The Rule of Men

There is now a vast distance between the actions carried out by the United States government and the often ridiculous rhetoric spewed forth by its leaders to describe and justify these actions, and which is spoon-fed to the citizenry like so much pablum by a largely ignorant and subservient corporate press.  Call it a "reality gap."  There is, on the one hand, the real world of causes and effects that is readily evident to those who are more often than not on the receiving end of the actions of our government, and then there are the hollow, dissembling, ludicrous, deceitful, false "official pronouncements" from US government leaders and their spokes-people.  While it is true that such a dynamic is not new, the scale of the "gap" is at epic proportions, and perhaps accounts for a measure of the contempt with which US government officials are generally viewed by their own citizens these days.  As one gauge of this contempt consider these abysmal approval ratings!  Trust begins with the truth.

A major myth around which such rhetorical deceit orbits is the notion of the rule of law.   It goes something like this, the United States is the exemplar of a nation in which the rule of law operates.  It is the governments and systems of official enemies that are corrupt and problematic, and they should look to the US to see how it should be done. Indeed, this is one of the foundational myths of "American Exceptionalism," and is virtually axiomatic amongst officials at the higher levels of government and the corporate press as well.  The reality, when judged by deeds rather than words is, however, very different from such official myths.  Consider the recent example of Director of National Intelligence (try to suppress the oymoronic giggles) James Clapper's less than honest testimony before Congress. If Attorney General Eric Holder and indeed President Obama held even an inkling of a notion that the rule of law was vital to the proper functioning of a democracy, were truly committed to a fair and equitable enforcement of the law, and had any intention to actually honor their oaths to defend the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed, then the Department of Justice would right now be investigating, and probably should already have indicted, Mr. Clapper for perjury before the United States Congress.  The evidence against Clapper is not only substantial (indeed, overwhelming), and public, but he has virtually admitted to it publicly as well.  Such perjury is a felony offense, and arguably should be since it strikes at the very heart of real democracy, as it is not possible for the people to know what their government is doing, and hence grant the consent of the governed, if its officials routinely lie to their elected representatives.

Not only does Clapper apparently not face any criminal prosecution, he has remarkably been allowed to "apologize" in written statements to Congressional officials, and seemingly is still strongly supported by his ultimate boss, President Obama.  Moreover, this story of evident perjury by a high national security official has gotten remarkably little press scrutiny.  Rather, our free, "adversarial" press appears much more interested in the whereabouts of courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden, or whether a conscientious, independent journalist like Glenn Greenwald should be investigated for "aiding and abetting" Snowden.  This latter charge is so preposterous, so ludicrous, that for the question to even be posed to Greenwald by a mainstream journalist does much to reveal the sorry state of the corporate US press.   If you haven't seen it, this video of "media star" David Gregory's accusatory questioning and Glenn Greenwald's devastating tear-down of Gregory reveals just about all you need to know about the current state of US journalism, and is well worth a look.

Contrast the treatment afforded "power-broker" Clapper to that served up to anyone of lowlier station who actually attempts to honor their oath to the Constitution and attempts to shine some light on administration wrong-doing and corruption.  Edward Snowden has virtually been tried and sentenced in the media, with senior Congressional officials calling him, ridiculously, a traitor, and his courageous whistle-blowing treason.  In further contempt for the rule of law, his asylum rights under international law have been severely curtailed by the United States and his passport was summarily revoked.  In an even more egregious display of lawlessness the lone superpower and "rule of law exemplar" conspired with its allies to have the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales diverted and forced to land in Austria under the incorrect suspicion that Snowden was onboard.  Apparently, this was yet another "triumph" of US espionage.   I ask you to consider the response of the United States, the howls that would erupt from both government officials and their fawning press lackeys, if Air Force One were refused entry to some ostensibly friendly nation's airspace and required to land before proceeding onward.  It would be treated as nothing less than an act of war!  The shrieks of protest would be unrelenting.  But when the United States organizes nothing less than the air piracy of another nation's president, well, that's just fine and proper.  The double standard and imperial hubris is simply breathtaking!  But this is standard fare for American Exceptionalism.  Richard Nixon was famously chastised for arguing that, "if the President does it, then it's legal," however, this is one of the guiding premises of US officials on the world stage, if the United States does it, then, it has to be legal, by definition. 

An interesting, related behavior from US government officials is their categorical insistence that Snowden is not a dissident, or a political refugee, and that he thus has no valid asylum claims.  No specifics are discussed, no evidence given to support such vacuous assertions. But that's the beauty, none are required, you see, the United States is simply the best, at everything, and the moral leader amongst nations, so, again, by definition, there cannot be dissidents in the United States.  Most US officials internalize such attitudes, and so, they can repeat such absurdities without even batting an eye.  In the real world however, one need only consider the horrendous persecution and treatment of Private Bradley Manning to know that Snowden has extremely valid political asylum claims.

The Time is Nigh to Occupy

Even if your only news outlets are corporate megaphones Fox News and CNN you must still be aware of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, demonstrations and organizing taking place in lower Manhattan. Indeed, the spirit of resistance appears to be spreading faster than a Texas wildfire as similar encampments have sprung up all over the country. To gain a sense of the scale you can check out Occupy Together, which is providing a collection point for access to information on the various protests that have been created, and are being created, in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

What began as a modest sized gathering in "Liberty Plaza" in lower Manhattan has steadily grown to encompass large scale mobilizations in cities across the nation. We need to nurture and foster this growth, because such direct demonstrations of real democracy are the only way the majority, all of us, will be able to exert any kind of political and economic power in what now can only be described as the Corporate Oligarchy of the United States.

If pulling a voting booth lever every 2 or 4 years remains your only participation in what passes for our democracy, then it's time to switch the TV channel to something other than Fox News or CNN. If you still need convincing, still think that vote has meaning, just consider the shape that the 2012 presidential election (as an example) is taking. It is more than a year away from the elections and one can already describe the nature of the choice that one will be confronted with upon entering the voting both. If you remain committed to self destruction then you are likely to be tempted by one of these shining examples of human thought; Mitt (corporations are people, yes, really they are) Romney, Rick (let's just pray for rain) Perry, Herman (I will stand against Sharia Law) Cain, Michelle (minimum wage, we don't need no stinking minimum wage) Bachmann. That's not the full list of Republican candidates, and I didn't even get to Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, but you get the point. So, if you can't find the intestinal fortitude to connect the arrow for one of these corporate clowns what other option do you have? Well, sadly, that "other" option is also largely a corporate clown, President Obama. Elected ostensibly to usher in "change," Obama has shown himself to be a staunch defender of the status quo. He has done more to foster cynicism and extinguish hope within his own political base than any Republican could have.

There is no meaningful choice here, "elections" in the US have largely become public relations exercises whose primary goal is a manipulation of voters so as to cynically ratify an intolerably unjust system that has abandoned the needs of the vast majority of the population in order to extract ever more profits for a privileged minority of super-rich and their lackeys.

As the election cycle gears up, billions of dollars will be spent--billions of overwhelmingly corporate dollars--to "purchase" candidates and influence the outcome. Endless hours of vacuous punditry will be spoon-fed to the population by the corporate media to convince us of the "excitement" and "importance" of the election. You see, when the outcome is so rigged in advance, the game at least has to look convincing or else too many might realize the true nature of the charade being perpetrated. And while at least theoretically a candidate might still be elected who would provide some challenge to the corporate oligarchs, their virtually bottomless electoral war chests serve to reduce those odds to a virtual impossibility. And as additional insurance against even marginally meaningful elections, those ostensible lovers of American democracy just can't wait to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

The corporate media's response to all this has been anything if not predictable, and follows the standard playbook. First, attempt to ignore the protests. What, there are protestors? What, there are problems that might actually justify protests? Second, when it becomes impossible to ignore the situation, then attempt to criticize, denigrate and dismiss the protestors and distort their message and reasons for demonstrating. Typical of the latter tactic was the abysmal performance of CNN's newest "anchor" Erin Burnett in her debut show on the network where, rather than attempt to explore the issue in an objective way, she simply attempted to mock and dismiss the protestors as "...dancing...and bongo playing...hippies..." See also Glenn Greenwald's total evisceration of Burnett and with it the bulk of what passes for American journalism these days.

But of course the corporate media doesn't get it. Consolidation of media ownership has left a handful of large multinationals in control of the news outlets from which the majority of Americans regularly get their information. Any pretense of public service has long since been eroded with the effective sedation of the regulatory responsibility of government. After all, regulations are "job killers," if we are to believe the right wing meme that is repeated endlessly, and never challenged, in the mainstream press. Public service gets in the way of profits. Can't have that. So naturally these corporate media conglomerates are just another cog in the edifice of oligarchy, and an important cog at that.

If you're one of those still harping about "liberal media bias," then it's long past time you dusted off the remote and did what's left of your brain a favor and switched off Fox News. The only bias in the corporate media is that which slavishly supports their own corporate and economic interests, which, more often than not are in direct opposition to the interests of the vast majority of citizens. The media's "celebrity" and outrageously compensated anchors are for the most part members of the same economic and political cohort as the corporate CEOs and managers that finance them, so naturally they tend to identify with the same ideology.

With the ballot boxes bought and paid for the only way to halt the slide into further plutocracy and possibly fascism is direct democratic action, like the Occupy Together movements. It is a fundamental right of the people to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Corporate elites recognize this, hence the several decades long war against any avenue for collective democratic action, such as unions, fairer labor practices, and enforcement of workplace safety regulations.

It increasingly appears likely that our only route to a saner, more equitable and more sustainable future is via direct democratic actions. Occupy Wall Street is leading the way. Let's get behind them and push. We are the 99 percent.

Shoot the Messenger, but Never, Ever, Examine Our Own Conduct

Wikileaks, the whistle-blowing website that has now in the past few months released two immense troves of once-secret US military and State Department documents, is now literally under attack from all quarters. The long knives are out as government officials of every stripe--and nationality--try to convince American citizens or anyone who will listen that Wikileaks and it's Editor in Chief Julian Assange are evil incarnate. The Wikileaks website itself has been dropped from several domestic internet providers, most recently from Amazon, seemingly due in part to pressure and threats from government officials, including that stalwart of First Amendment protections, Senator Joe Lieberman. It is also apparently under some form of cyber attacks, most likely denial of service attacks, to force it down or paralyze its servers.

The threat that Wikileaks poses to the powerful State and Corporate actors who have become accustomed to absolute impunity can be gauged by the almost hysterical nature of their response. Note, there is no threat in the sense of any real physical danger, rather, the threat is that their privileged positions and actions might actually face some measure of accountability. That is Wikileaks' unpardonable sin, to dare challenge the notion that the powerful can do whatever they like whenever they like with total impunity. Just for daring that, anyone with a modicum of belief in real democracy should support Wikileaks efforts to shine some light on the inner workings of empire. Robert Scheer's eloquent defense of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.

Not surprisingly, a couple of the more hyperbolic attacks on Wikileaks have come from the "mental ward" of the Republican Party. No less than Sarah Palin and Representative Peter King--he a seemingly perpetual embarrassment to my birth state of New York--have argued, rather pathetically, that Wikileaks be labeled a foreign terrorist group by the US government. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has distinguished himself by calling for the execution, on grounds of treason, of the alleged leaker Private First Class Bradley Manning, and Palin also suggested that Assange be "hunted down." And to demonstrate that such wackiness is not confined solely to American critics of Wikileaks, former aide to current Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Tim Flanagan, has publicly called for the assassination of Julian Assange, saying, "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this." And not to be outdone, Bob Beckel, a Democratic commentator on Fox News has also publicly called for the "illegal shooting" of Assange because of his treasonous and traitorous leaking, and his having, "...broken every law of the United States..." Perhaps someone should tell Beckel that Assange is in fact a citizen of Australia. And--you'll be relieved to know--Beckel is an opponent of the death penalty, and that of course all the guests appearing with him on Fox News were in complete agreement regarding the illegal shooting. Yes, unfair and unbalanced.

Of course the irony is rich indeed when you consider that these same folks arguing that Wikileaks has "blood on its hands," would more or less by content if Assange were "whacked" in some kind of mob hit. So much for consistent thinking, but OK, these folks rarely get accused of thinking anyway.

The bulk of American media has also been more than happy to whip up animosity against Wikileaks, and as usual has almost completely missed the real story, the actual content of the leaked cables. Mainstream outlets have been more than happy to perpetuate and amplify the "shoot the messenger" statements coming out of government officials. They appear much happier to sensationalize the alleged sexual misconduct charges apparently leveled against Assange than explore, for example, the aftermath of US military strikes in Yemen one year ago which the leaked cables indicate resulted in the deaths of many civilians, including 21 innocent children. Yes, US citizens have a right to know when their government is engaged in operations that are killing children! That's horrific enough, but it gets worse, because even with the knowledge that children were killed US diplomats still conspired to have Yemeni officials take the blame by publicly stating it was their missiles and not ours. There are really only two simple reasons why US government officials would behave so; first, so that the policy cannot be challenged by the people in whose name it is being carried out, and second, so that those decision makers ultimately responsible for initiating and carrying out the policy can do so with complete immunity from prosecution, because, while I am not a legal expert, I'm rather certain that the indiscriminate killing of civilians (and children) is indeed a war crime. Again, the real blood is on whose hands?

The leaks, and the government's response to them starkly reveal a crucial aspect of the entire secrecy regime that Wikileaks threatens. Those whose neighborhoods are demolished by US missile or drone attacks know they are being attacked, and generally by whom. The secrecy is not to try and convince them that we are innocent, no, it is aimed directly at us, the citizens from whom the government ostensibly derives its consent to govern. When citizens have no way of knowing what their government is doing, then true consent cannot be granted, and democracy ceases to exist. If enough citizens knew the details of such conduct then they might be outraged enough to demonstrate and petition the government to change its policies, as is their right under the Constitution and in a functioning democracy. As usual, Noam Chomsky rather eloquently makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.

Another constant refrain from officialdom and the media echo chamber is that the leaks pose a "grave threat" to US "national security." This charge is also rather revealing. Indeed, the term "national security" has become so debased and trivialized that's its use is now almost totally propagandistic. Any request or attempt to have those in power face some measure of accountability is instantly reversed with the cries of National Security. Even after officials going as high up as Defense Secretary Robert Gates have essentially admitted that no harm or serious threats resulted from the leaked documents, the charge continues to be leveled, and you would be hard pressed to find any mainstream journalists challenging such previously debunked comments. Glenn Greenwald explains precisely how the game works.

Of course the truth is that it is US policy, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of many civilians, that is actually harmful to US security. Such a policy does not eliminate the threat of terrorism, rather, as a number of studies have shown, it has increased the threats from terrorists, as it simply further alienates the populations under attack, enabling terrorist groups to more easily recruit among them. But if US citizens have no idea how US policy is playing out in countries subjected to drone or missile strikes, then how can the policies be confronted and challenged? It appears clear that foreign policy elites have little inclination to reverse course without significant public pressure. Just look at ten years of US policy in Afghanistan, one is reminded of the lyrics from a famous Pete Seeger song, "waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."

So, rather than representing some kind of threat, it appears much more likely that the Wikileaked documents actually could make us all safer if they eventually lead to more openness and transparency in government. But that is unlikely to come easily, as at this very moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is desperately in search of a crime with which to charge Julian Assange. Irony is in abundant supply indeed as no doubt extensive resources will be spent in investigating Assange and trying to find any trumped-up charge that will stick, but meanwhile we have war criminals and torturers freely walking in our midst, and plenty of binding international and domestic legal treaties with which to charge and try them with, but not a finger is lifted, as we have to look forward, that is, away from our own misdeeds, and never backward at them and ourselves.

And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this announcement concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.

Framing the "Security Debate"

It's now officially an election year, and Republicans sense they may have an opportunity to redress some of the substantial losses they have sustained as voters began to turn away in droves from the corrupt and incompetent governance they ushered in during the long nightmare of the George W. Bush era. That this is even conceivable, given the depths to which they dragged the country over the last eight years, is testament to how sorry the Democrats have been since achieving majority status. And the fact that the entire American political system is at present more or less a basket case.

The "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media is that Republicans are "strong" on defense and Democrats "weak." Note that more often than not the conventional wisdom will have nothing to do with reality, but it is endlessly passed off as such by the conservative media echo chamber. So much so that to even suggest otherwise is to be labeled as crazy, or even worse, a liberal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's oppressive, heavy handed and counterproductive tactics in the so-called Global War on Terror had begun to eat away at this perceived strength on defense.

Not to worry, a favorite Republican tactic, nearly perfected by Karl Rove, is to attack directly at the perceived strength of the adversary, and on an issue where you would appear to have a significant, and growing weakness. Perhaps the most audacious example of this strategy put into practice was the "Swift Boating" of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here we had a decorated Vietnam vet, who was actually shot at and wounded in service of his country, and that very service was being questioned on behalf of Republican chickenhawks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who had actively schemed to avoid serving on the front lines. An important aspect of the strategy is that the actual "swift boating" is not done directly by those who seek to benefit, but by surrogate allies. This allows the candidates to feign ignorance and distance themselves from the mud-slinging.

In recent weeks we have begun to see perhaps the most astounding levels of chutzpah in an attempt to regain the "strong on defense" mantle for the Republicans. First, on Fox News former Bush press secretary, and notorious low-wattage bulb, Dana Perino suggested, and I quote, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." Oh really? Recall that the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred about 9 months into Bush's first term, and took place following numerous warnings, one of which, in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing, was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in US." Yes, the worst terrorist attacks in our history occurred on the slumbering watch of Republican President George W. Bush, as much as apologists like Perino would have us remember differently.

Since Perino's effort to stand the truth on its head, a Nigerian man attempted, unsuccessfully, to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane with his underwear, or rather, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Sensing the opportunity, and not to be outdone, the frame has most recently been taken up by "Mr. 9/11" himself, "America's Mayor," the insipid Rudy Giuliani. While being interviewed recently by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani again suggested that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, and one under Obama..." Lest you are still one to believe in "liberal media bias," take note, that Stephanopoulos, like Hannity before him, was happy to give Rudy a pass on this factual howler. Only in Giuliani's twisted mind, and those of his ilk, could a failed, attempted act be an "attack."

Just a coincidence you think? Not hardly, this is right out of the Republican "Swift Boat" playbook, and you can bet that these forays by Republican surrogates are just the opening salvos in a propaganda war that is likely to ramp up and continue right through the mid-term elections. The main goal of this campaign will be to instill fear in you, the fear that if Democrats stay in power then you'll end up dead, killed by the "terrists." Don't fall for it, and just remember who was asleep at the wheel when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists; Republican majorities in the Congress and the White House.

Olympic Wing-nuts!

Alright, this should be the last time that anyone should have to listen to the tortured ravings of right-wingers spewing forth about their patriotic love of America. All the self-styled leaders of conservadom at present; Limbaugh, Beck, Kristol, Drudge (pick your poison), have been literally dancing with glee about Chicago's failed bid to host the 2016 Summer Games. All these mental midgets (and many others), were literally beside themselves with rapture that America's entry to host the Games was rejected. We get it guys (and gals), deep down you just apparently really despise America, so let's not hear ever again a single word about your patriotic fervor. Not one single word, ever!

It's actually really sad when you consider that this is about the only thing the rabid right has to puff out its chest about, the Olympics, a sporting event. It's really quite pathetic. Just consider a couple of their recent ravings. Weekly Standard editor John McCormack, who apparently routinely walks around in some alternative universe devoid of reality, crowed, "As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed..." Keep in mind that this drivel is from the editor of the very same paper that cheered and beat the drums for Bush's illegal invasion and domination of Iraq! Iraq, as in, another nation. Second, what does supporting your nation's one bid to host the Olympics have to do with undermining relationships with its allies?? Oh, that's right, nothing! It's hard to imagine how anyone could concoct a more ridiculous utterance. McCormack wouldn't know reality if it was a bat that someone used to beat him over the head. Then we have this headline from Matt Drudge, "WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED." Only in the tiny mind of Matt Drudge could a small, insular, idiosyncratic clique of old men (the IOC) be confused with the WORLD. Apparently this entire wing-nut crowd is functioning in the few-neuron regime.

As most sanguine commentators have noted, the single most important factor in the decision to award the games to Rio is that the Games have never been hosted in a South American country. Sorry folks, no World rejection of Obama, no undermining of relationships with allies. South America never had Olympics, Rio in South America, get it? I didn't think so.

The "Bow" Situation

Wolf Blitzer must be the highest paid buffoon in the history of media buffoonery. Wolf hosts, among other things, CNN's "The Situation Room." Think generals huddled around a map contemplating movements of their military formations that could result in the end of the world as we know it. That's what CNN, and most of the rest of America's corporate media, would like us to think, that every "story" they report is of the utmost importance to the security of Americans, that even a simple greeting of a head of state could result in the "fall" of America. Thus, we are to think that Wolf, and his peers at other networks, are the epitome of seriousness, that they are perhaps amongst the most sanguine Americans, having been entrusted to such important positions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The most recent episode underlining the complete bankruptcy of main-stream American "journalism" is the kerfuffle regarding President Obama's ostensible handshake and "bow" to the Saudi King. Obama, apparently meeting the king for the first time, leaned over and grasped his hands in greeting. Not an uncommon practice, but after the fact a stream of wing-nut conservatives grasped at this "subjugation" of ostensible American dominance to argue that Obama was one step from selling the country over to the Saudis. This, a non-story is ever there was one, became a lead item in the 24 hour news-cycle-driven lunacy that has become American corporate media. This would not be possible if not for "journalists" like Blitzer who will happily run with whatever ridiculousness is uttered by right-wing wack-jobs like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, (add your favorite). Blitzer can, with a straight face, query his hand-picked guests, invariably someone with at least a tenuous connection with reality (the "liberal"), and a "conservative" for balance, in this particular case the former Bush White House press secretary, the hopelessly imbecilic Dana Perino, who was more than happy to argue that Obama was close to relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States. And they go back and forth, one side attempting to make some connection with reality, and the other completely off the rails. But, crucially, each is treated on an equal footing. The ridiculous assertions of Perino and the right wing echo chamber are granted de facto legitimacy, regardless of the factual content--or lack thereof-- of their assertions. This is what American media has become.

By definition there are two viewpoints that are allowed access, the "liberal," and "conservative," none others need apply. Both of these form the mainstream consensus. To large extent they support similar political viewpoints. Most importantly, both are subservient to private, corporate constituencies. Each side is allowed to express their opinions, and that is the "news." To large extent what each side says is, by definition, the news, and the primary function of American corporate media is to present the statements of each side, without any attempt to determine what might be factual and what might not. For the most part, the corporate media reflect the viewpoints of their owners and peers, which perhaps explains their willingness to present even the most laughable and ludicrous claims of the right as "news," "bow-gate" simply being the most recent example.

Our corporate media outlets have ceased to function as news agencies, rather, they are largely conveyors of propaganda, often hate-filled and dangerous, the most egregious recent examples coming from the tortured mind of Fox News' Glenn Beck. At a time of economic turmoil, with millions of people struggling to stay afloat, and anxious and uncertain about the future, this is a potentially explosive situation.

Bad Banking

If even after what seems a never ending string of financial debacles you were still not completely convinced that the status of the US economy was anything but abysmal, then ruminating on the following chart for just a few seconds should help to remove any remaining optimism. The figure, compiled by Speaker of the House Pelosi's office, shows the run of job losses for several recent recessions and compares them with our current economic downturn. You can easily pick out the "Republican Depression" (ie. our current economic nightmare), it's the green curve that is heading South faster than a jackrabbit fleeing the gun sights of Dick Cheney. The scary thing, other than there being no evidence for a slowing in job losses, is that it's not even clear that the rate of job losses has reached it's peak. That is, the next few months could see the economy shed even more jobs than the last few.

Having gotten their proverbial butts kicked in the recent election, the Republicans were keen to make some changes to show voters and their constituents that they had not become completely irrelevant. Thus, newly elected National Committee Chair Michael Steele's first public utterances were basically along the lines of, "wrong? what's wrong? there's nothing wrong with our party, we just have to do a better job of selling our ideas." Yes, I kid you not, it was the old, we're just not good salesmen routine. Well Michael, good luck with that.

But not to worry so much, the Republicans did manage to latch onto what they argued was a "winning" political issue, watering down and stalling what almost all reputable economists consider a vital government spending program to stimulate the "rigor mortising" economy. Not a single House Republican saw fit to vote in favor of Obama's economic recovery plan, that's right, not a single one! And over in the Senate, mental steam engines such as Mitch McConnell were arguing that the bill did not have, wait for it, enough tax cuts! Even in the face of overwhelming data that shows that the fastest way to stimulate the economy, read add jobs, is by direct government spending--and essentially everyone agrees that creating more jobs is our most pressing economic need--the Republicans are still calling for more tax cuts. Word has it that the new Republican leadership is also working on the tax cut cure for cancer bill. Maybe they should get Michael Steele working on that.

Unfortunately, the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, have not done a good job of explaining why the spending plan is so important, nor countering the specious arguments put forth by Republicans and their echo chamber of talking heads in the main stream media. Rather, Obama seemed to be selling a "bipartisanship" stimulus bill, almost as if "bipartisanship" would feed hungry mouths, and keep roofs over people's heads. "Johnny, be a good boy and pass me another helping of the bipartisanship, please." Of course, there is nothing inherently problematic about seeking votes and allies across the aisle, however, it should not be a requirement for passage of a bill, particularly when the other side preconditions its support on the same failed policies that wrecked America in the first place. In such a case, the President needs to be much more aggressive in pushing the right ideas and facing down the Republicans when they propose the same useless and counterproductive policies. Indeed, Obama's desire for the illusive "bipartisanship" has resulted in a bill out of the Senate that cut too much useful spending and included ineffective tax cuts, simply to get all of three Republican votes. No, if Republicans cannot see fit to do the right thing, then Obama needs to get tough and go directly before the American people and hammer the Republicans as the Party of Herbert Hoover, that, having driven the ship of state over a cliff, are now unwilling to aid in its recovery.

Of course, with the Republicans having suddenly discovered a voice for fiscal restraint (after running up the biggest deficits in history, and amidst a depression no less), it was not much of a surprise that they could find many a willing media servant, who, if not mouthing Republican talking points verbatim, could at least be counted on to completely obfuscate the truth. Most notable in this regard was the vanilla-brained Charlie (don't call me Charles) Gibson of ABC News. In perhaps a record low moment (among many) Gibson, while questioning President Obama couldn't seem to get his little head around the concept that government spending is, by definition, economic stimulus. Gibson argued that, "a lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus." So much for not being able to grasp perhaps the most fundamental fact surrounding the issue. Not even able to grasp this truism, how could we expect anything more but pablum from Gibson. As economist Dean Baker so eloquently put it, "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." How much is ABC paying Charlie Gibson?

Meanwhile, all is clearly not the "Change We Need" in the White House. Evidence of this is clear in Obama's selections to head his economic team. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and chief economic advisor, and ex-Clintonista, Lawrence Summers are so deeply entrenched in the policy and regulatory regimes that helped to fuel and precipitate the crisis, that one can still see the umbilical cords connecting them with Wall Street. Indeed, Geithner only just recently "announced" his new plan for Treasury to prop up the collapsing banks. I put announced in quotes because when you discuss a plan but then give essential no specifics, it's not really much of an announcement is it? The response from investors was swift, they either couldn't figure out what Geithner was actually talking about doing or they felt that it perhaps wasn't the "sweet-heart" deal that they had quite hoped for from the former Wall Street man. Either way, the stock market took another significant vacation in a southerly direction.

From Geithner's terse statements and pronouncements since, it has become clear that one aspect of the new bailout plan is the formation of a fed-run "bad bank" that will essentially accrue to itself much of the toxic securities that many banks find in abundance on their rose-red balance sheets. Of course, the name is telling, because the joke's on us, guess who the "bad bankers" are? That's right, it's just us poor tax paying suckers who are going to get stuck with all the bad debts made by these rich folks for whom the requirement of being restricted to, say a paltry salary of $500,000 a year is a travesty to scarring to bear. And what do we get for assuming all the risk in this little transaction? In real capitalism those who assume the risks stand to receive the biggest rewards, but not so much in this case. There is no indication that Geithner intends to obtain stakes in the bailed out banks for the government, so that taxpayers would get some compensation if and when the banks become profitable. But this is certainly not "real" capitalism. No, what we are witnessing here is more socialism for the rich, and social Darwinism for the rest of us. This is effectively the same dynamic that has led us to this point. Profits are privatized, but losses and risk are subsidized with the public's money. Put more simply, gamblers get to play at the table with someone elses money. Not the kind of system that you would expect to generate probity and restraint is it? Nope, the operating term here is corruption of the highest order.

At this stage a much more sensible, equitable, and arguably effective plan would be for receivership (ie, nationalization) of the failed and failing institutions. Indeed, many of the economists who foresaw the devastation and were ignored are calling for nationalization as the most effective solution, but the voices of those who best understood the situation and saw it coming continue to be largely ignored. A good example here is Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at the Stern School, NY and no communist he, who argues eloquently that from a pragmatic standpoint the only remaining workable solution is nationalization. Let's see how long it takes the likes of Geithner and Summers to reach the same conclusion. I won't be holding my breath.

The Great Shakedown

It's been remarkably refreshing to see the power struggle unfolding in the Congress this week over the attempt to pass bailout legislation for the Wall Street robber-barons. Faced with a tidal wave of righteous indignation from voters in their districts enough principled Democrats, and two thirds of the Republican House caucus--who arguably were largely voting for the preservation of their own seats--spectacularly voted down on Monday the Paulson-Bush $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout boondoggle. Since last week the Capitol Hill switchboard and internet servers were being relentlessly hammered by irate Americans vowing to throw under the bus any Representative with the inclination to vote for this massive giveaway to the rich. For once the Congress actually expressed the will of the majority. What is it they call that, democracy?

It's been equally remarkable to watch the extent to which President Bush has been completely emasculated politically. One could not imagine a duck more lame than Bush the mallard. And what of other senior administration types, like Cheney and Rice? Completely invisible. No, it appears that King Henry Paulson is in charge these days. While the irrelevance of Dubya is fascinating, he should not feel alone, because almost equally impotent have been the Democratic Congressional leadership. There was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trying to play the dutiful, mainstream, bipartisan pragmatist, and pass what was essentially the administration's bill. Why the Democrats would try to enact this weak, discredited, corrupt administration's proposal is almost beyond comprehension. Particularly in the face of strong condemnations of the plan from many mainstream economists. There was never any attempt by the House leadership to have hearings or a substantive debate on the many alternative proposals that had been presented in the independent media. Instead, Finance Committee chair Barney Frank obfuscated Paulson's three page fascist power grab with a smokescreen of almost meaningless, toothless conditions, and then argued they had put strong oversight and executive pay restrictions in the bill. Americans were not convinced, and neither were a significant fraction of Pelosi's own caucus.

But, with the bill defeated in the House it was predictable that the Wall Street apologists would look to the Senate, a veritable House of millionaires, for smoother sailing. And so, Wednesday evening, after a series of hysterical, sky-is-falling speeches predicting the coming of Armageddon, and, get this, the adding of $150 billion in additional provisions, mostly various tax breaks, because, go figure, the original bill was too fiscally conservative! the Senate dutifully passed the bill by a 74-25 margin. Also instrumental in passage of the bill has been the pathetic reporting in the mainstream media concerning opposition to the bailout. The overriding media narrative has been that any opponent of the bill must be either crazy, or un-patriotic, or both! There has been very little accurate reporting of the many alternatives to the Paulson give-away plan, and that, most interestingly, a consensus has emerged among many American economists that this bailout bill will not address the fundamental problems in the financial system. Particularly sad and frustrating was the sight of a fear-mongering Barack Obama, sounding very much like George W. Bush, scaring Americans into thinking that failure to pass THIS rancid bill would result in their financial and economic ruin, and usher in a long, painful and deep recession. Note to Obama, we are already in the midst of what will likely be a long and painful recession, and gifting irresponsible Wall Street financiers with $700 billion borrowed dollars is not likely to change that fact one iota. At a time when strong leadership is desperately needed; at a time when the Presidential front runner should be decisive, and side with the American people, all we get from Obama is the cautionary, equivocating, weakness all to evident in the Democratic Party. Make no mistake, John McCain has arguably been even worse, but the behavior of both candidates simply emphasizes that the two major parties have simply suffocated the democratic process in our country. Americans should persist in their opposition to this criminal shakedown of their childrens' futures and insist on Congressional action that actually addresses the root causes of the problem; principally the foreclosure crisis; and does so by making those responsible foot the bill.

Dirty Laundry

Propaganda, from the White House? Really!? Now who would have thought that possible? Scott McClellan, one time White House press secretary, is the latest in a long string of Bush administration insiders to publicize in book form the dysfunction at the heart of the Bush inner circle. McClellan is scathing in his criticism of Bush and his top aides, in particular Condoleeza Rice, in spinning the country to war with Iraq. He also takes aim at a sycophantic and "too deferential" Washington press corps that was too quick to swallow all the bull being shoveled. While McClellan deserves some plaudits for finally coming clean, or at least beginning that process, he appears to be far too uncritical of his own complicity in propagandizing the American people. After all, for years he was the point man, the go-to-guy, the "Maytag Man" in the Bush spin team. Who can forget the seemingly endless press briefings from the White House, with McClellan standing there sweating like a bridegroom, torturing the English language in order to get his talking points spinned just right. I for one couldn't stand to listen to him for more than five minutes at a clip, so impenetrable was the dissembling.

While media coverage of McClellan's mea culpa (such as it is) has been rather significant, most of the attention has been of the tit-for-tat aspect, that is, the story has been about the "sensational" aspects of an insider coming out of the White House and criticizing the administration. Predictably, however, there has been very little additional discussion of the actual substance of McClellan's charges. This is perhaps not too surprising since a major focus of the criticism has been the media itself, so, major news outlets are not particularly keen on focusing a spotlight on their own substantial shortcomings.

However, the biggest aspect of the story that has been "missed" is that we knew all this stuff already! Essentially all of McClellan's charges have for years now been the focus of significant reporting from independent media outlets (like Democracy Now!) and the liberal blogosphere. In fact Karl Rove had the temerity to proclaim that McClellan now sounded like a "left wing blogger." Actually, that would be about right, since many such bloggers had long been documenting the propaganda campaign leading up to the war and beyond. However, if that's not "main stream" enough for you, then just consider that only a few weeks ago the "Paper of Record," published extensive reporting on the Pentagon and administration's use of retired Generals in an extensive propaganda campaign to support the Iraq war. Such propagandizing of the people by their government is of course illegal, but since when did the law ever trouble this crowd. But, you may not have been aware of that either, since this story has also been declared largely untouchable by the major outlets, for the same reason just mentioned above.

So, rather than entertaining right-wing talking heads to "debate" whether McClellan is right or not, or, in the case of Fox News, just arguing how he is wrong, the major media could simply do a little real reporting, like actually reading a newspaper, and they would find ample evidence to conclusively establish that the bulk of McClellan's charges are true. Oh, but that's right, the big media don't actually do any real reporting anymore, they just ask vacuous questions of equally vacuous pundits. Indeed, in a rare moment of candor on the Today show, three of the biggest (read, most overpaid) TV anchors recently absolved themselves of any blame as "enablers" of the Iraq war. See the post by Glenn Greenwald for a link to this rather astounding video and some insightful commentary on the complete abdication of journalistic integrity by these so-called media "heavy hitters."

A Tale of Two Clergy

Unless you've been hiding out in a cave recently you are no doubt aware of Barack Obama's "Reverend problem." Over the past few weeks selective clips and statements from past sermons given by Obama's former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright have been used against him in a textbook example of guilt by association of which Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.

Wright has been accused of "anti-American" statements, and having "destructive and divisive" notions regarding race relations in America. Obama himself has felt the need to strongly condemn Wright's statements and distance himself from his one-time pastor. However, almost all of the "buzz" around this "issue" has been the result of selective sound bites and excerpts of small portions of the Reverend's statements and sermons. Media talking-heads and pundits on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have thrown lots of mud, but they invariably fail to place the excerpted bits from Wright's speeches in the context of his entire statements, nor of the more than 200 year long--and ongoing--history of injustice suffered by blacks in the United States. It is as if the terms slavery, Jim-Crow, separate-but-equal, and red-lining never existed. This kind of historical amnesia in corporate media coverage is now so pervasive, that it is no wonder Americans can consume so much media and still learn so little.

Initially Wright did not feel the need to "go public" to try and defend himself and his church, but in the past week he has given several public interviews (one to Bill Moyers), and speeches (before the National Press Club) in an attempt to get his side of the story out. Not surprisingly, these appearances have also been "sound-bited" and excerpted, and have been seized upon by the same corporate media as "proof" of Wright's wickedness. This has also prompted Obama's strongest yet denunciation of the Reverend and his statements. So, if you've heard the approved "sound-bites" and have swallowed the standard media narrative that Wright is a certifiable "wacko," then I'm also willing to bet good money that you did not listen to any of his full statements. If not, I urge you to do so. Let's consider his recent remarks before the National Press Club (NPC). These have also been excerpted at Democracy Now, which actually presents extended parts of his address and a debate featuring perspectives from black community representatives, not the corporate punditocracy.

In his address to the NPC Wright essentially gave some historical background on black religious traditions in the United States and explained, focusing on his own church, the underpinnings and goals of his faith. While I do not personally ascribe to the religious and theological analysis of the human condition, there was not much to find objectionable in these remarks, indeed, one can argue that the black religious traditions of liberation and reconciliation--with ALL people, regardless of race--are a remarkable, and hopeful response born of a situation of bitter oppression, such as slavery. One need only contrast this with the response of some white Christian denominations in apartheid South Africa, that rather than oppose oppression, constructed theologies consistent with white supremacy and apartheid.

So, if what the Reverend actually said, could not be found particularly objectionable, then what is the source of the venom directed at him, and by association, Obama? As Wright pointed out in his remarks, the notion of reconciliation requires that the wrongs of the oppressor are acknowledged, that amends are made, and that subsequent actions demonstrate a reversal of the oppressive behavior. That is, that race relations are not simply a one way street. This I think is largely the "sin" the Reverend is being accused of, that he has the temerity to point out that while injustice persists, true reconciliation cannot occur. That, and the fact that racial injustice still persists, there can be little denying that.

After delivering his remarks, Wright answered questions, and here is where I think some of his statements and actions perhaps partly undid the positive remarks he had just made. He was a bit defensive and accusatory with his tone in responding to some of the questions, but one might also be willing to excuse such a tone given the nature of the attacks he had been subjected to over the preceeding weeks. At times Wright did seem to be enjoying the attention, and perhaps also having a chance at last to respond openly to critics this may not be to surprising. But he also simply seemed to be trying to make light of a difficult situation, and have some fun, as he tried to make the occasional joke, not always successfully! Essentially all of the questions were of the "gotcha" variety, and were largely based on assumptions and myths that are essentially unchallengeable in the mainstream media. A glaring example of this is the notion that Wright ostensibly believes that America was "responsible" for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This has become a true "third rail" in American politics, anyone even remotely hinting at this is automatically labelled "un-American," and beyond the pale. However, this attitude completely suffocates any serious attempt to look at the question of why the United States was attacked. Obviously the situation is much more complex than, "they hate our freedoms," as Bush so simplistically put it. The point that Wright, and others, have tried to make is not that the terrorists were justified in attacking, but that the way that US foreign policy impacts other Nations and peoples is important and entirely relevant. Put very simply, if you punch someone in the nose, then it is quite possible that their response may be to punch back. Such comments meet with fierce media resistance because they challenge one of the fundamental myths propagated by US elites; that the US always acts on the world stage with the noblest of goals. Anyone still under the spell of this myth can begin by reading William Blum's, "Killing Hope" , or Chalmers Johnson's, "Blow-back," for example.

Wright has also been criticized for statements suggesting that AIDS was somehow the result of some government "plot" to harm blacks. This is indeed an unfortunate statement. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence to support it, and it does suggest a kind of paranoia with regard to government treatment of minorities. However, here again some context would have been most illuminating. Many Americans are probably unaware that there is in fact a documented, rather sordid history of medical experimentation on Black Americans, the most infamous example of which is known as the "Tuskegee Experiment". To summarize, from 1932 to 1972 the US Public Health Service (PHS) followed the progression of syphilis in about 400 black men. These men were mostly poor sharecroppers, they never gave informed consent, and were never told they had syphilis. By 1947, with the introduction of penicillin, all men still remaining in the study could have been successfully treated, yet it was not until 1972 that a PHS employee went public with information to force an end to the study. Hundreds of black men died unneccessarily, and wives and children were also infected. For other examples, see the book, "Medical Apartheid," by Harriet Washington. Given the context of this historical record we could perhaps be more forgiving with regard to Wright's unfortunate comments on AIDS.

My title suggests a second clergyman, but while most Americans now know the name Jeremiah Wright, it's very likely that many fewer know that John McCain has his own "Reverend problem," or, rather, that if the media treated McCain as they have treated Obama he WOULD have a "Reverend problem." The ecclesiastical albatross that should be hanging around John McCain's neck is the fundamentalist, evangelical Pastor John Hagee. McCain actively sought, and received the endorsement of Hagee for his White House bid. Hagee is head of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and sits at the hub of a fundamentalist media empire. He is an equal opportunity offender, having denigrated Catholics with statements suggesting that Catholicism has spawned, "a theology of hate." During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," Hagee claimed that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and later in the same interview claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment wrought by God on the sinful city of New Orleans. He holds views that most Americans should rightly regard as deeply offensive, and is perhaps most succinctly described as a spewer of hate. Yet, unlike Obama with regard to Wright, McCain actively sought the endorsement of his Reverend, so as to solidify his standing amongst the key fundamentalist Republican voting bloc. Even more troubling, McCain did a complete flip-flop in seeking Hagee's imprimatur, as in a different political environment he once termed such evangelical demagogues as "agents of intolerance."

While McCain has gotten a little heat from the media for his association with Hagee, it has been nothing like the scrutiny afforded Wright and Obama. McCain has recently gone as far as admitting that seeking Hagee's endorsement was probably a mistake, but nevertheless still being grateful to have it (go figure). How's that for mental gymnastics! Wright and Obama could never get away with such equivocating. The double standard here is indeed stark, and is difficult to understand in other than racial terms. In the end, John McCain is white, and so is "his" Reverend, and that seems to make all the difference.

Crazy Talk

Obliterate! That's some pretty tough talk. That was the term used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when asked to describe what her response as President would be if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Before discussing this further, let's get some hard facts on the table.

1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.

2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.

4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.

What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.

And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.

The Meaning of Success

The war in Iraq recently entered its sixth year, and the long nightmare of the Iraqi people continues with no end in sight. After five years of carnage; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; 4,000 US troops killed; a vast fortune spent; what has been achieved? Events surrounding the 5th anniversary shed some illuminating light on the present state of American democracy. Consider the establishment media. The present consensus narrative, endlessly reinforced by recent Bush administration media opportunities that receive front page and/or prime time coverage on the TV news networks (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), is that the troop "surge" is working. Cheney recently made a "stealth" visit to Iraq, and proclaimed that the war, though not without its difficulties, has been a "... successful endeavor." Bush too claimed "success" in a recent speech to Defense Department personnel at the Pentagon. If what we are witnessing in Iraq is success, then one shudders to think what failure would look like! For a less hyperbolic look at what "success" in Iraq looks like, see the sobering report by Dahr Jamail.

Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.

One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.

State of Disgrace

OK, I'll come right out and admit it, I can't watch these spectacles anymore. I'm already on blood pressure medication, and such shameful displays from our government as George Bush's final State of the Union address, would just send my diastolic through the roof. I'll read the transcript and a few choice stories about it after the fact, but sit through it? No, I would sooner have some dental work done sans novocaine.

What honest assessment could conclude other than that the state of our Union is nothing short of catastrophic? It seems now that a substantial fraction of Americans have finally come round to this conclusion, judging from recent polling that suggests upwards of 75% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Disaffection with the status quo can also be seen in the much stronger interest in the Democratic presidential race than that of the Republicans. But, you would not necessarily know this if you simply listened to, and worse yet, believed, any of the drivel coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth the other night. Indeed, given the long, documented record of Bush and Co.'s outright lies, distortions and abuse of the truth, one can fairly ask the question, should the media even be obligated to cover such a pathetic spectacle? For in doing so, a strong argument can be made that they are simply providing a platform for Mr. Bush to continue to "catapult the propaganda" (his words). At any rate, perhaps a compromise would be to agree to cover the speech, but only with proper warning labels; "viewers be advised, this speaker has a long history of really shoveling the shit!"

And what of the Senators, House members, and other select government pooh-bahs in attendance? Is it really their "duty" to applaud, indeed, provide the occasional standing ovation, for this mendacious mediocrity? Was there anything he said that was worthy of praise? The gross overstatement of "success" in Iraq perhaps? A "success" that has destroyed a country, and precipitated the death of upwards of 1 million of its citizens. Worthy of applause? I think not. If I should have found myself so unfortunate as to be present in the House chamber, my hands would have been sore from being sat upon. Shame on any Congress member to applaud such suffering; shame, shame.

This version was really more of the same old nonsense: cut taxes, bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice (really, again, after abandoning Bin Laden in Tora Bora for the invasion of Iraq)! Democratize the Middle East, blah, blah. Predictably, there was also the usual dose of fear. Perhaps Bush's most audacious attempt to browbeat Americans into giving up yet more of their rights was his "threat" to veto a Congressional extension of the FISA law if it does not also contain retroactive immunity for the telecom giants who aided and abetted Mr. Bush's illegal spying operation. Forgive me, I misspoke, the terrorist surveillance program (sounds a lot nicer that way doesn't it). As Keith Olbermann has eloquently pointed out in a recent commentary, this one is truly astonishing. Bush wants us to believe that he absolutely requires the new FISA to protect us--a claim, by the way, that has been thoroughly debunked, most recently by Richard Clarke--but he's willing to veto it if it doesn't also contain the telecom immunity provisions. So, by his own reasoning, he's willing to put defending the telecoms from expensive litigation ahead of protecting us from terrorists! By immunizing the telecoms Bush is providing a de facto immunity for himself and his cronies in crime. Viewed in that light, such a gambit should come as no surprise to most Americans, it simply evidences the impunity and arrogance which have been the hallmarks of this catastrophic administration.

Don't get fooled again...

Early Monday morning in the Straits of Hormuz several Iranian Navy patrol boats approached or encountered US warships. The subsequent media accounts of the encounter are now well known, and, undoubtedly many Americans believe that the Iranian ships approached the US ships with aggressive intent. The standard media narrative perpetuated by CNN, Fox News, CBS News and others, is that the US ships were within seconds of opening fire on the Iranian boats, and that the Iranians had broadcast a message threatening the US vessels with explosives. Several high-ranking officials in the Bush administration commented on the Iranian "provocation," including Bush himself, and attempted to use the incident to further support the notion that Iran represents an imminent threat to peace in the region. Aside from the quoting of anonymous Pentagon and administration sources, the primary evidence supporting this narrative were rather unspecific video images of the Iranian boats as well as a partly garbled radio transmission suggesting some threatening action. However, nowhere in the video is there any direct evidence of the boats "running at" the US ships. And the audio "threat" is of such dubious quality that it is hard to take it very seriously. This is all beginning to sound like another fictitious naval "attack," that ostensibly occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin, and that was used to justify the bombing of North Vietnam, isn't it?

Now today we learn that the US version of events is indeed unraveling. Gareth Porter reported today several startling revelations concerning the incident:

1) It appears that US officials spliced the audio containing the alleged "threat" onto the video of the patrol boats, in an attempt to suggest that the threat came directly from the Iranian boats. It appears that such audio "chatter" among ships and boats in this war zone is rather common, perhaps not surprisingly so, given the nature of hostilities.

2) US naval commanders in the region confirm that none of the US ship commanders felt their ships to be threatened and felt no need to issue any warnings to the Iranian boats that they would be fired upon.

3) The Iranian government has released videotape (with audio) that suggests a much less confrontational encounter between the US ships and Iranian boats. Just for laughs, this is what one of the Iranian boats looks like. It really is a boat, and not a ship! While fast patrol boats can represent a real threat if armed with torpedoes or anti-ship missiles, these boats are not in that category, and it is difficult to believe that a seasoned US ship commander would regard such a craft as an imminent threat to the safety of his ship.

Based on these revelations it now appears rather likely that the episode was "engineered" by the administration for the purposes of attempting to escalate the rhetoric against Iran, perhaps to politically support Bush's weakened position with his Mideast allies in the advent of the release of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) indicating that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. It seems reasonable to presume that the Iranian boats did encounter or approach the Navy vessels, but that nothing particularly sinister happened. The event was then seized upon by the Bush administration for its own political purposes, and the servile US media were more than happy to run with the story and blow it completely out of proportion.

Indeed, it appears that it is easier to dupe the mainstream US media than it is to steal the proverbial candy from the baby. How many times has the Bush administration fed the media a pack of lies, and had those lies spread across the front pages? Let's just name a few, WMD in Iraq; Saddam in cahoots with Al Qaeda; and most recently, Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons! Based on these examples, one can safely conclude that the media consider it their duty to simply report whatever Government officials tell them to report, with essentially no independent verification. And the more confrontational and sensational the "story," then so much the better for their ratings. This is more like the behavior of a State-run press, rather than a free one. After the WMD fiasco a number of major media outlets expressed regrets for "missing" the story, and published their obligatory mea culpas, and then it was back to business as usual, "..let's get fooled again."

What other insights can we draw from this incident? Several worthy of deeper inspection are the deeply ingrained stereotypes and double standards exhibited by our media, but also by many of us with regard to other peoples and nations. Consider, for example, the response that would ensue if Iranian naval vessels were to take up patrolling positions in international waters off the coast of say, New York or Washington? We know what the response would be, it would be considered an act of war and it is not hard to imagine that hostilities would inevitably result. Nevertheless, we expect that when we send large Naval task forces into the territorial waters of another nation, a nation we have threatened and whose neighbor we have invaded, that they should show the utmost restraint and respect. The double standard, the arrogance of our position is truly astonishing. Only the brain-washed or willfully blind could fail to see it. Unless we can overcome such deep-seated prejudices, our future as a Nation will continue to be filled with war.

Surveilling "terrorists" 7 months before 9/11

There have been some extremely interesting disclosures about Bush's so called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in the last week or so. However, what appear to be rather stunning revelations don't seem to be gaining much traction with our lobotomized corporate press. It now appears rather certain that this surveillance program was beginning some 7 months BEFORE 9/11. Several outlets, including the Washington Post have reported on this, citing court documents associated with several ongoing lawsuits. A number of important questions immediately come to mind. Since we know that the last thing on the Bush crowd's mind at that time was terrorism--by all credible accounts they were more or less asleep at the switch--what was the primary motivation for initiating the program at that time. Might it have been, dare I say it, politically motivated? I wonder what the real, original name for the program was? Obviously, "Terrorist Surveillance Program," would not have worked, maybe something along the lines of "Voter Fraud Surveillance Program," is closer to the mark, but then I forget, this Republican crowd would never do anything with political motives. They're much to pure for that. Indeed, I apologize for even suggesting it. Equally of interest is the subsequent, monstrously hypocritical, retroactive justification for the program as having been necessary to fight the "terrorists" and keep America safe.

There are several informative links on the subject, but Ray McGovern's is a nice summary, and Glenn Greenwald's provides substantial background.

The real costs of war

Our corporate owned media does little to show us the real costs of American military folly in Iraq. This extends to a near black-out of any images of those devastated by war, including American servicemen (and women). In a new book, "Never Coming Home," Andrew Lichtenstein has compiled images which convey the true costs of war. They do not show the physical damage inflicted, but the longer term, devastating emotional consequences to family and loved ones. You can view the short photo essay here.

Crude hosts

The elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to speak and engage in a public forum at Columbia University yesterday. Considering the rudeness and out-right hostility he faced, he seemed to handle himself with commendable aplomb. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, provided one of the more boorish displays from an American academician in recent memory. Bollinger, seemingly bent on providing Fox News with it's course of raw meat for the day, acted the part of the "ugly American" to a tee. He came off as nasty, ill-informed, and downright arrogant. Perfect for Fox in fact.

While I do not agree with much of what Ahmadinejad stands for, and he certainly has made a number of regrettable and ill-informed statements, he has not bombed and invaded any countries under dubious circumstances (like some other president I know), and he has not threatened the United States in any serious way. Whether we like to admit it or not, he was legitimately elected in Iran, and he actually wields considerably less power in Iran than George W. Bush has appropriated for himself in this country. Why not let him speak, judge him on his statements, and perhaps try to engage and educate him to a more enlightened point of view? That's the truly American response that I was taught.

Moreover, why bar Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, if he had expressed a wish to do so? There is not a shred of evidence linking Iran to the 9/11 attacks, recall that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Indeed, Iranians expressed deep sympathy with Americans after the attacks, as did much of the world. Sympathies which the Bush administration has done much to undue since then. If the attempt is to further try and demonize Iran as somehow responsible for Bush's debacle in Iraq, then we must not forget that Iraq too had nothing to do with 9/11. How is it that we became such crude hosts?

Child's Play

As a parent of two young boys, and a fledgling teenager, I've seen a lot of kids TV over the last few years, to tell you the truth, probably way too much! In fact, I consider myself somewhat of an afficionado on the subject. The state of media in general, and television in particular, in our society at the present time is so abysmal in my opinion that I find that many kids shows are actually more interesting to watch than a lot of the drivel intended for adults. While I understand that it is recommended that young kids not watch all that much TV, it's pretty tough to be overly restrictive about it, and, I also watched my fair share of TV when I was a kid, and I don't think it ruined me completely (although others might want to debate that)!

I think one of the better kids cable channels is Noggin. There are relatively few ads (almost none), and many of their shows are both entertaining, educational, and just more wholesome than your standard cartoon fare (think Power Rangers). A couple of my favorites on Noggin are "The Backyardigans," and the "Wonder Pets." The Wonder Pets features three classroom pets; a guinea pig (Linny), turtle (Tuck), and duckling (Ming-Ming), who go on adventures saving other animals in trouble. The animation style, "photo-puppetry" is really unique and engaging. There's music, humor, and good lessons for life, but it's done in such a fun and humorous way that it doesn't seem preachy at all. I highly recommend it for pre-schoolers, and be careful, you might like it as much as your kids!

Turning to more "conventional" cartoons, I have to confess to being a Spongebob Squarepants fan. It's gotten an enormous amount of media hype, and the commercialization of the Spongebob 'franchise' has been done to death. In the interests of full disclosure I will here reveal that my trash can at work features a Spongebob basketball hoop! But, the amazing animation and mad-cap nature of the characters still shines through, and for me it captures the best possibilities in cartoon humor. My favorite character in terms of the animation, and overall voice characterization is Mr. Krabs, the middle-aged, cheap-skate, capitalist-pig owner of the Krusty Krab. The eye stalks, stubby little legs, triangular carapace, huge claw/hands, it's all just genius, and the range of wild emotion swings in the voice character just cracks me up. In one particular episode, Krabs falls hard for Mrs. Puff, Songebob's driving instructor. It's a battle between his two great loves, money and Mrs. Puff. "OH Ho Ho, I couldn't help but spend every last cent of me money on her... OH ho ho." If you don't laugh out loud at least once during that episode, then you need to have your funny bone checked. A close second to Krabs is his arch nemesis, Plankton, a one-eyed, pill-shaped, well, piece of plankton, bent on world domination, and the secret Krabby Patty formula. One of his funnier schemes to acquire the formula is his attempt to use a "robot Krabs" to trick Spongebob into giving him the formula. Plankton is finally defeated by the coin-operated self destruct he built into the robot. "Not one of my better ideas." Now there's an understatement.