence Agency Cuba analyst, Lieut. Col. Chris Simmons.

Those charming, smiling hosts who escorted Bourdain around Castro’s fiefdom were all regime apparatchiks. Immediately upon applying for his Cuban visa, well before Bourdain even set foot in Cuba, Castro’s intelligence had Bourdain completely sussed and his future escorts completely briefed. The procedure started the day he applied for Cuban visa, as also explained by Lieut. Col. Christopher Simmons. That your official “guides” while officially visiting a Communist nation were regime apparatchiks was common knowledge even to proto-imbeciles all during the Cold War. Bourdain was born in 1956.

Media Continues Gaslighting Somali Refugee’s Stabbing Terror Attack at Minnesota Mall By Patrick Poole

UPDATED: The Star Tribune reporter responds. See exchange below.

On the one-year anniversary of the terror attack in St. Cloud, Minnesota, where Somali refugee Dahir Adan walked into the Crossroads Center shopping mall and began stabbing shoppers (as he asked his victims if they were Muslim) and shouting “Allah akhbar,” the media is still remarkably unclear about Adan’s motives.

The attack was later claimed by the Islamic State, which declared that Adan was one of their “soldiers”.

“Reporter” Stephen Montemayor tells us:

But one year after Adan’s rampage, newly unsealed court filings detailing the FBI’s early response underline the difficulty that persists in trying to unwrap the young man’s motivation and determine whether he had any guidance from virtual terror planners abroad.

Days after sending more than 20 agents to St. Cloud to interview scores of witnesses, the FBI obtained search warrants for Adan’s social media accounts, the Toyota Camry he was driving when he struck a bicyclist on his way to the mall and four digital devices, according to court filings. But authorities still say they may never know what sparked Adan’s decision to bring two Farberware kitchen knives to the mall that night.

FBI special agent in charge Richard Thornton told reporters last year that the bright young college student may have been radicalized “almost overnight,” growing withdrawn and scolding relatives for not being more devout […]

Authorities have not found contacts between Adan and operatives of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, instead pointing to witness statements that Adan shouted “Allahu akbar,” an Arabic phrase meaning “God is great,” and that he first asked some victims if they were Muslim before stabbing them.

Despite recounting the official claims of the attack by ISIS, testimony of the victims, and acknowledgement of Adan’s increasingly radicalized behavior, there still remains a great mystery to his motive according to the Star Tribune.

It seems what is going on is that the Star Tribune is taking the FBI saying that they can’t find a direct connection between Adan and ISIS and trying to gin that up into a controversy about what his motive was. However, these are not correlated issues.

To our knowledge and based on what has been reported, there is no indication that Adan ever claimed a direct connection to ISIS.

So how does the absence of any evidence of a direct connection, which was never claimed by Adan, suddenly throw into doubt all of the other available evidence? It doesn’t. That’s at the heart of the gaslighting that’s going on in this case.

And for local “activist” organizations quoted by Montemayor, that manufactured doubt about Adan’s motives now allows them to charge that others are able to “just fill in their own truths”:

The opacity of Adan’s case has been difficult for St. Cloud, said Natalie Ringsmuth, who directs #UniteCloud, a nonprofit that has worked to ease cultural tensions. Ringsmuth said the stabbing is still referenced by anti-Muslim activists visiting the city, as recently as last week. Meanwhile, she said not knowing whether Adan was indeed radicalized has curbed the opportunity to discuss preventing a similar episode.

CNN grills black Trump supporter at rally, gets an earful By Thomas Lifson

I am reasonably certain that nobody forces on-air talent at CNN to swear an oath of loyalty to the anti-Trump narrative. Why bother? In the universe of “television journalists,” divergence from the approved prejudices is so rare outside of certain hours on Fox that it would be wholly unnecessary.

One element of that dogma is that blacks must be anti-Trump. They are not expected to utilize their own judgment. So, when a reporter encountered Diante Johnson, founder and CEO of the Black Conservative Federation, at the pro-Trump “Mother of all Rallies,” he may not have been expecting as articulate a response as he got. The two minutes of video embedded below will repay your investment of time handsomely.

Let’s face it: Black conservatives are some the bravest and smartest people active in politics today. They drive the left nuts, causing cognitive dissonance due to their refusal to adhere to racist narrative that insists all blacks must think alike.

Diante Johnson

Their day will come.

Getting It Wrong on Russia and RT By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

The company that manages the Russian news outlet R.T. (Russia Today) announced this week that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice requiring it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Russian news outlet Sputnik International may be next.

FARA was passed in 1938 to require entities or individuals who represent foreign governments to disclose their relationships, activities, and finances. Registration would not stop R.T. from broadcasting in the U.S. or censor its programs – it is a paperwork requirement – but it would formally label R.T. an arm of the Russian government rather than an independent media source. This, in essence, would tell Americans that news from R.T. should be considered suspect.

As a practical matter, all news – particularly from government-sponsored sources – should be considered skeptically. That includes the British-owned BBC and U.S. government-funded PBS. Trevor Burus wrote of PBS earlier this year in the Daily Beast:

A 1969 memo outlined the administration’s goals: creating a new “public” media network to compete with more independent sources such as NET. That network could be controlled because the White House would ‘have a hand in picking the head of such a major new organization if it were funded by the Corporation [CPB].’ That major new organization became PBS.

Many other foreign news services are strongly government-influenced even if the government does not hold an ownership share. Does Le Monde reflect the views of the French government? Does The London Times have a British viewpoint? Russia and China have a number of news agencies that have operated for years under the guidance of their respective Communist parties; The People’s Daily, Pravda, and Izvestia were never told to register.

But, you say, there was a report in January from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) that singled out R.T. as “a state-run propaganda machine,” part of Russia’s attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

This is the heart of the issue – the American government is still trying to blame Russia for the outcome of our election. The Russians were not found to have altered voting machines, cast illegal ballots, or destroyed legitimate ballots, so the DNI was reduced to saying the American public was duped by R.T. programming. Pretty good for an outlet almost no one is watching. R.T. didn’t even make the ratings in a 2015 Nielsen survey of the top 94 cable channels in America. According to the Economist, among its top 15 YouTube hits presently are earthquakes, grisly accidents, and Vladimir Putin singing “Blueberry Hill.”

There are important principles at stake here for the American audience, for bilateral relations, and for journalism.

1. Registration is a two-way street. The U.S. is likely to find its media outlets in Russia ostracized and excluded, maybe even barred entirely. Since the Russian government has a heavier hand with journalists than our own government does, it is not in our interest to let this happen.

2. There are countries presently systematically destroying their own free press. Turkey, a NATO member, comes to mind. If journalists operate under duress and threat of imprisonment at home – as do the Turkish media – why should they be considered independent operators in the U.S.? The Justice Department would have a credible case for warning Americans about Turkish media as propaganda by journalists intimidated by their own government.


Western media have been having a field day with the story of the eviction of the Arab Shamasneh family from a house in east Jerusalem. The case has been presented as an example of cruel and callous Israelis throwing an elderly Arab couple onto the street in order to “Judaise” the Shimon HaTzadik area of east Jerusalem.http://www.melaniephillips.com/wicked-media-distortion-shamasne-eviction-fancy/

On her Times of Israel blog, however, Lyn Julius puts this story into a rather different perspective with facts that the western media failed to report (well, just fancy that!). She writes:

Sixty-nine years ago, the Hubara family, a Jewish family living in Shimonº Hatzaddik, were expelled when the British-led Arab legion invaded and occupied the city during the early stages of Israel’s War of Independence.

Called ‘Sheikh Jarrah’ by the city’s Arab population, Shimon Hatzaddik, the site of Simon the Just’s tomb and surrounding pilgrims’ residences, was owned by the Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities. It was emptied of its Jews in 1948, the Jews being the first refugees of the war. Their homes came under the jurisdiction of the Jordanian Custodian for Absentee Property who proceeded to rent the properties to local Arabs.

When the Israelis recaptured East Jerusalem in 1967, the former Jewish owners found themselves in a position to reclaim what had been theirs. Dozens of former owners have embarked on protracted legal struggles to recover their homes.

However, the Israeli courts have protected the Arab tenants’ rights. Only where they have failed to pay rent have the courts’ judgements gone against the Arab residents.

Of all the press reports of the Shamasneh case, only Ynet News and Arutz Sheva (and an early report in Haaretz) have reported that the Shamasnehs failed to pay rent. Few press have bothered even to mention the historical context of the Jewish expulsion from east Jerusalem in 1948. The motive attributed to the Jewish claimants has been to ‘Judaise’ Jerusalem – ‘to throw out the Arabs and expand Jewish settlement.’

Ten years ago, the Hubaras sold their property rights on to Aryeh King of the Israel Land Fund. King declared that the Arab family ceased paying rent five years ago. “I don’t trust them anymore because they have a debt of 180,000 shekels [about $50,000] for rent, and damage of another 160,000 shekels.” King says he told them if they provide a cheque from a guarantor he could trust, he would consider letting them stay longer, but they refused. It’s unpleasant, he said, but “they did everything possible so [the eviction] would happen.”

As for reports that the elderly Arab parents are being turned out on the street, King told Haaretz: “The elderly parents have no reason whatsoever to remain in the street because their daughter lives right next door, and there is evidence they will receive housing aid from the European Union.”

The Israeli courts have been known not to enforce an eviction order against Arab squatters where they have no other home to go to.

A second falsehood propagated by the media has been that ‘the law allows Jews to reclaim their property but “no such law exists for Palestinians”.

According to the Israel Lands Administration, as of 1993, 14,692 Arabs claimed compensation under the Absentee Property Law and the Validation and Compensation Law. Claims were settled with respect to 200,905 dunams of land, a total of NIS 9,956,828 had been paid as compensation, and 54,481 dunams of land had been given in compensation (Israel Lands Administration Report for 1993).

As recently as 21 March 2016, Gulf News Palestine reported: “Increasing numbers of Palestinian landowners are accepting monetary compensation for land and properties they owned inside the Green Line….Active groups of land dealers and lawyers have been implementing the Israeli regime’s plan to convince the displaced Palestinian landowners to accept compensation deals and give up their rights to their lands and properties.’

The landlords are warned not to accept compensation lest it jeopardise the Palestinian ‘Right of Return’.

Trump, Nixon, and the Media Back to the future. Bruce Bawer

Ever since the election of Donald Trump, the media have been grabbing at everything they could come up with to smear him – and have been shameless lemmings in echoing one another’s nonsense. He’s in bed with Putin! He’s got Alzheimer’s! And then there’s this one: good God, he’s the second coming of Richard Nixon!

Just a sampling. In May, Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, Nate Hopper in Time, and Alyssa Rosenberg in Washington Post wrote articles drawing parallels between Trump and Nixon. In their efforts to yoke the two presidents together, all three journalists seemed desperate to find likenesses. “As Trump does today,” wrote Rosenberg, “Nixon faced questions about his tax dealings and whether he was using the presidency for personal profit.” I don’t remember Nixon facing major questions along those lines, but I do know that Trump, far from using the presidency for personal profit, has waived his salary and took a financial hit for entering politics; it’s the Clintons, of course, who over the last quarter-century have cashed in on their political positions to a degree that has made fellow grifters the world over gasp in wonder.

In a June issue of New York Magazine, Frank Rich joined the Trump = Nixon club, suggesting that The Donald, like Tricky Dick, would end up being brought down by a scandal; on August 1, CNBC’s website ran its own Trump/Nixon story, claiming that “[o]n Russiagate, Trump appears to be taking his playbook directly from Richard Nixon and Watergate.”

That’s only the tip of the iceberg. Nothing new here, of course: the news media have been trashing Republican presidents ever since the cultural revolution of the 1960 – since, that is, the Nixon Administration. In order to maximize the impact of the trashing, to be sure, the media invariably argue that most previous GOP commanders-in-chief were actually not that bad, but that the current one is terrible. This has led to a great deal of silent self-revision on the media’s part. While Reagan was in the Oval Office, the media, by and large, depicted him as an out-of-touch Hollywood amateur who would destroy the economy, oppress minorities, and maybe even start a nuclear war with the Soviets. When George W. Bush was in charge, however, the same media contrasted him with Reagan – whom they now professed to consider an accomplished statesman – even as they painted W. as half idiot and half evil incarnate, in some cases even equating him with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Predictably, now that Trump is head of state, Bush Derangement Syndrome has been dropped down the memory hole – in fact, he’s being widely rehabilitated (how wonderful his paintings of wounded soldiers are! How knowledgeable he turns out to be about art! And look, he and the whole Bush clan are chummy with the Clintons!) – and been replaced by Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump, it turns out, is the worst GOP president since Nixon – if not worse: in July, Politico trumped the Trump = Nixon line with a piece by Susan B. Glasser headlined: “Don’t Compare Trump to Nixon. It’s Unfair to Nixon.” Glasser, it turned out, had interviewed veteran Washington insider Elizabeth Drew, who argued that Trump is dumber than Nixon and that his abuse of power had already eclipsed that uncovered by the Watergate investigations.

Google Bias Against Leading Conservative Websites—Including PJM—Is Real By Paula Bolyard

A new research paper from Leo Goldstein claims to have quantified Google’s bias against leading conservative sites—including PJ Media—in search ranking, especially (but not exclusively) in the area of climate change.

“Google Search is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains and against conservative domains with a confidence of 95%,” Goldstein found. “Further, certain hard-Left domains have such a high [percentage of domain traffic, referred by Google Search, net of brand searches] that their standing raises suspicions that they have been hand-picked for prominent placement,” he says, adding that “certain respected conservative domains are blacklisted.”

In an email to PJ Media Goldstein warned that a number of conservatives sites, including PJM, could be the victims of Google bias:

Dear Editors,

You might be interestted to learn, that your websites have been almost blacklisted by Google. “Almost blacklisted” means that Google search artificially downranks results from your websites to such extent that you lose 55% – 75% of possible visitors traffic from Google. This sitution is probably aggravated by secondary effects, because many users and webmasters see Google ranking as a signal of trust.

This result is reported in my paper published in WUWT. The findings are consistent with multiple prior results, showing Google left/liberal bias, and pro-Hillary skew of Google search in the elections.

I write to all of them to give you opportunity to discuss this matter among yourselves. Even if Google owes nothing to your publications, it certainly owes good faith to the users of its search. Intentionally hiding conservative and/or libertarian websites from the customers is an obvious breach of good faith.

He included a list of several conservative sites that may have been targeted for bias:

The almost blacklisted domains:






On average, Goldstein explained in the paper, the percentage of Google referral traffic (PGSTN) is in the 25-30 percent range for a broad class of web domains. Respected conservative sites like PJM and RedState have much lower percentages according to his findings. He based his research on the Alexa website ranking site.

On average, the conservative domains have almost two times lower PGSTN than the left/liberal ones: conservative 15.5% (standard deviation 5.1%) vs. left/liberal 27.4% (standard deviation 4.9%). Hypothesis of Google Search left/liberal bias is confirmed with a confidence of 95%.

He included this chart to demonstrate his findings:
Chart showing Google’s liberal bias Image Credit Leo Goldstein

On first glance, this sounds like a clear case of bias. However, there are some factors to consider. First, Alexa is not known to accurately reflect a site’s internal numbers, relying as it does on “estimated” metrics. PJM’s actual Google organic traffic referral percentage, for example, is higher than what Alexa reports. And Alexa’s estimate is based on their estimate of total traffic to a site. So, for example, if a site gets a large percentage of traffic from another source (e.g. Drudge or Yahoo) the percentage of Google organic traffic will naturally be lower.

In addition, Goldstein admits that he holds “short positions in Google stock,” which means he is essentially betting their stock will drop. That introduces the possibility of bias into his assessments.

Having said all that, we’ve had a significant drop in Google organic traffic here at PJM in recent months which could be the result of bias—or a number of factors. Google announced “Project Owl” earlier this year, claiming it would use a combination of algorithm tweaks and user reports to crack down on “fake news”: CONTINUES AT SITE

Kim Jong-Un’s Mainstream Media Defenders Leftists regurgitate North Korean propaganda in our own papers. Lloyd Billingsley

As Matthew Vadum notes, the violent anti-Trump groups Refuse Fascism and the Workers World Party are siding with North Korea and “spouting pro-North Korean propaganda talking points, and in at least one case, copying and pasting official North Korean statements into communiques.” As it happens, North Korean propaganda is also showing up in the establishment media.

Consider “Reunification, not war, in Korea,” a “special” piece for the Sacramento Bee on September 5, when Kim Jong-un was fondling his new hydrogen bomb. Author Geoffrey Fattig, a “former speechwriter for the U.S. State Department,” is not disturbed by “Kim Jong-un’s blatant disregard of the will of the international community,” and describes it only as “distasteful.”

So threatening the United States and its allies is a matter of taste, as Molotov once said about fascism. Fattig’s problem is Donald Trump. “Unfortunately,” he explains, “sanity doesn’t seem to be a hindrance facing our new president.” But this is no boilerplate anti-Trump screed. For former State Department speechwriter Geoffrey Fattig:

“The problem, though, is not simply or even primarily Trump. The problem is that the country he leads has shown itself to have a capacity for violence that is matched only by its ignorance of foreign affairs. North Korea is not a threat to the United States; the only reason we fought the country in the first place was because the Truman administration split the peninsula immediately after World War II, then committed U.S. troops when Kim Il-sung sought to reunify the country in 1950.”

Likewise, regarding North Korea as a threat to the United States “profoundly misjudges the nature of the regime” which is “driven by a singular goal of reunifying the Korean peninsula, a goal that cannot be achieved while U.S. troops remain stationed in South Korea.” And back stateside:

“An American public that is naturally predisposed to fear and war” supports military action against North Korea. Instead of joining this chorus, “U.S. leaders should start thinking of ways to atone for our original sin of dividing the peninsula in 1945.” And according to Geoffrey Fattig, “Kim Jong-un isn’t going anywhere, and neither is his stockpile of nuclear weapons.”

Those fearful, violent, warmongering people in Anchorage, Boise, and Baton Rouge, can be forgiven for regarding Fattig’s “special” piece as goose-stepping North Korean propaganda. The former U.S. State Department speechwriter has had a lot of practice on that theme.

Fattig’s work has often appeared on the website of the Institute for Policy Studies, an interlocking directorate of the left. Despite the North’s “military bluster,” Fattig explains in a 2013 IPS piece, “there are signs that Kim Jong-un has been cautiously embarking on economic reforms during his first year in power.” Here Fattig shows the deft touch of a Walter Duranty or Anna Louise Strong, but there’s more.

The Korean standoff will improve with “withdrawal of American military forces, a normalizing of its dysfunctional relationship with the United States, and coordinated economic assistance from its neighbors.” So just get out, give Kim Jong-un what he wants, and all will be well.