Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
TAXES PAID JOURNALISTS good idea!
TAXES PAID JOURNALISTS good idea!
Book accuses corporate media of acting as propagandists for capitalist states
I have just started reading Dan Hind's book, The return of the public.* According to a quote by Rod Liddle carried in the accompanying publishers' blurb, it is "fine, lucid and sharp... worth reading before the next wave of western tanks crosses a border, somewhere in the Middle East."
I have read enough of Hind's polemic to note his assault on the corporate media for having acted on behalf of political and economic elites (examples: backing the invasion of Iraq and a failure to raise alarms ahead of the 2007 financial crash).
His argument, echoing that of Noam Chomsky, is that the media have both withheld information from the public and acted as propagandists for capitalist (and imperialist) states.
Key quote about the media: "Their failure to challenge state mendacity is as predictable as the mendacity itself."
I hope to come back to this when I've finished, but ahead of that I suggest you read two reviews from this weekend, the first by Boyd Tonkin in The Independent and the other by John Lloyd in the Financial Times.
Pointing out that Hind's solution to the media's failures is to call for the "public commissioning" of investigative journalism, Tonkin writes:
"After the near-theological splendour of his opprobrium, it all sounds rather technical – although the prospect of 3,000 extra investigators working on "matters of interest and concern to the general population" ought to excite any profession as close to the abyss as serious journalism in Britain today.
Those who find his proposals fanciful or utopian – which, in a harsh light, they undoubtedly are – should still sit up and pay heed. Intellectually, far more than just financially, the major media have fumbled too often at pivotal moments in the recent past to hide behind a fraying status quo."
Lloyd picks up on a similar point, noting Hind's argument that "the news media can only fulfil their democratic boast – that they hold power to account – by being put under an owner who is not a baron, a corporation or a state. They must work for the public."
Lloyd, though unconvinced by Hind's idealistic proposal for a public commissioning of investigative journalism, argues that he has raised important questions about the parlous state of modern journalism. He writes:
"There is something large-hearted in the view that the facts will not just set us free, but allow us to be fuller citizens. Journalism should be about discovering the truth...
Those who write and broadcast have a high duty: and must have in mind, always, that it consists of educating a citizenry. We must just try harder."
TAXES PAID JOURNALISTS good idea!
Book accuses corporate media of acting as propagandists for capitalist states
I have just started reading Dan Hind's book, The return of the public.* According to a quote by Rod Liddle carried in the accompanying publishers' blurb, it is "fine, lucid and sharp... worth reading before the next wave of western tanks crosses a border, somewhere in the Middle East."
I have read enough of Hind's polemic to note his assault on the corporate media for having acted on behalf of political and economic elites (examples: backing the invasion of Iraq and a failure to raise alarms ahead of the 2007 financial crash).
His argument, echoing that of Noam Chomsky, is that the media have both withheld information from the public and acted as propagandists for capitalist (and imperialist) states.
Key quote about the media: "Their failure to challenge state mendacity is as predictable as the mendacity itself."
I hope to come back to this when I've finished, but ahead of that I suggest you read two reviews from this weekend, the first by Boyd Tonkin in The Independent and the other by John Lloyd in the Financial Times.
Pointing out that Hind's solution to the media's failures is to call for the "public commissioning" of investigative journalism, Tonkin writes:
"After the near-theological splendour of his opprobrium, it all sounds rather technical – although the prospect of 3,000 extra investigators working on "matters of interest and concern to the general population" ought to excite any profession as close to the abyss as serious journalism in Britain today.
Those who find his proposals fanciful or utopian – which, in a harsh light, they undoubtedly are – should still sit up and pay heed. Intellectually, far more than just financially, the major media have fumbled too often at pivotal moments in the recent past to hide behind a fraying status quo."
Lloyd picks up on a similar point, noting Hind's argument that "the news media can only fulfil their democratic boast – that they hold power to account – by being put under an owner who is not a baron, a corporation or a state. They must work for the public."
Lloyd, though unconvinced by Hind's idealistic proposal for a public commissioning of investigative journalism, argues that he has raised important questions about the parlous state of modern journalism. He writes:
"There is something large-hearted in the view that the facts will not just set us free, but allow us to be fuller citizens. Journalism should be about discovering the truth...
Those who write and broadcast have a high duty: and must have in mind, always, that it consists of educating a citizenry. We must just try harder."
free journalists would investigate 911 and refuse to call this a collapse.
Stumble It!
Sunday, September 26, 2010
BRITAIN CAUSES SUFFERING - trains terrorists
Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam by Mark Curtis
Serpent's Tail, £12.99 by Ian Sinclair
Saturday, September 25th, 2010
According to the respected American dissident Noam Chomsky: "The responsibility of a writer is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them."
Historian Mark Curtis has been doing just that since he wrote The Ambiguities of Power in 1995. Bypassing the establishment-friendly analysis of mainstream media and academia, Curtis argues "the basic fact is that Britain is a major, systematic contributor to much of the world's suffering and horrors" carrying out brutal military interventions, large-scale human rights abuses and opposing economic developments that would benefit the poor.
Previously the director of the World Development Movement and a research fellow at Chatham House, Curtis has continued his evidence-based critique of British foreign policy with Web of Deceit in 2003 and, more recently Unpeople, in which he maintains Britain "bears significant responsibility" for around 10 million deaths since 1945.
Now in Secret Affairs he turns his attention to Britain's relationship with the politics of radical Islam. Both Labour and Conservative governments have, he argues, "colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them." Why? To help promote Britain's two main foreign policy objectives – "influence and control over key energy resources" and "maintaining Britain's place within a pro-Western global financial order." Whether it is working with major state sponsors of Islamist terrorism such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or non-state players such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Britain has consistently attempted to undermine secular, nationalist forces in the Arab world.
british terrorist tools explosives timed charges remote control "suicide" bombs
As with Curtis' previous work, the first part of this historical overview makes extensive use of declassified government documents. For example, in 1957 the British ambassador to Jordan makes British policy plain in a letter to the Foreign Secretary: "I suggest that our interest is better suited by an authoritarian regime which maintains stability and the Western connection than by an untrammelled democracy which rushes downhill towards communism and chaos."
Presumably because of the 30-year rule the more recent chapters on Britain's involvement with radical Islam during the wars in the Balkans rely more on newspapers and Hansard. The picture is therefore far from complete, and Curtis seems less sure of the terrain. However, there is no doubt that the claim of "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo in 1999 is seriously undermined by the fact that Britain trained the Kosovo Liberation Army, an outfit who worked closely with al-Qaeda and who were openly described as a terrorist organisation by British ministers at the time.
Turning to the present conflict in Afghanistan, Curtis notes that Britain is now fighting the Islamist forces it had previously supported in the 1980s against the Soviet Union in what he calls "Whitehall's most extensive covert operation since the Second World War." The media have followed the government's lead, forgetting inconvenient facts like the visit of the brutal insurgent leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to London in 1988. Or, as a former literary editor of Tribune famously wrote: "Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
As for Pakistan's continuing support for the Taliban, highlighted by the recently leaked Afghan war logs, published on WikiLeaks, he simply says "the situation is absurd: in order to defeat the forces of the Taliban, Britain is dependent on their main ally." Bang up to date, comprehensive and clearly written, Secret Affairs is a work of great importance and sobering conclusions. Curtis remains essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand
Britain's real role in the world.
undercover black op terrorism basra cressida
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/07/uk-carnage-attempt-in-basra.html
Stumble It!
Saturday, September 25, 2010
BRASIL speech at UN
stated FACTS (without criticising) about recent history
it is completely ignored by ALL ALL ALL western media
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&hl=en&q=%22celso+amorim%22+%22shadow+of+the+invasion+of+Iraq%22+%22lessons+from+that+episode%22 We must ban once and for all the use of force inconsistent with international law
imagine that!
Statement by Minister Celso Amorim, at the Opening of the General Debate of the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly - New York, 23 September 2010
Mr. President of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss,
Mr. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon
Heads of State and Government,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great honor for me to come to this podium to speak on behalf of the people and Government of Brazil. I bring the greetings of President Lula. Within days, over 130 million Brazilians will go to the polls and will write another important chapter in the history of our democracy.
During President Lula's two terms, Brazil has changed. Sustained economic growth, financial stability, social inclusion and the full exercise of democracy have converged and reinforced one another.
Over twenty million Brazilians rose out of poverty and many others out of extreme poverty. Nearly thirty million people joined the middle class.
Strong and transparent public policies reduced inequalities in income, access and opportunities. Millions of Brazilians rose to dignity and real citizenship. The strengthened domestic market protected us from the worst effects of the global crisis set in motion by the financial casino in the richest countries in the world.
Brazil is proud to have achieved almost all of the Millennium Development Goals and to be well on the way to meeting them all by 2015.
The inability of any country to achieve these goals must be seen as a failure of the entire international community. The promotion of development is a collective responsibility.
Brazil has been working to assist other countries to replicate successful experiences.
In the past eight years, Brazil's actions on the international stage have been driven by a sense of solidarity. We are convinced that it is possible to have a humanist foreign policy, without losing sight of the national interest.
This policy is supported by South-South cooperation. The Poverty Alleviation Fund, created by the IBSA forum, which brings together India, Brazil and South Africa, finances projects in Haiti, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Palestine, Cambodia, Burundi, Laos and Sierra Leone.
Brazil has substantially increased its humanitarian aid and multiplied cooperation projects with poorer countries.
Africa occupies a very special place in Brazilian diplomacy. Since taking office, President Lula has been to Africa eleven times and visited over twenty countries in the continent.
We have set up an agricultural research office in Ghana, a model cotton farm in Mali, a manufacturing plant for anti-retroviral drugs in Mozambique and professional training centers in five African countries.
Through trade and investment, we are helping the African continent to develop its enormous potential and reduce its dependency on a few centers of political and economic power.
Brazil is particularly concerned with Guinea Bissau. It is not by isolating that country or abandoning it that the international community will help Guinea Bissau to address the challenges it still faces. We need intelligent modalities of cooperation, which can promote development and stability and encourage indispensable reforms, especially with regard to the Armed Forces.
This year, in which a significant number of African countries celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of their decolonization, Brazil renews its commitment to an independent, prosperous, just and democratic Africa.
In few places international solidarity is more needed than in Haiti.
We joined the UN in mourning for the tragedy that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Haitians. We ourselves lost great Brazilians, such as Dr. Zilda Arns . a woman who dedicated her life to the poor, especially children . Mr. Luiz Carlos da Costa, Deputy Head of MINUSTAH, and eighteen of our peacekeepers.
We would like to express our compassion for the suffering of the Haitian people and, above all, our admiration for the stoicism and courage with which they have been facing adversity.
The Haitian people know that they can count on Brazil not only to help them maintain order and defend democracy, but also to assist in their development. We are keeping our promises and will keep a watchful eye to ensure that the commitments of the international community go beyond rhetorical statements.
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General,
In recent years, the Brazilian Government has invested heavily in South America.s integration and peace. We have strengthened our strategic partnership with Argentina. We have reinforced Mercosul, including through unique financial mechanisms among developing countries.
The establishment of the Union of South American Nations . UNASUL . aims at consolidating a genuine zone of peace and prosperity. UNASUL has already demonstrated its value in promoting understanding and the peaceful resolution of conflicts among countries in South America and within them. UNASUL has made external interference in our region even more unwarranted.
By creating the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, launched in Bahia and confirmed in Cancun, we have reaffirmed the region's willingness to extend to Central America and the Caribbean the integrationist ideals that move South Americans.
Brazil reiterates its condemnation, shared by all in Latin America and the Caribbean, of the illegitimate embargo against Cuba. Its sole result has been to hamper the efforts of millions of Cubans in their struggle for development.
We condemn anti-democratic moves, such as the coup d'état in Honduras. The return of former President Zelaya without threats to his freedom is indispensable for the full normalization of Honduras' relations with the region as a whole.
Ladies and gentlemen,
When President Lula first spoke in this Hall, in 2003, the world lived under the shadow of the invasion of Iraq.
We hope we learned the lessons from that episode. The blind faith in intelligence reports tailored to justify political goals must be rejected. We must ban once and for all the use of force inconsistent with international law. Even further: it is fundamental to value and promote dialogue and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
In order to achieve a truly secure world, the promise of total elimination of nuclear weapons must be fulfilled. Unilateral reductions are welcome but insufficient, especially when they occur in tandem with the modernization of nuclear arsenals.
As President Lula has often stated, multilateralism is the international face of democracy. The UN must be the main center of decision-making in international politics.
The changes that have occurred in the world over the last few decades and the series of crises we have faced in the areas of food security, climate change, the economic and financial domain and peace and security make it urgent to redefine the rules that organize international relations.
The financial crisis of 2008 accelerated change in global economic governance. The G-20 replaced the G-8 as the primary forum for deliberation on economic issues.
The G-20 was a step forward. But the Group must be adjusted to ensure, for instance, greater African participation. The G-20.s relevance and legitimacy can only be preserved if it maintains frank and permanent dialogue with all the nations represented in this General Assembly.
At the height of the crisis, we succeeded in avoiding the worst-case scenario: a surge of uncontrolled protectionism, which would have thrown the world into a deep depression. But the developed countries have not demonstrated the necessary commitment to global economic stability. They continue to let themselves be guided by parochial interests.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Doha Round of negotiations in the WTO. A balanced solution to this negotiating process, which has lasted for almost ten years, would promote economic expansion and the development of the poorest countries, with the end of distorting subsidies and protectionist barriers. After all, poor countries are the greatest victims of the narrow and selfish view that still prevails in international trade.
Reforms have also been insufficient in the financial sector. Unjustified resistances are keeping agreed-upon changes from being implemented. Obstinacy in maintaining anachronistic privileges perpetuates and deepens the illegitimacy of institutions.
Another major challenge we face is achieving a global, comprehensive and ambitious agreement on climate change.
In order to move forward in this matter, countries must stop hiding behind each other. Brazil, like other developing countries, has done its part. But in Copenhagen, several delegations, especially from the rich world, sought excuses to elude their moral and political obligations. They forgot that, with Nature, one cannot negotiate.
A positive outcome of COP-16, with real progress in forests, financing for adaptation and mitigation and the reaffirmation of the Kyoto commitments, is indispensable. The Mexican presidency can count on Brazil.s engagement to achieve this objective.
In 2012, we will host in Rio de Janeiro the Rio+20 Conference. On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I invite all delegations to fulfill the promise of truly sustainable development.
Mr. President,
The reform of global governance has not yet reached the field of international peace and security. In the economic and environmental areas, the wealthiest nations have already understood that they cannot do without the cooperation of the emerging countries. When it comes to war and peace, however, the traditional players are reluctant to share power.
The Security Council must be reformed and expanded to allow for greater participation of developing countries, including as permanent members.
We cannot go on with working methods which lack transparency and which allow the permanent members to discuss behind closed doors issues that concern all mankind for as long as they wish.
Brazil has sought to live up to what is expected from all Security Council members, including non-permanent ones, i.e.: that they contribute to peace. For this reason, we made a serious effort to find an instrument that could represent progress towards a solution of the Iranian nuclear question.
In so doing, we relied on proposals that had been presented as a .unique opportunity. to build confidence between the parties. The Tehran Declaration of May 17th, signed by Brazil, Turkey and Iran, removed obstacles that, according to the very authors of those proposals, had previously prevented an agreement.
The Tehran Declaration does not exhaust the issue. It was never its intention to do so. We are convinced that, once back to the negotiating table, the parties will find ways to resolve other issues, such as enrichment to 20% and the stock of enriched uranium accumulated since October 2009.
In spite of the sanctions, we still hope that the logic of dialogue and understanding will prevail.
The world cannot run the risk of a new conflict like the one in Iraq. We have been insisting, therefore, that the Iranian Government maintain an attitude of flexibility and openness towards negotiations. But it is necessary that all those concerned demonstrate such willingness.
We are closely following developments in the peace process in the Middle East. We hope the direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis launched earlier this month will produce concrete results that lead to the creation of a Palestinian State within the pre-1967 borders. A State that secures to the Palestinian people a dignified life, coexisting, side by side and in peace, with the State of Israel.
But it is not the format of the dialogue that will determine whether it will yield results. What matters is the willingness of the parties to reach a just and lasting peace. This will be easier with the involvement of all those concerned.
Freezing of construction in the settlements in the occupied territories, lifting the Gaza blockade and ending attacks against civilian populations are crucial in this process.
In his visit to Israel, Palestine and Jordan in March, President Lula spoke with Government leaders and representatives of civil society about these issues. We frequently receive in Brasilia leaders of different countries of the region, who seek support for the resolution of the problems which have afflicted them for decades and have not been solved by the traditional means and actors.
Brazil, which has about ten million Arab descendants and an important Jewish community living in harmony, will not shy from giving its contribution to the peace which all yearn for.
Mr. President,
Brazil.s commitment to the promotion of human rights is unwavering.
We favor a non-selective, objective and multilateral treatment of human rights, without politicization or bias, in which everyone . the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak . is subjected to the same scrutiny.
In our view, the exercise of human rights is more effectively ensured by dialogue and cooperation than by arrogant attitudes derived from self-declared moral superiority.
Mr. President,
Over his eight years in office, President Lula developed a foreign policy which is independent, free of any sort of submission and respectful of Brazil.s neighbors and partners. It is an innovative foreign policy, which does not distance itself from the fundamental values of the Brazilian nation: peace, pluralism, tolerance and solidarity.
Just as Brazil has changed and will continue to change, the world is also changing. We must deepen and accelerate this process.
With the technology and wealth at our disposal, there is no more justification for hunger, poverty and epidemics of preventable diseases. We can no longer live with discrimination, injustice and authoritarianism. We must face the challenges of nuclear disarmament, sustainable development and freer and fairer trade.
You may rest assured: Brazil will go on fighting to make these ideals real.
Thank you.
Stumble It!Monday, September 20, 2010
CHOMSKY -- the utter extirpation of all the Indians
Genocide Denial with a Vengeance: Old and New Imperial Norms
massacre in fallujah
Stumble It!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
US - secrecy inequality? organize!!
Do Not Pity the Democrats
Posted on Sep 13, 2010 -
by Chris Hedges
There are no longer any major institutions in American society, including the press, the educational system, the financial sector, labor unions, the arts, religious institutions and our dysfunctional political parties, which can be considered democratic. The intent, design and function of these institutions, controlled by corporate money, are to bolster the hierarchical and anti-democratic power of the corporate state. These institutions, often mouthing liberal values, abet and perpetuate mounting inequality. They operate increasingly in secrecy. They ignore suffering or sacrifice human lives for profit. They control and manipulate all levers of power and mass communication. They have muzzled the voices and concerns of citizens. They use entertainment, celebrity gossip and emotionally laden public-relations lies to seduce us into believing in a Disneyworld fantasy of democracy.
The menace we face does not come from the insane wing of the Republican Party, which may make huge inroads in the coming elections, but the institutions tasked with protecting democratic participation. Do not fear Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Do not fear the tea party movement, the birthers, the legions of conspiracy theorists or the militias. Fear the underlying corporate power structure, which no one, from Barack Obama to the right-wing nut cases who pollute the airwaves, can alter. If the hegemony of the corporate state is not soon broken we will descend into a technologically enhanced age of barbarism.
Investing emotional and intellectual energy in electoral politics is a waste of time. Resistance means a radical break with the formal structures of American society. We must cut as many ties with consumer society and corporations as possible. We must build a new political and economic consciousness centered on the tangible issues of sustainable agriculture, self-sufficiency and radical environmental reform. The democratic system, and the liberal institutions that once made piecemeal reform possible, is dead. It exists only in name. It is no longer a viable mechanism for change. And the longer we play our scripted and absurd role in this charade the worse it will get. Do not pity Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. They will get what they deserve. They sold the citizens out for cash and power. They lied. They manipulated and deceived the public, from the bailouts to the abandonment of universal health care, to serve corporate interests. They refused to halt the wanton corporate destruction of the ecosystem on which all life depends. They betrayed the most basic ideals of democracy. And they, as much as the Republicans, are the problem.
"It is like being in a pit," Ralph Nader told me when we spoke on Saturday. "If you are four feet in the pit you have a chance to grab the top and hoist yourself up. If you are 30 feet in the pit you have to start on a different scale."
All resistance will take place outside the arena of electoral politics. The more we expand community credit unions, community health clinics and food cooperatives and build alternative energy systems, the more empowered we will become.
"To the extent that these organizations expand and get into communities where they do not exist, we will weaken the multinational goliath, from the banks to the agribusinesses to the HMO giants and hospital chains," Nader said.
The failure of liberals to defend the interests of working men and women as our manufacturing sector was dismantled, labor unions were destroyed and social services were slashed has proved to be a disastrous and fatal misjudgment. Liberals, who betrayed the working class, have no credibility. This is one of the principal reasons the anti-war movement cannot attract the families whose sons and daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. And liberal hypocrisy has opened the door for a virulent right wing. If we are to reconnect with the working class we will have to begin from zero. We will have to rebuild the ties with the poor and the working class which the liberal establishment severed. We will have to condemn the liberal class as vociferously as we condemn the right wing. And we will have to remain true to the moral imperative to foster the common good and the tangible needs of housing, health care, jobs, education and food.
We will, once again, be bombarded in this election cycle with messages of fear from the Democratic Party—designed, in the end, to serve corporate interests. "Better Barack Obama than Sarah Palin," we will be told. Better the sane technocrats like Larry Summers than half-wits like John Bolton. But this time we must resist. If we express the legitimate rage of the dispossessed working class as our own, if we denounce and refuse to cooperate with the Democratic Party, we can begin to impede the march of the right-wing trolls who seem destined to inherit power. If we again prove compliant we will discredit the socialism we should be offering as an alternative to a perverted Christian and corporate fascism.
The tea party movement is, as Nader points out, "a conviction revolt." Most of the participants in the tea party rallies are not poor. They are small-business people and professionals. They feel that something is wrong. They see that the two parties are equally responsible for the subsidies and bailouts, the wars and the deficits. They know these parties must be replaced. The corporate state, whose interests are being championed by tea party leaders such as Palin and Dick Armey, is working hard to make sure the anger of the movement is directed toward government rather than corporations and Wall Street. And if these corporate apologists succeed, a more overt form of corporate fascism will emerge without a socialist counterweight.
"Poor people do not organize," Nader lamented. "They never have. It has always been people who have fairly good jobs. You don't see Wal-Mart workers massing anywhere. The people who are the most militant are the people who had the best blue-collar jobs. Their expectation level was high. When they felt their jobs were being jeopardized they got really angry. But when you are at $7.25 an hour you want to hang on to $7.25 an hour. It is a strange thing."
"People have institutionalized oppressive power in the form of surrender," Nader said. "It is not that they like it. But what are you going to do about it? You make the best of it. The system of control is staggeringly dictatorial. It breaks new ground and innovates in ways no one in human history has ever innovated. You start in American history where these corporations have influence. Then they have lobbyists. Then they run candidates. Then they put their appointments in top government positions. Now, they are actually operating the government. Look at Halliburton and Blackwater. Yesterday someone in our office called the Office of Pipeline Safety apropos the San Bruno explosion in California. The press woman answered. The guy in our office saw on the screen that she had CTR next to her name. He said, 'What is CTR?' She said, 'I am a contractor.' He said, 'This is the press office at the Department of Transportation. They contracted out the press office?' 'Yes,' she said, 'but that's OK, I come to work here every day.' "
"The corporate state is the ultimate maturation of American-type fascism," Nader said. "They leave wide areas of personal freedom so that people can confuse personal freedom with civic freedom—the freedom to go where you want, eat where you want, associate with who you want, buy what you want, work where you want, sleep when you want, play when you want. If people have given up on any civic or political role for themselves there is a sufficient amount of elbow room to get through the day. They do not have the freedom to participate in the decisions about war, foreign policy, domestic health and safety issues, taxes or transportation. That is its genius. But one of its Achilles' heels is that the price of the corporate state is a deteriorating political economy. They can't stop their greed from getting the next morsel. The question is, at what point are enough people going to have a breaking point in terms of their own economic plight? At what point will they say enough is enough? When that happens, is a tea party type enough or [Sen. Robert M.] La Follette or Eugene Debs stype of enough?"
It is anti-corporate movements as exemplified by the Scandinavian energy firm Kraft&Kultur that we must emulate. Kraft&Kultur sells electricity exclusively from solar and water power. It has begun to merge clean energy with cultural events, bookstores and a political consciousness that actively defies corporate hegemony.
The failure by the Obama administration to use the bailout and stimulus money to build public works such as schools, libraries, roads, clinics, highways, public transit and reclaiming dams, as well as create green jobs, has snuffed out any hope of serious economic, political or environmental reform coming from the centralized bureaucracy of the corporate state. And since the government did not hire enough auditors and examiners to monitor how the hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds funneled to Wall Street are being spent, we will soon see reports of widespread mismanagement and corruption. The rot and corruption at the top levels of our financial and political systems, coupled with the increasing deprivation felt by tens of millions of Americans, are volatile tinder for a horrific right-wing backlash in the absence of a committed socialist alternative.
"If you took a day off and did nothing but listen to Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh and realized that this goes on 260 days a year, you would see that it is overwhelming," Nader said. "You have to almost have a genetic resistance in your mind and body not to be affected by it. These guys are very good. They are clever. They are funny. They are emotional. It beats me how Air America didn't make it, except it went after [it criticized] corporations, and corporations advertise. These right-wingers go after government, and government doesn't advertise. And that is the difference. It isn't that their message appeals more. Air America starved because it could not get ads."
We do not have much time left. And the longer we refuse to confront corporate power the more impotent we become as society breaks down. The game of electoral politics, which is given legitimacy by the right and the so-called left on the cable news shows, is just that—a game. It diverts us from what should be our daily task—dismantling, piece by piece, the iron grip that corporations hold over our lives. Hope is a word that is applicable only to those who grasp reality, however bleak, and do something meaningful to fight back—which does not include the farce of elections and involvement in mainstream political parties. Hope is about fighting against the real forces of destruction, not chanting "Yes We Can!" in rallies orchestrated by marketing experts, television crews, pollsters and propagandists or begging Obama to be Obama. Hope, in the hands of realists, spreads fear into the black heart of the corporate elite. But hope, real hope, remains thwarted by our collective self-delusion.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
NPR mild mannered critique of USA mayhem
Last week America's secretary of state appeared before what passes in Washington for a gathering of the great and good and announced that a "new American Moment" had arrived. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton (and her hopelessly pedestrian speechwriters), the secretary's effort to brand our age didn't take. The duration of the new American Moment did not extend beyond the peroration of her eminently forgettable speech.
The temptation to pass quietly over Clinton's performance and move on is strong—but should be resisted. To read the speech carefully is to confront the central problem bedeviling American diplomacy: Infested with people who (like Clinton) are infatuated with power, Washington has increasingly become a city devoid of people who actually understand power.
They chant the empire seemingly oblivious to the fact that the empire's foundations are rapidly crumbling.
"[A]fter years of war and uncertainty," the secretary of state informed her audience at the Council on Foreign Relations, "people are wondering what the future holds, at home and abroad. So let me say it clearly: The United States can, must, and will lead in this new century."
That settled, Clinton then proceeded to make her case for American leadership by resurrecting familiar clichés and reciting a long list of aspirations. Hers is a No Child Left Behind approach to statecraft: There is no global problem, however large or however remote from U. S. interests, that will evade America's sympathetic ministrations.
[I]n this day where there is nothing that doesn't come to the forefront of public awareness: What do we give up on? What do we put on the backburner? Do we sideline development? Do we put some hot conflicts on hold? Do we quit trying to prevent other conflicts from unfreezing and heating up? Do we give up on democracy and human rights?
No, we do not. By extension, therefore, everything becomes a priority. Besides, according to Clinton, to admit that A should take precedence over B while categorizing C as too hard "is not what Americans do."
Americans have always risen to the challenges we have faced. That is who we are. It is in our DNA. We do believe there are no limits on what is possible or what can be achieved.
History itself testifies to what American leadership can accomplish, as demonstrated by Clinton's own concise rendering of the postwar era.
After the Second World War, the nation that had built the transcontinental railroad, the assembly line, the skyscraper, turned its attention to constructing the pillars of global cooperation. The third World War that so many feared never came. And many millions of people were lifted out of poverty and exercised their human rights for the first time. Those were the benefits of a global architecture forged over many years by American leaders from both political parties.
The Cold War? A nuclear arms race? CIA instigated coups and dirty tricks? A penchant for bedding down with right-wing dictators? Vietnam? None of these qualify for mention in Secretary Clinton's carefully sanitized and upbeat take on the past. (One wonders how Hillary Clinton, Wellesley '68, would have responded to such a grotesque exercise in historical revisionism.)
Although Clinton offered assurances that the Obama administration is "committed to maintaining the greatest military in the history of the world," her approach to policy centers above all on the conviction that "engagement" holds the key to solving almost any problem. Diplomacy requires all-out engagement everywhere, 24/7. Clinton recalls her predecessors warning her that "[y]ou can either try to manage the building or manage the world; you can't try to do both." She admits to rejecting that counsel, congratulating herself on managing both her department and also the world. (She topped this off with simultaneously managing her daughter's wedding: a perfect trifecta.)
Banalities laced with smug self-delusion: In the new American Moment this is what passes for smart thinking. Meanwhile, in present-day Washington, the capacity for serious strategic analysis—not to mention a once-vibrant American tradition of plain speaking—has seemingly vanished.
What do we need to hear from a serious and plain-speaking secretary of state? For starters, these five points:
First, the world is not plastic and the future is opaque. To think that Washington, for all that it spends on "intelligence," has the capacity to forecast or direct the trajectory of events is manifestly absurd. If the American governing class can claim a specialty, it's getting caught by surprise. After September 11, Iraq, Katrina, the financial meltdown, etc., a bit of modestly might be in order. Rather than leading the world to some globalized utopia, the United States will do well if it can simply cope with whatever debacle awaits around the next bend.
Second, for decades now, a tendency to overinflate threats and to privilege near-term objectives over long-term interests has been a persistent hallmark of American statecraft. Time and again, the "solution" hyped to remedy today's problem breeds tomorrow's "crisis." Hyper-activism yields unintended and all too frequently baleful consequences. The record of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan over the past 30 years offers a case in point.
Third, when it comes to discerning what distant peoples need or want, U.S. officials are clueless. Sure, people want to escape poverty and avoid being brutalized. But development comes from within and can seldom be engineered from without. (If aid programs worked as promised, Egypt would today be a very prosperous nation.) Worse, the effort to protect those subject to arbitrary violence all too often finds would-be protectors perpetrating their own violence. More often than not, what others want is to be allowed to determine their own destiny in their own way.
Fourth, however imposing, U.S. military might is of limited relevance to actually existing national security challenges. There exists no problem today to which military power offers a definitive solution. This statement is true regarding near-term concerns (violent jihadism) or emerging ones (climate change). As measured by return on investment, therefore, the money lavished on the Pentagon produces precious little.
Fifth, money itself is in increasingly short supply. Even in Washington, people at odd moments say things that are both true and important. Not long ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, let it be known that our skyrocketing national debt constitutes "the most significant threat to our national security." Although Mullen refrained from drawing any correlation between mushrooming indebtedness and mushrooming military spending, his point is essentially correct. American statecraft has achieved the condition that Walter Lippmann once described as insolvency. We no longer possess the means needed to achieve the ends to which we are committed. Retrenchment has become the order of the day.
These are disconcerting facts, but facts they are. A secretary of state willing to acknowledge their existence would perform a great public service. But don't expect this secretary of state to do so. She's too busy managing the world.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War.
from NPR and The New Republic magazine
"I am against the war but I support the war on terrorism"
In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, several prominent "progressive" intellectuals made a case for "retaliation against terrorism" on moral and ethical grounds.
The "just cause" military doctrine (jus ad bellum) used to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11, without examining the fact that Washington had not only covertly supported the "Islamic terror network", it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.
In the wake of 9/11, the (real) antiwar movement was completely isolated. Trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds, an impoverished country of 30 million people.
Concurrently, a fake anti-war activism emerged in the wake of 9/11 which broadly consisted in stating: "I am against the war but I support the war on terrorism". Meanwhile, several NGOs became actively involved in humanitarian projects in Afghanistan, in close liaison with USAID and the Pentagon. (See Yves Engler, The Humanitarian Invastion of Afghanistan: Occupation by NGO, Global Research, September 5, 2010).
This acceptance of the "war on terrorism" was in large part based on the acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative, namely that the US was under attack, that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Muslims, that the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda and providing refuge to its illusive leader Osama bin Laden.
Ironically, many "Progressives" in America not only accepted the official 9/11 narrative, they were also involved in smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement. By slurring those who questioned the official 9/11 story (backed by carefully researched evidence and analysis), they (unwittingly) provided legitimacy to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian occupied territories as well as the targeting of Iran, as part of the "Global War on Terror" GWOT).
The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie. Amply documented, the pretext to wage this war is totally fabricated.
Realities have been turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring 'democracy'.
Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations."
The derogation of civil liberties under the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation" is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
Meanwhile, the civilian economy is precipitated into crisis; expenditures on health and education are curtailed to finance the military-industrial complex and the police state.
Under the American Empire, millions of people around the world are being driven into abysmal poverty, and countries are transformed into open territories.
U.S. protectorates are installed with the blessing of the so-called "international community." "Interim governments" are formed. Political puppets designated by America's oil giants are casually endorsed by the United Nations, which increasingly performs the role of a rubber-stamp for the U.S. Administration.
The real national security threat, we are told repeatedly, emanates from an illusive "outside enemy" called Al Qaeda, which has overriding military capabilities including the ability to wage terrorist attacks on American cities using nuclear weapons.
The 9/11 attacks play a key role both at the political level as well in the formulation of military doctrine.
Al Qaeda is waging war on America and Western civilization. America is the victim of 9/11. A second 9/11 is said to be imminent according to official Pentagon and Homeland Security sources.
The protagonists of war are presented as the victims of war. Pre-emptive war directed against "Islamic terrorists" is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.
In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this "outside enemy" has served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the war in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a "just war" with a humanitarian mandate.
Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" and alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks is a creation of the CIA.
The threat of "Islamic terrorism" is part of a covert intelligence operation which purports to create divisions within national societies. It is used profusely to create an atmosphere of fear in Western societies. It is also used to trigger ethnic strife and sectarian violence in multiethnic societies.
"Islamic terrorism" constitutes the underpinning of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. Al Qaeda (a US intelligence asset) is said to be supported by Iran. Pari passu, Iran is presented as a threat to the security of the American Homeland.
"The war on terrorism" constitutes a useful and necessary diversion from the real threat of a US sponsored nuclear war. It also constitutes a justification and a pretext to wage war on "humanitarian grounds".
We are dealing with an inquisitorial environment. Those who decide to unleash this war believe their own propaganda. They are ignorant and insensitive as to the consequences of their actions.
In a bitter irony, a US sponsored nuclear war directed against Iran is upheld as a means to avoid and curtail the risk of nuclear war.
The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace. "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,
The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).
Realities are turned upside down. In a twisted logic, a "humanitarian war" using tactical nuclear weapons, which according to "expert scientific opinion" are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population" is upheld as a means to protecting Israel and the Western World from a nuclear attack.
America's mini-nukes with an explosive capacity of up to six times a Hiroshima bomb are upheld by authoritative scientific opinion as a humanitarian bomb, whereas Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons are branded as an indisputable threat to global security.
The Anti-war Movement
A meaningful anti-war movement must question the legitimacy of the "Global War on Terrorism" which is based on the official 9/11 narrative.
9/11 Truth is fundamental to building a real and effective antiwar movement, which challenges the legitimacy of the war criminals in high office.
When the Big Lie regarding the 9/11 attacks is exposed and fully understood, the legitimacy of America's military agenda falls like a deck of cards. The warmongers no longer have a leg to stand on.
Michel Chossudovsky
Monday, September 13, 2010
11 september CHOMSKY DENIAL
intelligentsia
September 13th, 2010
by Denis G. Rancourt
Especially left and liberal professionals and service intellectuals
but also right-wing members of the intelligentsia vehemently attack
and ridicule "conspiracy theories" such as the present 911 Truth
movement.
Why?
It's as though power did not covertly orchestrate its predation of us?
Is that not the modus operandi of power?
Is it so difficult to believe that the complex and highly successful
military attack on US soil that was 911 (levelling three gigantic sky
scrapers, blasting a hole into the Pentagon, and destroying four
commercial jets and their passengers) was not orchestrated by a
religious zealot from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by failed
Cessna pilot trainees with box cutters? Or that those who measurably
benefited in the trillions had nothing to do with it?
What the hell? Not even (admittedly rare) authoritative mainstream
reports seem to matter [1].
What ever happened to "war is a racket" and "follow the money"?
In rigorous compliance with the true meanings of academic freedom [2]
and freedom of the press virtually no academics or mainstream
journalists have made it their research to find truth or to radically
(at the root) question the establishment version.
Indeed, all the major and considered-radical academic pundits such as
Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, have actively avoided the possibility
that the 911 attacks could have been known or aided from within the
finance-corporate-military complex.
What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean
attempts to cross that line? [3]
Similarly, even outspoken dissident parliamentary politicians such as
George Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers (at his
last public talk in Ottawa).
Is such self and projected censorship by star intellectuals only the
result of the fear of being mobbed by ridicule? Is asking these
questions in public fora so dangerous?
When barred and suppressed Afghan Member of Parliament Malalai Joya
was asked about 911 by a truther in Ottawa last year she replied that
those who sought answers in this matter should address their questions
to the occupiers of the White House. To this writer's knowledge, this
is the furthest that any politician has gone in this direction, coming
from "the bravest woman in Afghanistan" no less.
But what shocked the present writer more is the derision to which was
subjected the truther at the Malalai Joya Ottawa event, at the hands
of an "activist" and "progressive" crowd.
INTELLIGENTSIA SELF-DEFENCE
The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has
a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve
this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations
of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all
investigations to domains that fall within its self-established
interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical
chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research
protocols.
Those paradigms and protocols, in turn, and the rigorously followed
discipline of not supposing the worst in one's research stance, were
established in academia at the time when "academic freedom" was being
defined by the cornerstone nineteenth century US battles for
professional independence in academia. The academics and society lost
that battle [2]:
"[T]he economists were the first professional analysts to be "broken
in," in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in
universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a
strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as
acceptable and social reform as unacceptable.
Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this
meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a
self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their
societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most
powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can
change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc."
Academics and "radical professors" train the intelligentsia…
And power owns the media.
TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH
But much more importantly power owns us, owns our jobs, owns students
at school and owns the homeless on the street, the First Peoples on
the reserves and the prisoners in the jails. As long as we are owned,
information about abuse of power is irrelevant for social change.
This is the sociological fact that the 911 Truth movement has failed
to recognize [4]. Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do
not lead to action. It's not a question of how many folks know the
truth.
It's only a question of what the truth means in real terms to however
few individuals and will these individuals rebel, actually rebel and
individually take back power over their lives.
Contrary to the mantra of our left academic idols, truth and research
are not threatening to power in a culture of subservience and
obedience. In such a culture, radical-in-thought academics only
stabilize the system by neutralizing the more action-minded youth. [5]
In such a culture, the only truth that is threatening to power is one
that it perceives as an attack on its self-image [6]. And, in such a
culture, psychological self-image arising from power's connection to
the broader society is the only force that can move power to constrain
itself [6]. In this measure, in the present culture, 911 Truth could
have an impact. In this way, some of the low-level actual perpetrators
and facilitators of 911 could eventually be sacrificed in show trials
or in mainstream smear campaigns.
In conclusion, the intelligentsia works at protecting itself (and by
extension the system) and therefore will be a visceral opponent of 911
Truth until it can integrate 911 Truth and participate in neutralizing
911 Truth in order for power to save face. Or, some citizens might
actually rebel? The extent and projection/potential of such pockets of
rebellion is the only force capable of leveraging real concessions
from power [7][8][9].
Endnotes
Stumble It!Chomsky Interview New Statesman 13 sept 2010
Do you consider yourself to be primarily a scientist or a political activist?
If the world would go away, I would be happy to keep to the science, which is much more interesting and challenging. But the world has an unfortunate habit of not going away and the problems are quite urgent.
What are your thoughts on President Obama?
He's involved in war crimes right now. For example, targeted assassinations are war crimes. That's escalated quite sharply under Obama. If you look at WikiLeaks, there are a lot of examples of attacks on civilians.
What did you think when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize?
Considering the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, it's not the worst example. It was given to him before he had the time to commit many war crimes.
Is there any point in us being in Afghanistan?
We wouldn't have asked in 1985: "Is there any point in the Russians being in Afghanistan?" The fact is that the invasion was a crime. Then comes the question: "Is there any point in continuing?" But that presupposes legitimacy. Putting aside questions of morality and legality and simply asking about the goals of the US government is a very narrow consideration.
What would you like to see happen next in Afghanistan?
There has to be an internal political settlement. Like it or not, the warlords and the Taliban are Afghans, so there has to be a settlement among them. The regional powers also have to be involved, including Pakistan, India and the US - because it's there, not because it belongs there.
Do you worry about Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy?
I don't think that experience is a very useful or convincing attribute for a sensible foreign policy. Henry Kissinger had a lot of experience. [And he still became involved in] the major mass murders in Cambodia.
Is the focus of US foreign policy right?
Let's take the main focus: the Iranian threat. The brutal, clerical regime is a threat to its own population, but it's hardly unique in that respect. The threat to the US came in the presentations to Congress by Pentagon officials in April - they pointed out that the threat is not military; it's to the "stability" of the region.
Do you agree with that assessment?
It's imperial doctrine. Stability is when the UK and US invade a country and impose the regime of their choice. But if Iran tries to interfere, that's destabilising.
What do you make of David Cameron?
It's too early to say much. I haven't been greatly impressed by his policies or his statements.
He recently identified the UK as the junior partner in the "special relationship".
That's too bad for England. It's been a very injurious relationship for England for a long time.
Do countries such as Bolivia have lessons to teach the rest of the world?
Yes. The poorest country in South America, Bolivia had been devastated by neoliberal economic policies. In recent years, the majority of the population won significant battles against privatisation of water. They then entered the political arena and elected someone from their own ranks, and people really engaged with the issues. Their economic growth is now, I think, the best in Latin America.
Are you optimistic about the future of the left?
I don't think it makes much sense to be optimistic, but there's not much point in speculating, either. Either way, the tasks are the same.
Do you vote?
I often do, without much enthusiasm. In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.
What would you like to forget?
There are a lot of things I regret - for example, the Indochina war. I was deeply involved with it, facing a long jail sentence. But I deeply regret that I didn't get involved until the mid-1960s, which was much too late.
Was there a plan?
Well, I had some general guidelines. They're so banal I hate to say them. But what's not banal is applying them in particular situations.
Are we all doomed?
If there was an observer on Mars, they would probably be amazed that we have survived this long. There are two problems for our species' survival - nuclear war and environmental catastrophe - and we're hurtling towards them. Knowingly. This hypothetical Martian would probably conclude that human beings were an evolutionary error.
The NS Interview: Noam Chomsky by Alyssa McDonald 13 September 2010
INTERVIEW BY THE NEW STATESMAN Britain's Current Affairs & Politics Magazine
3/09/2010 | 08:00 Chomsky Guest of Reykjavík International Film Festival
World-renowned linguist, writer and political analyst Noam Chomsky will participate in RIFF, Reykjavík International Film Festival, ruv.is reports. He will hold a live address at Háskólabíó Theater from Cambridge.
The lecture's moderator will be Peter Wintonick, who made the documentary Manufacturing Consent about Chomsky eighteen years ago. The film, which is one of many about Chomsky, will be screened at the film festival.
Noam Chomsky is 82 years old. His lecture is entitled Hopes and Expectations. He will for example discuss the lessons Icelanders can learn from the economic collapse in the West, as well as the future in energy matters.
Stumble It!