The article I am about to present was presented by Arthur & Fiona Cristian, Love For Life, April 2011. This article struck me, but it also brought to mind how much I have changed over the years and how I have come to this juncture in my life so that I can relate to what they are saying in their article. Had I read this article 20, 30 or even 40 years ago, I would probably had thought that they were crazy, but now, after researching and learning so much about how our world has been constructed around us, I can say that today, I can hear this, read this and see how this makes so much sense.
Archive for the ‘elections’ Category
For those of you who want this woman to reign over the US Empire, I suggest that you strongly encourage her Doctors to get on her health ASAP and give her the much needed assistance she needs because, frankly, according to the readings, she is not well and may not be able to withstand the rigors of the next few months of campaigning, not to mention 4 years of being the president of the USA.
It may be a big deal having a “Woman” in the white house, I see that, but you want a healthy strong and capable “Woman” in the white house who can withstand the rigors that that job entails.
Hillary will be 70 years old when she reaches that pinnacle of “so-called” success and she will go down in history for being the first “Woman” selected to be president of the US, but she will also be the first “Woman” to take a serious nose dive if she is not assisted, immediately. Frankly, at her age and with her list of ailments, she really may not have much recourse as far as medical assistance. It’s not to late to save her life, it’s just not going to save her if she becomes President of the US.
Of course we have had other Presidents who were propped up, Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, and maybe others, but at least they were all men! and they were not the first “men.” If folks are looking for a shot in the arm, an adrenalin rush, something to brag about, etc. well, that won’t last long at the rate she is going. Best to wrap her in your arms and run to safety cause she is no “Barack Hussein Obama” shooting hops on the basketball court and playing golf. Even without any health issues, she is not “physically” fit to take on the rigors. Does she even work out?? LOL
Well, enjoy the playlist and by all means feel free to leave your comments.
What’s Happening with Hillary Clinton’s Health? Ask A Psychic.
“Well, you have to be a little bit crazy to run for president, let me just put it like that, because you have to be so totally immersed and so convinced that you can bring something to that office,” she told Gwen Ifill on PBS’ “NewsHour.”
AMERICAN FREE PRESS contacted the State College [Pa.] Police Department this morning for any news on the suicide of Victor Thorn, whose birth name was Scott Robert Makufka.
AFP asked the policeman who answered the phone if the department could provide any updates.
“There was something that occurred on Monday morning, but I don’t know if we’ve released any identities or any details about it at this time.”
AFP asked if he knew when the release might happen.
“I don’t. I don’t know what the status of the investigation is. I have not seen the detective that’s in charge of that today yet. They’ll release it as soon as they can. I don’t know what the holdup is or the details are at this point.”
Please visit “2016 Police Media Releases” to access the most current releases.
The releases “usually get picked up pretty quickly by Centre Daily Times, and statecollege.com, and some of the other media outlets,” he told AFP.
This film moves beyond the headlines of various American military operations to the deeper questions of why, why does America fight? What are the forces; political, economic, and ideological, that drive them to fight against an ever-changing enemy? Published on Mar 31, 2012 http://www.whywefight.com/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FBH3W2 “…WHY WE FIGHT, the new film by Eugene Jarecki which won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, is an unflinching look at the anatomy of the American war machine, weaving unforgettable personal stories with commentary by a “who’s who” of military and beltway insiders. Featuring John McCain, William Kristol, Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal, Richard Perle and others,
WHY WE FIGHT launches a bipartisan inquiry into the workings of the military industrial complex and the rise of the American Empire. Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower’s legendary farewell speech (in which he coined the phrase “military industrial complex”), filmmaker Jarecki (THE TRIALS OF HENRY KISSINGER) surveys the scorched landscape of a half-century’s military adventures, asking how — and telling why — a nation of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war. The film moves beyond the headlines of various American military operations to the deeper questions of why — why does America fight? What are the forces — political, economic, ideological — that drive us to fight against an ever-changing enemy?
“Frank Capra made a series of films during World War II called WHY WE FIGHT that explored America’s reasons for entering the war,” Jarecki notes. “Today, with our troops engaged in Iraq and elsewhere for reasons far less clear, I think it’s crucial to ask the questions: ‘Why are we doing what we are doing? What is it doing to others? And what is it doing to us?'”…” “…Main Characters Wilton Sekzer — Officer, NYPD Fuji & Tooms — Stealth Fighter Pilots, U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski — Officer, Pentagon Middle East Desk William Solomon — New Recruit, U.S. Army Anh Duong — Explosives Expert, Indianhead Naval Center Others (in order of appearance) Sen. John McCain (R/AZ) Chalmers Johnson, CIA 1967-1973 Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for Peace Gore Vidal, Author Charles Lewis,Center for Public Integrity Richard Perle, Pentagon Advisor William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard Col. Richard Treadway, Commander Stealth Fighter Squadron James Roche, Secretary of the Air Force John S.D. Eisenhower, Son of Dwight Eisenhower Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower Gwynne Dyer, Military Historian Donna Ellington, President, Raytheon Missile Systems Col. Wally Saeger, U.S. Air Force Munitions Directorate Franklin Spinney, Pentagon Systems Analyst (ret.) Dan Rather, CBS News…”
This film details the ten steps a country takes when it slides toward Fascism. It takes a historical look at trends in once-functioning democracies that are being repeated in our country today. Published on May 12, 2012 The End of America details the ten steps a country takes when it slides toward fascism. It’s not a “lefty”tot tome, rather a historical look at trends in once-functioning democracies from modern history.
This documentary reaches into the Orwellian memory hole to expose a 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another from Vietnam to Iraq. Published on Jun 16, 2012 Support these moviemakers: https://secure.acceptiva.com/?cst=700255 Documentary Canada, 2007 Directed by: Loretta Alper, Jeremy Earp
War Made Easy cuts through the dense web of spin to probe and scrutinize the key “perception management” techniques that have played huge roles in the promotion of American wars in recent decades. This guide to disinformation analyzes American military adventures past and present to reveal striking similarities in the efforts of various administrations to justify, and retain, public support for war. War Made Easy is essential reading. It documents a long series of deliberate misdeeds at the highest levels of power and lays out important guidelines to help readers distinguish a propaganda campaign from actual news reporting. With War Made Easy, every reader can become a savvy media critic and, perhaps, help the nation avoid costly and unnecessary wars. Source: http://www.warmadeeasythemovie.org/
Learn about historical examples of western governments covertly attacking their own civilians for political motives. Do the bombings of New York and London have any similarities to these events and why would leaders have a motive to terrorize their own civilians? TerrorStorm delivers a powerful sucker punch to the architects of global terrorism and how they stage false-flag events to achieve political and sociological ends. Alex journeys from the depths of history from the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty and Gladio through to the Madrid and 7/7 London bombings and robustly catalogues the real story behind the government induced fable. This film contains viable solutions on how we can reclaim human dignity and freedom and prevent the global population from becoming the slaves of a prison planet. “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” http://drey.orgfree.com/Political – Visit the Ocular Stream’s political section, for dozens of hard-hitting documentaries and films, all packed with physical evidence and sworn testimony.
This film exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America. Through interviews Russo connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, and the national identity card which becomes law in May 2008. Uploaded on Nov 15, 2011 Purchase full quality Director’s cut DVD here:
http://freedomtofascism.com Rate film here –
The true enemies of liberty and all modern societies and people are the central bank counterfeiters. The largest counterfeiter in the history of the world consists of the Federal Reserve banking scheme, which counterfeits American dollars through fiat currency and fractional reserve banking.
America Freedom to Fascism exposes the fraud and deceit of the Federal Reserve Banks (Fed), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the 16th Amendment, the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines, New World Order (globalization), Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens’ rights.
The Federal Reserve System is a privately held, for profit corporation, and not a government agency. It was created by bankers for bankers as a lender of last resort, so that whenever a banker ran his businesses poorly he could be bailed out at the expense of the public. The Fed does not have any reserves, it simply creates fiat money out of nothing and lends it out at interest to businesses and the federal government. The American people are then forced to pay for the bailouts to government and businesses through inflation and personal income taxes on their labor. The currency the Fed creates out of thin air and loans out to the government at interest is called Federal Reserve Notes – look at the top of what you may think are your Dollars and you will see they are actually Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). FRNs are backed by nothing. US Dollars are required by law to be backed by gold and silver, but US Dollars are no longer in circulation. The only real US Dollars still somewhat in circulation are US Silver Eagles and Gold Eagle coins, but they have become so valuable due to the Fed’s inflation and destruction of the FRN currency, that it takes thousands of FRNs just to buy a single US $50 gold coin, and dozens of FRNs to buy a single US $1 Dollar silver coin.
The Federal Reserve System operates through manipulation of interest rates, which results in expanding and retracting bubbles of inflation, referred to as business cycles. When the Fed inflates the currency, it is effectively a hidden tax on existing currency, because the value of the newly created currency is stolen from the value of existing currency. This is reflected in continually rising prices, even though advances in technology and manufacturing processes should result in lower prices and a higher standard of living for everyone. Since the creation of the Fed in 1913, it has debased 99% of the value of the Dollar. In other words, it now takes $100 FRNs to buy what just $1 US Dollar would buy in 1913, as a result of inflation due to the Fed counterfeiting so much currency. If you had saved $100 in 1913, it would now only buy as much as a single 1913 Dollar would have bought at that time. The other $99 of value would have been stolen through counterfeiting (cheaply duplicating money out of nothing) over the years, resulting in the vale of the $100 being taxed through inflation, behind your back.
The film explains how monetary policy is the most powerful form of control over people that has ever existed, and is central to the unconstitutional, global New World Order ambitions of those that own and benefit from the Fed. The founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty, which became the most successful business family in history, Mayer Amschel Rothschild once declared, “Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”
Most Americans are kept ignorant of how the Federal Reserve operates through actions of corrupt politicians and an increasingly centralized media. Using terms like, ‘quantitative easing,’ ‘monetizing the debt,’ or ‘adjusting monetary policy for increased fluidity of credit,’ the Fed conceals it’s true actions behind veils of legitimacy.
The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of coining and maintaining the value of our dollar and money, yet Congress is being negligent in overseeing the Fed, as many politicians depend upon large campaign contributions from the Federal Reserve system bankers. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama’s #1 campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs, among many other banks involved in the fraudulent Federal Reserve counterfeiting system. What is particularly important to note is that Republican John McCain’s top contributors were the same as Barack Obama’s.
The Future of Food from picklock on Vimeo.
This film draws questions to critical attention about food production that need more public debate. Monsanto, Roundup and Roundup-resistant seeds, collectively wreaking havoc on American farmers and our agricultural neighbors around the world. There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America — a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat. The Future of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade. From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply. Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, The Future of Food examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world’s food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
This film tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests? Published on Nov 29, 2012
The Century of the Self is an award-winning British television documentary series by Adam Curtis. It focuses on how the work of Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and Edward Bernays influenced the way corporations and governments have analyzed, dealt with, and controlled people. “This series is about how those in power have used Freud’s theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.” —Adam Curtis’ introduction to the first episode.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings. His influence on the twentieth century is generally considered profound. The series describes the propaganda that Western governments and corporations have utilized stemming from Freud’s theories.
Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in public relations, are discussed. Freud’s daughter Anna Freud, a pioneer of child psychology, is mentioned in the second part, as is one of the main opponents of Freud’s theories, Wilhelm Reich, in the third part. Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy, commodification and its implications. It also questions the modern way we see ourselves, the attitudes to fashion and superficiality.
The business and political world uses psychological techniques to read, create and fulfill our desires, to make their products or speeches as pleasing as possible to us. Curtis raises the question of the intentions and roots of this fact. Where once the political process was about engaging people’s rational, conscious minds, as well as facilitating their needs as a society, the documentary shows how by employing the tactics of psychoanalysis, politicians appeal to irrational, primitive impulses that have little apparent bearing on issues outside of the narrow self-interest of a consumer population.
Paul Mazur, a Wall Street banker working for Lehman Brothers in the 1930s, is cited as declaring “We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. […] Man’s desires must overshadow his needs”.
1. Happiness Machines (17 March 2002)
2. The Engineering of Consent (24 March 2002)
3. There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed (31 March 2002)
4. Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering (7 April 2002)
In Episode 4 the main subjects are Philip Gould and Matthew Freud, the great grandson of Sigmund, a PR consultant. They were part of the efforts during the nineties to bring the Democrats in the US and New Labour in the United Kingdom back into power. Adam Curtis explores the psychological methods they have now massively introduced into politics. He also argues that the eventual outcome strongly resembles Edward Bernays vision for the “Democracity” during the 1939 New York World’s Fair. It is widely believed that the series was inspired and informed by a book written by the American historian, Stuart Ewen, “PR! A Social History of Spin”.
The documentary attempts to assess the “personality” of the corporate “person” by using diagnostic criteria from FBI consultants, compares the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath. Published on Jul 21, 2012
THE CORPORATION is a Canadian documentary film written by Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. The documentary examines the modern-day corporation, considering its legal status as a class of person and evaluating its behavior towards society and the world at large as a psychiatrist might evaluate an ordinary person. This is explored through specific examples. Bakan wrote the book, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, during the filming of the documentary.
If you like this film, please share it with your friends and support the makers by purchasing a full quality DVD at either of the two links below: http://www.hellocoolworldstore.com/home.php?cat=281. http://www.amazon.com/The-Corporation-Milton-Friedman/dp/B0007DBJM8.
Official Website: http://www.thecorporation.com
Progressive media claims they’ll be ‘tougher’ on Obama now | Glenn Greenwald
Monday 3 December 2012
Given the rationale they have embraced, is there any reason to believe this will happen, or that it will matter if it does?
Last week, the Huffington Post’s media reporter, Michael Calderone, wrote a long article on the widespread perception that MSNBC isn’t so much a progressive network as it is “simply pro-Obama”. Citing a new Pew study that found that MSNBC was actually more negative toward Romney than even Fox News was against Obama “and offered mostly positive coverage about Obama” – most remarkably, during the last week of the campaign, MSNBC did not air a single story critical of Obama: not one – Calderone wrote: “post-election, the question is whether MSNBC continues cheering Obama on – or takes him on.”
On Sunday, Politico’s media reporter, Dylan Byers, set out in search of an answer to that question, not regarding MSNBC specifically but “progressive media” generally. Here’s the crux of what he found:
“For the better part of four years, progressive media has had President Barack Obama’s back.
“Now that he’s won re-election, it is faced with a choice: Should the left continue always to play the loyal attack dog against the GOP, blaming the opposition at all hours of the news cycle for intransigence? Or, should it redirect some of that energy on the president, holding him to his promises and encouraging him to be a more outspoken champion of liberal causes?
“Already, there are rumblings of change.
“In the days and weeks following Obama’s victory, progressive voices, primarily in print media, have made efforts to push the president on key parts of the unfinished liberal agenda – including climate change, drone strikes, troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, civil liberties and gun control. . . .
“‘Liberals in the media are going to be tougher on Obama and more respectful at the same time,’ Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker’s chief political commentator and a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, told POLITICO. ‘He was the champion of our side, he vanquished the foe….. [but] now liberals don’t have to worry about hurting his chances for re-election, so they can be tougher in urging him to do what he should be doing.'”
[I want to focus on this claim that media progressives will now be “tougher” on Obama, but first, an aside: Hendrik Hertzberg proclaims that they will now be even “more respectful” of Obama than they have been. Short of formally beatifying him, or perhaps transferring all their worldly possessions to him, is that even physically possible? Is there a reverence ritual that has been left unperformed, swooning praise left to be lavished upon him, heinous acts by him that have not yet been acquiesced to if not affirmatively sanctioned in the name of keeping him empowered? That media progressives will try to find ways to be even “more respectful” to the president is nothing short of scary.]
As for the vow that media progressives will now criticize Obama more and hold him more accountable, permit me to say that I simply do not believe this will happen. This is not because I think those who are taking this vow are being dishonest – they may very well have convinced themselves that they mean it – but because the rationalization they have explicitly adopted and vigorously advocated precludes any change in behavior.
Over the past four years, they have justified their supine, obsequious posture toward the nation’s most powerful political official by appealing to the imperatives of electoral politics: namely, it’s vital to support rather than undermine Obama so as to not help Republicans win elections. Why won’t that same mindset operate now to suppress criticisms of the Democratic leader?
It’s true that Obama himself will no longer run in an election. But any minute now, we’re going to be hearing that the 2014 midterm elections are right around the corner and are of Crucial Significance. Using their reasoning, won’t it be the case that those who devote their efforts to criticizing Obama and “holding accountable” the Democrats will be effectively helping the Republicans win that election? Won’t Obama critics stand accused of trying to keep the Speaker’s gavel in the hands of the Tea Party rather than returning it to Nancy Pelosi, or of trying to hand Senate control over to Mitch McConnell (or, soon enough, of trying to give the White House to Marco Rubio instead of Hillary Clinton)?
Once one decides in the name of electoral expediency to abdicate their primary duty as a citizen and especially as a journalist – namely, to hold accountable those who wield the greatest political power – then this becomes a permanent abdication. That’s because US politics is essentially one permanent, never-ending election. The 2012 votes were barely counted before the political media began chattering about 2016, and MSNBC is already – as one of its prime time hosts put it – “gearing up” for the 2014 midterm.
I’ve described before how the permanent election cycle is the most potent weapon for keeping the citizenry (and media) distracted by reality-TV-show-type trivialities and horse-race excitement in lieu of focus on what the government is actually doing. But the other significant benefit of having all political disputes viewed through a partisan electoral prism is that it keeps partisans focused only on the evils of the other party and steadfastly loyal to their own. The desire to influence election outcomes in favor of one’s own party subsumes any sense that political officials from one’s own party should be checked in how they exercise their power.
How is it rationally possible that those who have embraced this reasoning can – or should – change behavior in light of the looming Incredibly Important 2014 midterm election and then the 2016 election after that? Former MSNBC host and frequent Obama critic Cenk Uygur – who, in one of the most remarkable media events ever, was removed by MSNBC as prime-time host in favor of individual who literally vowed never to criticize the president under any circumstances – told the Huffington Post that it was hard to see how this would happen:
“‘Should MSNBC take a more aggressive stance with President Obama after the elections to make sure he follows through on his progressive promises? Of course,’ Uygur said in a follow-up email. ‘Will they? Probably not. They’ve been leaning back on their criticism of Democrats for so long, that I’m not sure they know how to, or care to, hold them accountable.'”
If sustained criticisms of the president should have been suppressed in deference to the 2012 election, then I simply don’t see why the same mindset won’t apply to the 2014 and 2016 elections.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that I’m wrong here, and that the “progressive media” really is gearing up to change behavior and unleash a torrent of demands and criticisms aimed at Obama. Here’s my primary question about that: why would that matter?
Once you vow unconditional, permanent loyalty to a politician and a party – once you demonstrate that you will support them no matter what they do – why would you possibly expect that they will do anything but ignore you? A rational politician, by definition, pays attention to those whose support is conditional and uncertain, not to those who loudly proclaim that it is a solemn duty to support that politician and his party under all circumstances. That’s just the basic rules governing how power works, of negotiations and politics: those who eagerly renounce all their leverage make themselves inconsequential and impotent.
What Hertzberg and his Obama-loyal media comrades mean by “getting tougher” with Obama is some version of this message:
I’d really appreciate it if you did X, Y and Z, and strongly believe you should, but even if you don’t, you should know that I’m going to be there for you and your party: cheering for you, raising money, demanding that everyone else support you, doing everything in my ability to keep you empowered.
Why would anyone believe that posture will affect anything? Once the choice is made to lock oneself into a state of permanent, unbreakable partisan loyalty, based on the lesser-evil justification, then one renders oneself completely powerless.
I’m not arguing here against that choice. Whatever one thinks of the lesser-of-two-evils rationale, it’s at least cogent and rational. The debate over that choice has already been hashed out and there’s no point in repeating it here. But whatever one thinks of it, there are costs and benefits to that choice, and one should be honest about both.
The benefit, which its proponents endlessly tout, is that it prevents the empowerment of the “greater evil”: the GOP. But there’s a significant cost to that choice that they almost never acknowledge: namely, to announce ahead of time that you will always lend your unlimited support to a particular party no matter what it does is to instruct politicians to ignore you, to disregard all of your beliefs and grievances and efforts to “get tough” and hold them accountable.
It should be said that there are other ways to impose genuine accountability besides making one’s electoral support uncertain. One way is to engage in political protest movements outside the electoral process, of the type that forced Lyndon Johnson out of the 1968 race in protest of his Vietnam war, or even the Tea Party protests that put genuine fear in the hearts of political elites.
But progressive media figures, for the most part, want nothing to do with street protests. There was, and is, a genuine, powerful movement devoted to protesting the political class on populist grounds – the Occupy movement – and most of them treated it with a mixture of condescension and scorn, largely because they couldn’t figure out how it might help Obama and the Democratic Party win elections. Nobody should hold their breath waiting for Hendrik Hertzberg and other similar progressive media figures to start supporting protest movements against the policies of the Democratic Party which they claim to find so objectionable.
Another possibility is waging a battle within the Party against those perpetrating policies to which one objects by, for instance, challenging the Party’s establishment candidates in primaries. That is how the Tea Party was able to force the GOP to pay more heed to their agenda.
But establishment progressives regard the Tea Party’s tactic with contempt because it was guilty of the most grievous sin – it undermined the Party’s ability to maximize its electoral success – and would never dream of posing a similar challenge to their own party’s establishment. I know from experience, having worked for several years on a project to recruit and empower primary challenges to awful Democratic incumbents, that any project that might cost the Democrats even a single seat in Congress will be met with anger and recrimination by establishment progressives.
So, even if it actually happens, what Hertzberg and company are really talking about with their tough-talking vows to “be tougher” on Obama are empty gestures. “Demands” of politicians unaccompanied by a strategy to wield power are inherently inconsequential. There are truly few things I’d like to see more than progressives holding Obama accountable and trying to compel him to change behavior, but their past conduct – and especially the reasoning they offered to justify it – leaves little reason to believe that this can or will happen.
Doing that requires a radical change in how one thinks about political priorities and, even more so, one’s own functions and duties as a journalist. Do you see any serious grappling with those questions in the giddy, triumphant, self-congratulatory progressive media?
One final point: most of the people interviewed in the new Politico article (including from media figures who have been quite critical of Obama) all agree that the “progressive media” suppressed legitimate criticisms of Obama in order to help him and the Democrats win the election. As the Nation’s publisher, Katrina vanden Huevel, accurately put it to Politico (with a statement that is a strong contender for Understatement of the Year):
“‘MSNBC, with all due respect, has not been that strong in terms of talking about closing Guantanamo, about militarization, about this administration’s civil liberties record,’ Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation, told POLITICO. ‘We may address alternative approaches to those issues, but they won’t be the talking points on MSNBC that night.'”
The Huffington Post article expressed the same idea:
“MSNBC’s afternoon and primetime hosts kept their sights on Romney and the Republicans during the election cycle, while spending considerably less time holding Obama accountable on issues like civilian casualties from drone strikes, use of executive power and the Afghanistan conflict, the nation’s longest-ever war, which escalated under the current White House. Instead, the network’s top partisan hosts –- with the exception of former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough –- seemed to circle the wagons around the Democratic president during his reelection bid.”
If you think about it, this is actually an extraordinary indictment of these media outlets. What could possibly be worse for a media outlet – even one with acknowledged political leanings – than purposely to suppress and ignore criticisms of the nation’s most powerful political officials in the name of keeping one’s favorite politicians in power?
Recall the controversy – and the endless progressive mockery – that erupted when Rush Limbaugh admitted after the 2006 midterm election that he had “carried water” for the GOP by suppressing criticisms of it because he wanted to help them win the election:
“The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I’m going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, ‘Well, why have you been doing it?’ Because the stakes are high! Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.”
Is this not the same confession, grounded in the same mentality, expressed in that Politico article from many stars of “progressive media”?
Ultimately, it’s not actually that difficult to maintain and express these two simultaneous ideas:
(1) as a journalist, I’m now going to tell you about some truly heinous policies that President Obama, as the nation’s most powerful political official – as well as the Democratic Party, in control of the bulk of the US government – are embracing; as a citizen and an opinionist, I believe we should do everything possible to oppose these heinous policies loudly and effectively; and
(2) now that an election is about to happen, I believe, as a citizen and an opinionist, that President Obama and the Democratic Party should win the election because their opponents are worse.
But so monomaniacally obsessed were many members of the progressive media that idea (1) was completely ignored and suppressed in favor of idea (2) – not in the days or weeks before the election, but for years. There is never any justification for those who work in media or hold themselves out as journalists – as opposed to, say, those who are party apparatchiks – to refrain from holding the nation’s most powerful political leaders accountable. That is the core function of journalism – and citizenship. I genuinely hope they’re serious and sincere with their vows to change this conduct, but it is very difficult to see how that can happen given the precepts to which they have so steadfastly committed themselves.
Update on AP/Iran story
Regarding the two columns I wrote last week about AP’s depicting of an absurd graph as evidence of Iran’s work toward a nuclear weapon: the AP reporter responsible for that story, George Jahn, has written a new article admitting that “a leaked diagram suggesting that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon is scientifically flawed”, but Jahn nonetheless insists that the graph somehow “still supports suspicions that Tehran is trying to build a bomb, especially when combined with other documents that remain secret.” This post says all that needs to be said about that. Meanwhile, the graph, by design, is now being touted by Fox News and John Bolton to scare people about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.
On the resignation of Gen Petraeus.
It’s a mess and a rabbit hole, that goes very, very deep. I find it strange that folks can go around killing innocents, drone striking, torturing, destroying infrastructures on other people’s land, dropping depleted uranium on towns and villages, messing up the water and electric infrastructure, cause all manner of birth defects, cover up rape and abuse towards military women, deal very poorly with the veterans upon their return, declassifying PSTD to other than a medical issue, have these veterans homeless and suicidal, fund and support terrorists militias, cover up and enhance the opium production, drop bombs on people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, arm the insurgents in Syria, yet, when they pull their little dingy out and flash it around, inserting it here and there, NOW THEY MUST RETIRE?????
Something is seriously and morally wrong with American ethics. Dude done did something else other than fool around with a drama queen, and that’s for sure!!! NB