Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

They’ll Never Love You, Marky Mark

Posted by Phoenix Woman on March 2, 2014

Another day, another crazed prog-trolling by Mark Ames, this time based on his willful misreading of a Twitter tweet by Marcy Wheeler:

Marcy Wheeler, who is the new site’s “senior policy analyst,” speculated that the Ukraine revolution was likely a “coup” engineered by “deep” forces on behalf of “Pax Americana”:

“There’s quite a bit of evidence of coup-ness. Q is how many levels deep interference from both sides is.”

These are serious claims. So serious that I decided to investigate them. And what I found was shocking.

Wheeler is partly correct. Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

But that’s not the shocking part.

What’s shocking is the name of the billionaire who co-invested with the US government (or as Wheeler put it: the “dark deep force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”).

Step out of the shadows…. Wheeler’s boss, Pierre Omidyar.

Yes, in the annals of independent media, this might be the strangest twist ever: According to financial disclosures and reports seen by Pando, the founder and publisher of Glenn Greenwald’s government-bashing blog,“The Intercept,” co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine.

Uh-oh! Cue the appearance of Dramatic Prairie Dog!

In case you were wondering, Marcy’s already ripped this to shreds:

Now, Ames apparently couldn’t even cut and paste competently because he added “force” inside quotation marks attributed to me, and in the original reference used “dark” instead of “deep,” all of which played a key rhetorical role in giving his claims their “dark deep” tinge. (In several tweets, Ames’ editor Paul Carr assured me he thought Ames’ citations of me were fair.)

Cue Hollywood villain music: Bum bum bum!


Here’s what Pando has shown: Clear evidence that Omidyar network awarded funds in 2011, spent in 2012, tied to a networked NGO pushing transparency, human rights, and grassroots civil society.

Bum bum bum!

It has also shown clear evidence that that same year, a non-profit funded in part by USAID provided even more of that group’s funding, and NED less.


I guess, ultimately, this comes down to whether Foundation support of NGOs funding transparency is a bad thing, and whether that amounts to funding regime change.

Go read the whole thing. Ms. Wheeler does an excellent job of showing Ames’ essential dishonesty.

As for you, Marky Mark: Give it up. The mainstream American media gatekeepers and the corporate entities that fund them will never, ever take you into their bosoms, much less give you largesse from their bank vaults. They’ll treat you like you treat women: They’ll occasionally use you for their own jollies, but they’ll never respect you, and they won’t give much money — not after your debacle with The Nation.

You’re far too skeevy for them, what with your tastes for underage hookers and general and undisguised contempt for women, especially those who won’t be your sex toys.

They’ll never love you, Marky Mark. They won’t even buy you dinner.

4 Responses to “They’ll Never Love You, Marky Mark”

  1. Charles II said

    Phoenix Woman says, “I guess, ultimately, this comes down to whether Foundation support of NGOs funding transparency is a bad thing, and whether that amounts to funding regime change.”

    Well, this is certainly the question in Honduras and Venezuela, not to mention George Soros’ funding of the Orange Revolution.

    I think if you will go back to 2005, you will find a real problem with the argument that the “transparency” the US funds improves the quality of governance:

    Ukraine had benefited from more than a decade of civil-society development, a good deal of it nurtured by donor support from the United States, European governments, the National Endowment for Democracy, and private philanthropists such as George Soros. Although such sponsorship was nonpartisan, it reinforced democratic values and deepened the public’s understanding of free and fair electoral procedures. Authentic democratic values were being reinforced by a new generation that had grown up initially under glasnost, and later with a broad awareness of democratic practices around the world.

    Now, the guy widely believed to have poisoned the president who emerged from the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko, is the currently deposed president Yanukovich. So, perhaps the Orange Revolution improved governance in the Ukraine. It did not improve it in any sustainable way. Yanukovich returned to power. A lot of people were not convinced that Yuschenko’s governance was better than Yanukovich’s. A lot of people think that the country is being sold off to foreign multinationals. See Robert Parry’s analysis

    While this is certainly a better outcome than the terrible tragedy we have seen in Honduras, the track record of US meddling is not good. The essential characteristic of democracy is that people have to be given the chance to fail, and to learn from their own failures. When we help to overthrow legally elected governments, we are destroying the very root of democracy.

  2. MarkH said

    Interesting article and comment, but I still fail to see the connection between “grass roots democracy building” and “overthrowing a legally elected government”.

  3. jo6pac said

    Yep, ma went off the edge once again and I think it was just to much when Matt Tabbi came on board.

    On this subject the Ukraine.

    • Charles II said

      It’s an interesting interview, Jo. Francis Boyle is a well-regarded expert in international law. Thanks.

      I think he goes a little over the top. The Yanukovych regime was not popular, and there’s no evidence of direct CIA involvement. It looks more like what we’ve been discussing with Honduras, a constitutional coup, in which the forms of legality are used to mask the overall illegality.

      Also, the neo-Nazis aren’t in the Ukrainian Parliament. But they are the muscle that the opposition used to topple Yanukovch. I don’t see how the moderates will control them.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: