jump to navigation

Orwell’s 1984 Solution to Criminalize War: “If There was Hope, it must Lie in the Proles” August 28, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in Art, Literature and Culture, Revolution, War.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

 

Roger’s note: It is no dramatic discovery that the vast majority of Americans (and people everywhere around the globe) hate and oppose not only warfare, but the legalized theft of human rights and human labor and the destruction of the biosphere that is perpetuated by every government of every capitalist state and largely bolstered by the mass media and the political culture.  Change (the accomplished dissimulator Obama notwithstanding) will not come via electing leaders in contests where the option for peace and justice are never represented.  From the Paris Commune to the Russian Revolution to the successful overturning of oligarchic capital rule in places like Cuba and Nicaragua, it was the common people who took things into their own hands.  Although in each of the cases the humanistic revolutionary goals were corrupted by a combination of internal and external pressures, nevertheless, our guide for future humanistic revolution lies with these historic victories.  Today’s Arab Spring and the Occupation movement are the heirs of the previous popular uprisings.

by Prof. James F. Tracy
Global Research, August 26, 2012
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance-it is the illusion of knowledge.”-Daniel Boorstin

In George Orwell’s 1984 the Outer Party comprised a mere thirteen percent of the population and was subject to the ideological filters in play at the Ministry of Truth and the broader bureaucratic structure. A specific language and way of thinking were closely adhered to. Given their political import, Outer Party members were the most heavily indoctrinated and controlled inhabitants of Oceania. The majority Proles who constituted the remainder of the population was of little consequence so long as their political awareness remained underdeveloped.
While its members withstood more austere conditions, 1984‘s Outer Party is roughly tantamount to those who in our society are the well-informed, college-educated professionals; those whose duty it is to adhere to the ready-made opinion available in the major agenda setting journalistic outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and National Public Radio, where news is carefully selected, crafted, and presented. Such information is then disseminated to the masses via actors in summary capsule form on cable and broadcast television platforms.


 

Mystified by its own credentials, surrounded by peers who conceive of reality along similar lines, and underscored by the corporate media’s overwhelming tide of disinformation, much of today’s professional class is impervious to “rumors” and “conspiracy theories” that all too often captivate the sordid masses—from unreasonable suspicion over mysterious terrorist attacks to the poorly-informed questions surrounding their leader’s hidden background. Much like the expert officials and agenda setting outlets they look to for prepared interpretations of the world, the opinion leading class’ constituents understand themselves as above all well informed, similarly disinterested and unmoved by groundless passion.
In fact, the programming necessary to attain such a degree of self-assuredness often tends to distance one from reality. For example, revulsion towards war in the United States has historically tended to run strongest among those who have escaped the heavy indoctrination of the professional class—those members of the non-or semi-skilled, working class majority. As historian Howard Zinn observes,
“[I]n surveys of public opinion during the [Vietnam War], it was inevitably shown that people with the highest education—college graduates—were the most supportive of the war. People who had not graduated from high school were the ones most against the war. This is a surprising figure because most people thought the anti-war movement consisted of intellectuals and students and college professors. While those people were most visible in the anti-war movement, public opinion against the war was concentrated in the least educated classes.”
Recent public opinion indicators point to the enduring nature of antiwar sentiment. For example, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press shows that on March 19, 2011, one week before President Obama announced the NATO bombing of Libya, 77% of the US public opposed the destruction of the country’s air defenses. Polling one year later revealed a 62% majority against NATO “bombing Syrian military forces to protect anti-government groups in Syria,” even though almost the same percentage (64%) admitted to having heard “little” or “nothing at all” on “recent political violence in Syria.”
May we thus safely conclude that a majority of the population despite ceaseless propaganda still recognizes how war remains the supreme crime and the greatest demarcation between master and slave? “If there was hope, it must lie in the Proles,” Orwell wrote, “because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.”

James Tracy is Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. He blogs at memorygap.org.

 
James F. Tracy is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James F. Tracy

The Other Side March 11, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in Criminal Justice, History, Media, Political Commentary.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Roger’s note: I share this authors life experience in the sense of seeing that the presidency of Richard Nixon represents a significant turning point in the contemporary history of American government.  Although the article fails to include any kind of economic analysis, I find it to be perceptive as a description of the radically different political and informational realities between the Nixon era and today (and how we are moving into a quasi fascistic nightmare).
 
Nixon by Public Domain

There is a common story to our lives; it is a story of love and loss, joys and regrets. We all share in these things equally and we are all locked inside of our times. It began as a simple conversation about how much things had changed in America since the mid nineteen nineties. They were times of economic optimism or perhaps were only the sunshine of my own economic optimism, that’s why I say, we are locked in our times.

I was talking to a young guy at the Occupy Portland office and I couldn’t help but to notice how well versed he was in Socialism but when the subject of Richard Nixon came up, his eyes kind of glossed over. He told me that he was born during the Reagan administration and it was one of those moments, sort of an epiphany for me. It occurred to me how vastly different this man’s world experiences were from my own. This is neither good nor bad and it isn’t meant with any sort of hard intentions it is merely the luck of the draw, our own place in the universe marked through time.
My own father was born in 1920; his life experience was dictated by the events of his own time. The Great Depression, the introduction of radio and Charles Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic were the mileposts in his adolescent life. He told me once, “When Franklin Roosevelt said, “This generation had a rendezvous with destiny” don’t think that we didn’t know what that meant.” These were his times and you and I can only look back and see history’s incomplete pictures of those events.
My own life experience would be of the Kennedy Assassination, the murder of Martin Luther King, the Vietnam War and the assassination of Robert Kennedy. When men landed on the moon it was something which had to be experienced to be properly understood, to understand what the world was like before and then after the event and then to see the benefits. That part of history is well documented but now Nixon, Nixon is under represented but it is Nixon who most clearly illustrates that time.
Nixon was a turning point, to see the world both before and after Nixon. Nixon blatantly violated the law and lied with a straight face to the American people and international bodies. Nixon was a horror show of wrong doing yet at the same time, by modern political standards Richard Nixon was a choir boy. Nixon set precedents, Nixon bombed civilian targets and Nixon bombed and invaded neutral countries.
At the same time Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Nixon banned off shore oil drilling. Nixon proposed a healthcare reform package similar to, but superior to Barack Obama’s Health care reform and Nixon’s plan was DOA in Congress. Nixon was the last Pro- choice Republican President. The Republican Party hadn’t yet developed a woman’s rights as a wedge issue. Nixon called the Christian right, “The silent majority,” yet Nixon never would have signed Bill Clinton’s welfare reform bill.
So when we look back at Richard Nixon we see the worst the Republican Party had to offer America in 1969. Yet when we look at the policies of the Nixon administration we find a Richard Nixon politically to the left of our own Barack Obama. Richard Nixon illustrates our slide, the erosion and decomposition of American politics sinking into the quagmire of Neocon Fascism.
Richard Nixon was forced from office by the Congress of the United States could that even happen today? Without the life experience to understand how the Watergate hearings were televised for hour after hour without spin and drew a huge audience of American’s who cared. Could hearings such as this ever be arranged today, let alone televised? There is no way in hell either political party would tolerate unlimited hours of television air time attacking their Presidential administration in this day and time.
They ran Nixon out of office because of a bungled office burglary, a burglary. Nixon didn’t commit the burglary he simply knew about it and signed off on and then lied about it and for that he was run out of town on a rail and deserved to be. Bush and Cheney weren’t even under oath when they testified before the 9-11 commission let alone televised. I know that such things as that might sound small but they are not, they are huge.
Nixon is the train wreck and from that scattered debris are the building blocks of Reagan, Bush & Bush. Reaganism is the root cause of Bill Clinton’s”New Democrat” which actually meant “Less” Democrat. We see a complete and total capitulation of the American left which has been co-opted by the Democratic Party machinery operating as franchises to the highest bidder while the actual brand itself means nothing more than perhaps, the other side.
There was no CNN, there was no Fox news and no MSNBC in Nixon’s time, only the three broadcast Networks, a couple of wire services and the big city newspapers. It makes me question 24 hour news television as a concept the explosion of media coverage has created a fog and a partisan fog at that, rather than clarity. Case in point- the coverage of the first Gulf War by the news media versus the coverage of the second.
We see the rise of media savvy, no more Vietnams. Embedded journalists with minders at their sides, no more My lai massacres. Hearts and minds, flowers and candy, paid expert analysts regurgitating Pentagon talking points. Not that Nixon didn’t try to spin the media but their efforts look so quaint by modern standards. Nixon was lying and was caught in a lie and kept on lying until even the Republicans in Congress were forced to vote against him. Could that happen again today with a Fox News bleating for Republican’s round the clock?
The world has changed so much since Nixon, today Barack Obama can launch cruise missiles or drone attacks in other sovereign nations around the world with barely a raised eyebrow. Indefinite detention and Presidential death warrants, Barack Obama ordered a hit squad to attack and murder a civilian foreign national accused of a crime. Osama Bin Laden was executed without trial and was never even charged in connection to the events of September 11th.
These are the experiences which will be the mile posts for another generation of young lives; they have little or no knowledge of a time of peace. For the rising generation perpetual war is a normal state of being, a president arbitrarily murdering suspects for reasons multiplied and magnified by a sophisticated media apparatus.
They will have almost no comparison to understand how far we have fallen as a nation since the Nixon era. From a constrained economic super power locked in a cold war to crippled amoral fascist regime where political ideology means almost nothing. The first term of Barrack Obama is clearly that of a right-wing corporate fascist who has kept most of the campaign promises of his Republican rival John McCain.
Today’s life experiences are of before we lost the house or before I lost my job, with little experience of rising wages, quality healthcare or economic opportunity. History is our teacher and each of us are encapsulated in the times of our life experiences. From Richard Nixon to Barack Obama is a frightening chapter and if we were to prognosticate where such a state will eventually lead us to is even more frightening still.
Technology and mass media from a trickle in Nixon’s time pour forth a raging torrent. A distraction, an abstraction, an obfuscation of the truth of words in the new media dark age, the truth is whatever you want it to be, if not, change the channel.
Cable, Internet, phone and pad, we are immersed in mass communication we are light years from Nixon in communications. There is a noise in the world as now the inescapable cell phone follows us. We sit and talk to people who aren’t there with us while we ignore the people who are, how strange is that?  The hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the Presidential candidates are intended to be spent on media communications.
Fascism is the fruit of the unholy union of money and government; it is the government of the few at the expense of the many. A government of greed Über Alles which sets its own unsustainable agenda as it pounders society. Fascism always ends because it is bastardized unsustainable form of government which generally ends badly with a bang rather than with a whimper.

“There are times, however, and this is one of them, when even being right feels wrong. What do you say, for instance, about a generation that has been taught that rain is poison and sex is death? If making love might be fatal and if a cool spring breeze on any summer afternoon can turn a crystal blue lake into a puddle of black poison right in front of your eyes, there is not much left except TV and relentless masturbation. It’s a strange world. Some people get rich and others eat shit and die.”
- Hunter S. Thompson

The Great Pakistani Deluge Never Happened September 9, 2010

Posted by rogerhollander in Pakistan.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Thursday 09 September 2010

by: Juan Cole  |  TomDispatch | Op-Ed

The Great Deluge in Pakistan passed almost unnoticed in the United States despite President Obama’s repeated assertions that the country is central to American security. Now, with new evacuations and flooding afflicting Sindh Province and the long-term crisis only beginning in Pakistan, it has washed almost completely off American television and out of popular consciousness.

Don’t think we haven’t been here before. In the late 1990s, the American mass media could seldom be bothered to report on the growing threat of al-Qaeda. In 2002, it slavishly parroted White House propaganda about Iraq, helping prepare the way for a senseless war. No one yet knows just what kind of long-term instability the Pakistani floods are likely to create, but count on one thing: the implications for the United States are likely to be significant and by the time anyone here pays much attention, it will already be too late.

Few Americans were shown — by the media conglomerates of their choice — the heartbreaking scenes of eight million Pakistanis displaced into tent cities, of the submerging of a string of mid-sized cities (each nearly the size of New Orleans), of vast areas of crops ruined, of infrastructure swept away, damaged, or devastated at an almost unimaginable level, of futures destroyed, and opportunistic Taliban bombings continuing. The boiling disgust of the Pakistani public with the incompetence, insouciance, and cupidity of their corrupt ruling class is little appreciated.

The likely tie-in of these floods (of a sort no one in Pakistan had ever experienced) with global warming was seldom mentioned. Unlike, say, BBC Radio, corporate television did not tell the small stories — of, for instance, the female sharecropper who typically has no rights to the now-flooded land on which she grew now-ruined crops thanks to a loan from an estate-owner, and who is now penniless, deeply in debt, and perhaps permanently excluded from the land. That one of the biggest stories of the past decade could have been mostly blown off by television news and studiously ignored by the American public is a further demonstration that there is something profoundly wrong with corporate news-for-profit. (The print press was better at covering with the crisis, as was publically-supported radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio.)

In his speech on the withdrawal of designated combat units from Iraq last week, Barack Obama put Pakistan front and center in American security doctrine, “But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al-Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Even if Pakistan were not a major non-NATO ally of the United States, it is the world’s sixth most populous country and the 44th largest economy, according to the World Bank. The flooding witnessed in the Indus Valley is unprecedented in the country’s modern history and was caused by a combination of increasingly warm ocean water and a mysterious blockage of the jet stream, which drew warm, water-laden air north to Pakistan, over which it burst in sheets of raging liquid. If the floods that followed prove a harbinger of things to come, then they are a milestone in our experience of global warming, a big story in its own right.

News junkies who watch a lot of television broadcasts could not help but notice with puzzlement that as the cosmic catastrophe unfolded in Pakistan, it was nearly invisible on American networks. I did a LexisNexis search for the terms “Pakistan” and “flood” in broadcast transcripts (covering mostly American networks) from July 31st to September 4th, and it returned only about 1,100 hits. A search for the name of troubled actress Lindsay Lohan returned 653 search results in the same period and one for “Iraq,” more than 3,000 hits (the most the search engine will count). A search for “mosque” and “New York” yielded 1,300 hits. Put another way, the American media, whipped into an artificial frenzy by anti-Muslim bigots like New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio and GOP hatemonger Newt Gingrich, were far more interested in the possible construction of a Muslim-owned interfaith community center two long blocks from the old World Trade Center site than in the sight of millions of hapless Pakistani flood victims.

Of course, some television correspondents did good work trying to cover the calamity, including CNN’s Reza Sayah and Sanjay Gupta, but they generally got limited air time and poor time slots. (Gupta’s special report on the Pakistan floods aired the evening of September 5th, the Sunday before Labor Day, not exactly a time when most viewers might be expected to watch hard news.) As for the global warming angle, it was not completely ignored. On August 13th, reporter Dan Harris interviewed NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt on ABC’s “Good Morning America” show at 7:45 am. The subject was whether global warming could be the likely cause for the Pakistan floods and other extreme weather events of the summer, with Schmidt pointing out that such weather-driven cataclysms are going to become more common later in the twenty-first century. Becky Anderson at CNN did a similar segment at 4 pm on August 16th. My own search of news transcripts suggests that that was about it for commercial television.

The “Worst Disaster” TV Didn’t Cover

It’s worth reviewing the events that most Americans hardly know happened:

The deluge began on July 31st, when heavier than usual monsoon rains caused mudslides in the northwest of Pakistan. Within two days, the rapidly rising waters had already killed 800 people. On August 2nd, the United Nations announced that about a million people had been driven from their homes. Among the affected areas was the Swat Valley, already suffering from large numbers of refugees and significant damage from an army offensive against the Pakistani Taliban in the spring-summer of 2009. In the district of Dera Ismail Khan alone, hundreds of villages were destroyed by the floods, forcing shelterless villagers to sleep on nearby raised highways.

The suddenly homeless waited in vain for the government to begin to deliver aid, as public criticism of President Asaf Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani surged. President Zardari’s opulent trip to France and Britain (during which he visited his chateau in Normandy) at this moment of national crisis was pilloried. On August 8th in Birmingham, England, a furious Pakistani-British man threw both his shoes at him, repeating a famously humiliating incident in which an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at President George W. Bush. Fearing the response in Pakistan, the president’s Pakistan People’s Party attempted to censor the video of the incident, and media offices in that country were closed down or sometimes violently attacked if they insisted on covering it. Few or no American broadcast outlets appear to have so much as mentioned the incident, though it pointed to the increasing dissatisfaction of Pakistanis with their elected government. (The army has gotten better marks for its efficient aid work, raising fears that some ambitious officers could try to parlay a newfound popularity into yet another in the country’s history of military coups.)

By August 5th, the floods had taken an estimated 1,600 lives, though some aid officials complained (and would continue to do so) that the death toll was far larger than reported. Unlike the Haitian earthquake or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, this still building and far more expansive disaster was initially greeted by the world community with a yawn. The following day, the government evacuated another half-million people as the waters headed toward southern Punjab. At that point, some 12 million Pakistanis had been adversely affected in some way. On August 7th, as the waters advanced on the southernmost province, Sindh, through some of the country’s richest farmlands just before harvest time, another million people were evacuated. Prime Minister Gilani finally paid his first visit to some of the flood-stricken regions.

By August 9th, nearly 14 million people had been affected by the deluge, the likes of which had never been experienced in the region in modern history, and at least 20% of the country was under water. At that point, in terms of its human impact, the catastrophe had already outstripped both the 2004 tsunami and the 2010 Haiti earthquake. On August 10th, the United Nations announced that six million Pakistanis needed immediate humanitarian aid just to stay alive.

On August 14th, another half-million people were evacuated from the Sindhi city of Jacobabad. By now, conspiracy theories were swirling inside Pakistan about landlords who had deliberately cut levees to force the waters away from their estates and into peasant villages, or about the possibility that the U.S. military had diverted the waters from its base at Jacobabad. It was announced that 18 million Pakistanis had now been adversely affected by the floods, having been displaced, cut off from help by the waters, or having lost crops, farms, and other property. The next day, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, surveying the damage, pronounced it was “the worst disaster” he had ever seen.

The following week a second crest of river water hit Sindh Province. On August 30th, it submerged the city of Sujawal (population 250,000). The next day, however, there were a mere 16 mentions of Pakistan on all American television news broadcasts, mostly on CNN. On Labor Day weekend, another major dam began to fail in Sindh and, by September 6th, several hundred thousand more people had to flee from Dadu district, with all but four districts in that rich agricultural province having seen at least some flooding.

Today, almost six million Pakistanis are still homeless, and many have not so much as received tents for shelter. In large swaths of the country, roads, bridges, crops, power plants — everything that matters to the economy — were inundated and damaged or simply swept away. Even if the money proves to be available for repairs (and that remains an open question), it will take years to rebuild what was lost and, for many among those millions, the future will mean nothing but immiseration, illness, and death.

Why the Floods Weren’t News

In the United States, the contrast with the wall-to-wall cable news coverage of the Haitian earthquake in January and the consequent outpouring of public donations was palpable. Not only has the United Nations’ plea for $460 million in aid to cover the first three months of flood response still not been met, but in the past week donations seem to have dried up. The U.S. government pledged $200 million (some diverted from an already planned aid program for Pakistan) and provided helicopter gunships to rescue cut-off refugees or ferry aid to them.

What of American civil society? No rock concerts were organized to help Pakistani children sleeping on highways or in open fields infested with vermin. No sports events offered receipts to aid victims at risk from cholera and other diseases. It was as if the great Pakistani deluge were happening in another dimension, beyond the ken of Americans.

A number of explanations have been offered for the lack of empathy, or even interest, not to speak of a visible American unwillingness to help millions of Pakistanis. As a start, there were perfectly reasonable fears, even among Pakistani-Americans, that such aid money might simply be pocketed by corrupt government officials. But was the Haitian government really so much more transparent and less corrupt than the Pakistani one?

It has also been suggested that Americans suffer from donor fatigue, given the string of world disasters in recent years and the bad domestic economy. On August 16th, for instance, Glenn Beck fulminated: “We can’t keep spending. We are broke! Game over… no one is going to ride in to save you… You see the scene in Pakistan? People were waiting in line for aids [sic] from floods. And they were complaining, how come the aid is not here? Look, when America is gone, who’s going to save the people in Pakistan? See, we got to change this one, because we’re the ones that always ride in to save people.”

Still, the submerging of a fifth of a country the size of Pakistan is — or at least should be — a dramatic global event and even small sums, if aggregated, would matter. (A dollar and a half from each American would have met the U.N. appeal.) Some have suggested that the Islamophobia visible in the debate about the Park 51 Muslim-owned community center in lower Manhattan left Americans far less willing to donate to Muslim disaster victims.

And what of those national security arguments that nuclear-armed Pakistan is crucial not just to the American war in Afghanistan, but to the American way of life? Ironically, the collapse of the neoconservative narrative about what it takes to make the planet’s “sole superpower” secure appears to have fallen on President Obama’s head. One of the few themes he adopted wholeheartedly from the Bush administration has been the idea that a poor Asian country of 170 million halfway around the world, facing a challenge from a few thousand rural fundamentalists, is the key to the security of the United States.

If the Pakistani floods reveal one thing, it’s that Americans now look on such explanations through increasingly jaundiced eyes. At the moment, no matter whether it’s the Afghan War or those millions of desperate peasants and city dwellers in Pakistan, the public has largely decided to ignore the AfPak theater of operations. It’s not so surprising. Having seen the collapse of our financial system at the hands of corrupt financiers produce mass unemployment and mass mortgage foreclosures, they have evidently decided, as even Glenn Beck admits, it’s “game over” for imperial adventures abroad.

Another explanation may also bear some weight here, though you won’t normally hear much about it. Was the decision of the corporate media not to cover the Pakistan disaster intensively a major factor in the public apathy that followed, especially since so many Americans get their news from television?

The lack of coverage needs to be explained, since corporate media usually love apolitical, weather-induced disasters. But covering a flood in a distant Asian country is, for television, expensive and logistically challenging, which in these tough economic times may have influenced programming decisions. Obviously, there is as well a tendency in capitalist news to cover what will attract advertising dollars. Add to this the fact that, unlike the Iraq “withdrawal” story or the “mosque at Ground Zero” controversy, the disaster in Pakistan was not a political football between the GOP and the Democratic Party. What if, in fact, Americans missed this calamity mostly because a bad news story set in a little-known South Asian country filled with Muslim peasants is not exactly “Desperate Housewives” and couldn’t hope to sell tampons, deodorant, or Cialis, or because it did not play into domestic partisan politics?

The great Pakistani deluge did not exist, it seems, because it was not on television, would not have delivered audiences to products, and was not all about us. As we saw on September 11, 2001, and again in March 2003, however, the failure of our electronic media to inform the public about centrally important global developments is itself a security threat to the republic.

Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. You can catch him discussing flooded Pakistan on the latest TomCast audio interview by clicking here or, to download it to your iPod, here.

Copyright 2010 Juan Cole

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

My Number One Pick for the Top Censored Story of 2009–Check Out Top 25 December 21, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Media, Political Commentary.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

www.opednews.com, December 21, 2009 

Diary Entry by Grant Lawrence (about the author) 

Many, if not all, of these stories have been reported on by great alternative and progressive sites, like OpEd News. Click on the ones that you may be unfamiliar with and send them to others.

All of these stories need to come into greater public awareness.

But the events leading up to the mysterious death of Mike Connell exposes vote fraud and points to corruption at the highest level.

So My pick for the Number One Censored Story of 2009

The Mysterious Death of Mike Connell–Karl Rove’s Election Thief

Karl Rove’s chief IT consultant, Mike Connell–who was facing subpoena in connection with 2004 Presidential election fraud in Ohio–mysteriously died in a private plane crash in 2008. Connell was allegedly the central figure in a longstanding plot to electronically flip votes to Republicans…..

Top Censored Stories of 2009/2010

    * 1. US Congress Sells Out to Wall Street
    * 2. US Schools are More Segregated Today than in the 1950s
    * 3. Toxic Waste Behind Somali Pirates
    * 4. Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina
    * 5. Europe Blocks US Toxic Products
    * 6. Lobbyists Buy Congress
    * 7. Obama’s Military Appointments Have Corrupt Past
    * 8. Bailed out Banks and America’s Wealthiest Cheat IRS Out of Billions
    * 9. US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza
    * 10. Ecuador Declares Foreign Debt Illegitimate
    * 11. Private Corporations Profit from the Occupation of Palestine
    * 12. Mysterious Death of Mike Connell–Karl Rove’s Election Thief
    * 13. Katrina’s Hidden Race War
    * 14. Congress Invested in Defense Contracts
    * 15. World Bank’s Carbon Trade Fiasco
    * 16. US Repression of Haiti Continues
    * 17. The ICC Facilitates US Covert War in Sudan
    * 18. Ecuador’s Constitutional Rights of Nature
    * 19. Bank Bailout Recipients Spent to Defeat Labor
    * 20. Secret Control of the Presidential Debates
    * 21. Recession Causes States to Cut Welfare
    * 22. Obama’s Trilateral Commission Team
    * 23. Activists Slam World Water Forum as a Corporate-Driven Fraud
    * 24. Dollar Glut Finances US Military Expansion
    * 25. Fast Track Oil Exploitation in Western Amazon

Source: Project Censored

 I work as a school counselor and mental health counselor in Gallup New Mexico.

Rewriting the First Draft of History January 15, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan, Media, Uncategorized, War.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
 15 January 2009, www.truthout.org We’re all neocons now.
- Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 09 April 2003

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist

 

 

    Seeing as how we currently find ourselves hurtling along this downhill run towards new history – the countdown to the day America has itself a president named Obama can be measured in hours instead of days or weeks now – it seems an appropriate moment to pause and reflect on a bit of older history we’ve already passed through. I’m not talking about any kind of ancient history, mind you. For the purposes of this reflection, we need only take a small leap backwards in time, just six short years ago.

    We all passed through the little slice of history that began to take shape in the early months of 2003, and we all remember that time in our own way. Today, however, there is a great deal of effort being expended to make sure this bit of history is remembered differently than how it really happened. An even better result for those exerting this effort would be if this bit of history were not remembered at all. That may, in fact, be their ultimate goal.

    I am referring, of course, to the very beginning of another downhill run towards history, the one that began in 2003 and led us into the current Iraq debacle that is about to become another president’s problem.

    I am not, however, referring to anyone who works or once worked within the Bush administration. To be sure, Mr. Bush would prefer if we remembered all this differently than it happened, as would Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Powell, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, Ms. Rice, and every other one of the glorified think-tank cube-rats who ginned the whole thing up to begin with. Richard Perle, in an amusing aside, actually allowed himself to be quoted saying the neocons had nothing to do with Iraq, had no hand in the planning and implementation of same, and anyone who says differently is just wrong and dumb and should go away.

    That one’s a hoot, in’it?

    No, I am referring to an equally large, craven and culpable body outside the official bounds of our federal governmental: the mainstream American news media. They work fist in glove with that government now, worked with them yesterday, and will likewise be working with them tomorrow. Specifically, they will be working as hard as Bush & Co. to make us remember that downhill run to Iraq differently, because they never worked more closely with our government on anything than they did on Iraq just six short years ago.

    The mainstream news media did not concoct false evidence to justify a course for war, but they fobbed off that false proof as if it were holy truth. They did not lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they passed on Bush administration lies to the American people with full-throated credulity. They did not browbeat the American people with dire threats of impending terrorism to cover up political liabilities, but they passed those threats on from Bush’s people to the American people with the kind of breathless energy only seen whenever media types have skyrocketing ratings and ad revenues twinkling in their eyes.

    The mainstream American news media is just as responsible for what has happened in Iraq as the Bush administration; they are as responsible for the lies they repeated as the ones who first told them, and are as guilty for what happened in Iraq as the Bush administration officials they enabled and covered for.

    Many people, by now, may have forgotten the manner in which this gruesome symbiosis played out six years ago. An organization called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has compiled a little refresher course on the topic. Behold some of the highlights:

    “Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we’d seen of this war over the past three weeks, all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking.”

    - Ceci Connolly, Washington Post reporter, on Fox News Channel on 09 April 2003

    “This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right.”

    - David Carr, New York Times reporter, 16 April 2003

    “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”

    - Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 01 May 2003

    “He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star and one of the guys.”

    - Lou Dobbs, CNN, 01 May 2003

    “We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back.”

    - Howard Fineman, MSNBC, 07 May 2003

    Some people may remember hearing these lines when they were uttered. A great many people can probably remember hearing or reading similar comments during that time. The sentiment was all but ubiquitous, at least within the mainstream media’s echo chamber, that the weapons were there, that Bush was right, that war was necessary, so let’s go.

    I remember it a little differently.

    In the summer of 2002, after working in concert with former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, I wrote and had published a book titled “War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know.” The book argued that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, no connection between Iraq and 9/11, thus there was no reason to go to war against Iraq, and that any such war would be a disaster of vast proportions.

    In short, the book was spot-on correct.

    The latter half of 2002, however, saw very few people arguing these points make their way into the mainstream media conversation. I tried, believe me. I did dozens of radio interviews with every small-market, community-based radio personality in and out of America. I traveled tens of thousands of miles trying to let people know what was what. By the spring of 2003, the book became a New York Times and international best seller, and was translated into 13 languages, but my own informed perspective on the issue had failed to break into the mainstream media conversation.

    Mine was not nearly the only voice shut out of the debate by the mainstream news media. From the very beginning, independent or investigative journalists were sounding the alarm, preparing the facts, and not getting heard. People like Amy Goodman, Sy Hersh, Mike Malloy, Juan Cole, Dahr Jamail, Bernard Weiner, Norman Solomon, William Greider, Joe Conason, Robert Scheer, Robert Kuttner, Molly Ivins and Naomi Klein have been horribly vindicated by the passage of time. There are many, many other voices like theirs which, had they been included in the conversation six years ago, could have perhaps saved us all from the disaster they saw coming a mile away.

    Of course, not everyone in the mainstream news media participated six years ago in making sure the Iraq war happened, but so very many of them did. Those well-known personalities who actively participated in selling the war, along with their editors, producers and corporate owners, want no part of being rightly remembered for their role in the debacle that is Iraq. For the last couple of years, they’ve been backpedaling furiously away from the mess they were deeply involved in creating; all those once-dismissed “left-wing” talking points about the folly of this war and the absence of Iraqi WMD, seemingly overnight, were adopted by the mainstream news media with nary a hiccup.

    Remember how that worked? From 2003 until around 2006, the line from the media was, “Of course everyone knows there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” But after the WMD’s failure to turn up entered a fourth year, a switch got thrown. Suddenly, the line from the media was, “Of course everyone knows there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” after which came all the anti-Bush rhetoric they’d once ridiculed.

    They skipped the all-important middle part. In between “Of course they have WMD” and “Of course they had no WMD” should have been a few deadly serious questions: Why did they tell us there were WMD? Why did we accept their version of the facts so easily? How responsible are we for making the American people believe all that WMD stuff was true?

    They skipped all that, because media people avoid self-analysis the way cats avoid water. Now, they want us to remember things differently than how they were. Again.

    The folks in the mainstream news media see themselves as the writers and crafters of the first edition of history. This is a position they monstrously abused regarding Iraq, and now, they would like to rewrite that first draft, so they can edit out their own direct involvement as major players in the drama.

    Bush must be held responsible, along with all his minions and Congressional enablers, for the bloodbath of criminal wrongdoing that took place and continues in Iraq. But the media must be held accountable, as well. They’d like us to forget what they did. Don’t let them let us forget. We all have skin in this particular game.

»


William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: “War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.” His newest book, “House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America’s Ravaged Reputation,” is now available from PoliPointPress.

Berlusconi Plans to Use G8 Presidency to “Regulate the Internet” December 6, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in Media.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

ITALY-G8-BERLUSCONI-LOGO-PRESSER

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi intends to push for an International agreement to regulate the internet. (Photo: Getty Images)

by: Chris Williams, The Register UK

Italian president and media baron Silvio Berlusconi said today that he would use his country’s imminent presidency of the G8 group to push for an international agreement to “regulate the internet.”

    Speaking to Italian postal workers, Reuters reports Berlusconi said: “The G8 has as its task the regulation of financial markets… I think the next G8 can bring to the table a proposal for a regulation of the internet.” Click here to find out more!

    Italy’s G8 presidency begins on January 1. The role is taken by each of the group’s members in rotation. The holder country is responsible for organising and hosting the G8′s meetings and setting the agenda. Italy’s last G8 presidency in 2001, also under Berlusconi, was marred by riots at the annual meeting in Genoa.

    Berlusconi didn’t explain what he meant by “regulate the internet”, but the mere mention of it has prompted dismay among Italian commentators. Berlusconi owns swathes of the Italian mass media.

    The left-wing newspaper L’Unita wrote: “You can not say that it is not a disturbing proclamation, given that the only countries in the world where there are filters or restrictions against internet are countries ruled by dictatorial regimes: those between China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia.”

    La Stampa reports Italian bloggers are planning to protest against any move by the president to tighten government control over the web tomorrow. They plan to display anti-Berlusconi banners on their websites.

    Any G8 move next year to “regulate the internet” led by Berlusconi is likely to attract criticism. He has often been accused of using his power to try to silence dissent. He lost a long-running libel battle against The Economist earlier this year after it said he was not “fit to run Italy” and was this week suing American critic Andrew Stille for defamation.

    However, the governments of industrialised nations have been ramping up their rhetoric against internet content they view as unacceptable. The UK has introduced new laws and revived arcane ones to clamp down on extremist websites and niche pornography. Australia is busy implementing filters. ®

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers