How a 'plumber' named 'Joe' shook up the election

His first name isn't actually Joe. He isn't a valid plumber. And he still has back-taxes to pay.

And yet, he has become the recent hero of the McCain campaign (frighteningly backwards economic plan and all) since his name came up in last weeks debate. Not only that, he has helped bolster his ratings in major swing states like Ohio. The media is all over him, even though he's effectively a non-story.
Joe the plumber: one of the most appalling political ploys of this election season (up there with the Obama-Ayers connection).

If there's one thing Americans can't stand, it's taxes. Americans have some of the lowest income taxes in the developed world, and yet, even when we've got a burgeoning deficit and a war to pay for, the thought of raising taxes if only for a few is painful, and, for some, unpatriotic. Because it's unpatriotic to give a slice of your — to be fair — well-earned income to your government.

Heaven forbid the developed country with the greatest income inequality — that's America, folks — tries to bridge the gap with a more fair, graduated tax system that doesn't benefit the wealthy, using the bogus 'trickle-down' claim as an excuse for unfair taxes.

So let's all feel sympathy for a man in the top 4% income bracket ($250,000 per year) who will feel a slight pinch in taxes, in fact, since were fighting one of the most expensive wars in modern history and facing a massive recession, lets give him a tax BREAK. That makes economic sense. Not like he hasn't already gotten a massive one under the Bush administration.

The news media deserves some blame too. Although there has been some skepticism, the outrageous amount of coverage is unwarranted and largely spreads the propaganda the McCain campaign itself is sending out into the mainstream.

Oh, and, for the record Obama was correct in his statement about small business taxes that started this mess. As 'Joe' plans to campaign across America with McCain, warning the masses about the 'socialist' radicalism a fairer tax system would bring more and more ACTUAL "average Joes" are feeling the pinch of the current economic crisis. If only people like Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and Sarah Palin could be less greedy and actually give a damn about their own country's economic health instead of accusing their fellow Americans of being unpatriotic.

If American politics has been reduced to feeling sympathy for a man — an invention of the McCain campaign — who has already received more tax breaks than is healthy for this country's economy, then this really isn't the America I want to live in.

Palin mania!

Palin was a key figure in 60% of campaign stories in the American news media this past week.

With the other ticket making most of the news, Obama was a focus in 22% of the stories last week, by far his lowest week of coverage in the general election season. His running mate Joe Biden registered at 2%.

The extent to which Palin commanded the spotlight last week is clear from the campaign storylines. Together, media narratives about McCain and the convention—including the proceedings themselves, Hurricane Gustav’s impact, McCain’s speech, and George Bush’s role—accounted for 43% of the campaign newshole. Palin themes, including reaction to her selection, her public record, her personal and family life, and the question of sexism—accounted for 45%.

I guess the McCain-Palin camp can no longer complain (repeatedly) about how the media is against them. Seems everyone is trying to paint themselves as a victim.

News coverage isn't the only thing McCain has taken from Obama. More and more McCain is pushing himself as the "reform" candidate. Because someone who's voted with the incumbent president 90-some percent of the time is obviously a Washington outsider. Oddly enough — considering he's pushing for "change" and all that — McCain has become even more conservative and like the president as the campaign rages on, changing his position and tone on a number of issues. He is less of a maverick now than he was making the president's war speeches for him.

The MSM and the race for the White House

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, penned a good op-ed in the New York Times today examining the absurdity of the media coverage in the 2008 presidential race. For instance, while we know Obama's bowling score, many nothing of his health-care plan. Edwards does not blame the mainstream press for the failure of her husband's campaign, but does fault it for ignoring candidates on both sides, such as Biden and Dodd for the Dems and Brownback for the GOP. As the article says,

I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.

Congress disappoints in Clemens steroid case, and the media follows along

Gasp! One of America's baseball stars committed perjury?!

A congressional committee asked the U.S. Justice Department to review whether pitcher Roger Clemens lied when he testified he never used steroids.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey today requesting a perjury investigation relating to Clemens's deposition and testimony for a Feb. 13 hearing on performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball.

So the Justice Department will investigate this, but not the lost CIA torture tapes, or the torture itself? It will go through the records on a sports star, but it won't investigate the shady dealings of the executive? Wow.

Even worse than the fact Justice is wasting it's time on the Clemens case is the fact this steroid drama was brought before Congress in the first place. The House Oversight Committee. Should be cleaning up the government, right? Doing its job tackling national issues?

Wrong.

The biggest political/sports story of past month had nothing to do with the government, and, in fact, shouldn't be on the front page.

I know it would be nice to clean up America's pasttime, which also happens to be the world's most steroid-infested sport, but I fail to see how this is the government's job and not that of the MLB. What right does Congress have to question Roger Clemens on his steroid use? Why waste its time?

And what about the media in all of this? They're having a field day! I have seen no article in the mainstream media questioning whether these hearings should be happening, whether Congress should be wasting its time, or whether this story is over-reported — which it is.

The hearings are being turned into a partisian show, with Republicans being sympathetic to Clemens and Democrats attacking him. The chair of the committee, Democrat Henry Waxman, regrets holding the hearings in the first place.

Congress should be spending its time more wisely, as it has a worse approval rating than even President Bush. In addition, the media should focus on real news — not mix sports with front-page politics — and MLB should clean up its act.

The 'surge' effect (part 3)

This is the final installment (for now) in the The 'surge' effect blog post series. This post focuses on the political effects of the term "surge". See also Part 1, which focuses on the origin of the "surge", and Part 2, which looks at the word's connotations.

In part, the press is to blame for the entrance of "surge" and "war on terror" into the mainstream. As the previously-mentioned CJR article says,

It’s the prerogative of any president and his spinners to play this kind of word game. But the press has a responsibility not to be taken in by it, to be able to separate out an explication of a thing from the sheen the administration places on it. The consequences are extreme. Look at the “war on terror.” The press, for the most part, absorbed this descriptive term and used it uncritically for the last five years. But, as Jacob Levenson wondered in the pages of CJR two years ago, “It’s reasonable to ask, for instance, that if the war on terror had been called the war on Islamic extremism, would the American public have supported the invasion of a country, like Iraq, with a secular government? Similarly, had it been called the war for global democracy, would the Patriot Act have become law? What if it hadn’t been called a war at all? Journalists, in other words, must resist employing political jargon — it tends to shortcut analysis in favor of mobilization.”
...
[The] “surge” has become, in the last few weeks, part of the public discourse on Iraq (i.e., as one anonymous Republican strategist told the New York Times, “They’re going to cast it as a choice between withdrawal and surge”). The word has the benefit of seeming active, strong, and quick - a surge is a lightening strike, over and done, the opposite of, say, a quagmire. The other advantage is the other words that “surge” replaces, like “escalation,” with its Vietnam-era connotation."

Since that article's publication in November, "surge" has appeared less and less within quotes as it enters the mainstream, like "war on terror" did years ago — and it has made a difference in the Iraq debate in the United States.

In January 2007, progressive blog Think Progress compiled a list of news articles, mapping out the use of "surge" in the mainstream media. What began in November 2006 as a description for a "temporary" elevation in American forces in Iraq eventually defined a long-term Iraq war strategy. As the article noted, the media "has continued to use the term "surge" even though its definition has fundamentally changed." But does the spin of "troop increase" to "surge" really make a difference in the eyes of the public? A CBS News poll dated around the time that the "surge" buzz peaked showed that 45 percent of Americans were in favor of the "surge" (aka troop increase), and 48 percent opposed. The same survey said that a mere 18 percent of the public were in favor of increasing the number of US troops in Iraq. From those numbers we can infer that just a simple change in wording can result in a difference of 27 percentage points, thus the prevalent use of the term "surge" does work in the White House's favor.

In the closing of his essay "Politics and the English Language", George Orwell writes, “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” The Bush administration is using that political rhetoric to justify many of its policy decisions, especially when war is involved. Even though the "surge" isn't actually a surge, it will be continued to be used by the news media, political pundits, and some policy-makers, all to the benefit of the White House. Like "war on terror", "surge" is political language at its finest — for those who benefit from its use, that is. However, the labeling of the long-term battle against terrorism as a "war", associating that "war" with the one in Iraq, and the long-term troop escalation and operation in Iraq as a "surge" could all come back to bite the White House. The public might expect the "war" to end like any other and will be skeptical of open-ended plans (i.e., the fear instilled by declaring a war against terror will evaporate and impatience will replace it), and will want the "surge" to show fairly quick results. It is a surge, after all.

Bullying the press

It's no secret: the Bush administration puts an unbelievable amount of spin on press releases, as to limit governmental transparency as much as possible. (Politicians always do that — they just take it to the next level.) But now it has sunk to a new low. On Wednesday the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, singled out a reporter and told him to 'correct' his article, which, in Snow's humble opinion, 'twisted [Snow's rhetoric] out of context'. The reporter's name was Les Kinsolving, a fairly liberal reporter and talk radio host...

The Raw Story (note: has a strong anti-Bush bent, for those of you not familiar with it; I usually don't cite it) reported that

Kinsolving asked Snow whether the President thinks it would be a good idea for all Americans to prepare an emergency survival kit for a possible terrorist attack or natural disaster.

Snow quickly said he couldn't comment, and then proceeded to take time out to lecture Kinsolving on his job, "Let me just point out," Snow said, "that you need to ask questions that bear on the President's responsibilities."

Snow continued to press Kinsolving, "I saw the piece you wrote the other day, that has been thoroughly twisting[sic] out of context." At this point Kinsolving tried to get a word in, but Snow was having none of it, "You know what I don't care, because the fact is, if someone is going to take questions about things that don't fall under the president's purview, and I answer that question, and it gets twisted, it is a disservice to this White House and the craft of journalism."

It was never clear exactly what piece Snow was objecting to, but he was annoyed enough to suggest, "that if I were you, I would pick up the phone and tell them to start cleaning up or writing corrections."

You can see the whole thing on video too in the aforelinked article. When the government's 'requesting' the press act with less criticism, it is certainly not acting in the interest of democracy. We've seen that plenty with the Bush White House and the so-called liberal news media (or SCLNM, as it is also known as on Daily Kos). Kinsolving has apparently stepped down from his post as White House correspondent.

Mr. Snow: reporters are there to let the people — and remember the US government is (supposed to be) a government of the people, by the people, for the people — know what the heck their government is doing, or at least as much as they can get out of your narrow and opinionated announcements. The Bush administration has already done enough to the press, a pillar of democracy, especially when dealing with the topics of national security, war, and executive affairs. Secretism and spin are two of the strongest traits this White House has to offer. Too bad it doesn't have more positive and constructive strong points.

No matter who's asking the questions (at least in the White House Press Corps), they often warrant an answer more revealing than the ever ubiquitous "No comment" or the loyal "The President believes...". Democracy requires transparency; it requires the people to ask the government and the government to answer to the people. In this modern age, the fact that the 24-minute-long Daily Show with John Stewart reveals more than four hours of any national news network does is worrying.

BBC trust

The BBC hopes to win back viewer trust with honesty after a flow of scandals ranging from fake competitions (and winners) on Comic Relief and other programs, to deceiving footage of the Queen. I find it interesting that honesty and clarity seem to be major tenants of the British entertainment industry, as they should be, because in the US it couldn't be more different. People expect deceit when they turn on most entertainment-infested TV news, or at least they should; reality television is everything but real. And many people know and understand that. Whereas in the BBC's case snowballing scandals caused largely because of the in-and-out nature of the entertainment industry (i.e. young employees there for only a short time) and an atmosphere that seems to not match corporation slogans of honesty and fairness.

Mark Thompson, the BBC's director, is working hard to change that, and he seems to be a competent enough person to clean up all this. The BBC Trust — the body at the top of the BBC's pyramid of governance — thinks so. Thompson has outlined measures to be taken — more serious, I might add, than the typical non-BBC reaction might be — including a suspension of competitions, editorial leaders, and a promise for new staff guidelines and stricter measures to offenders of the rules that form the foundation of public trust in the BBC. Honesty is very important to the BBC, as Thompson points out.

The BBC is a very large body with many programs on all the mediums: radio, internet, television. It has a huge amount of programming and deals with many production teams... it is, in a word, gigantic. Personally I view it's news as the standard for the news industry; Today, Newsnight and BBC News Online are examples of excellent news content. In addition their interviews are tough and to-the-point, which interviews should be like... however I do not see this kind of interviewing — which forces the interviewee to go beyond talking points and propaganda and actually lets the news consumer to get something worthwhile out of it — in the American mainstream media. Also the BBC often has the kind of reporting on global events unseen in most media circles, such as its dispatches from Burma or Iraq, as well as less bleak areas of the world.

In a fast-moving industry and with such a large body there are bound to be plenty of problems, which is still no excuse for these deceitful scandals. At least the BBC deals with them, and, being a government-funded body (via a Royal Charter), it is forced to. Most other content isn't held to the same standards; maybe that is why the BBC is so good, at least in my opinion. If only trust and integrity instead of sensationalism and deceit and opinionizing were qualities of many of the BBC's counterparts in the entertainment and news industries.

Get out of jail free, like Paris Hilton!

Hey I'm a celebrity so the law doesn't apply to me! Not only do all too many think that, but it is true in many cases.

The story of Paris Hilton. She contributes nothing positive to society, yet gets out of prison early. She should have been in jail, which I'm sure was made cushy for her liking (and it was), for 45 days, which was then cut to 23 days. How many days did she end up spending? Three.

It's not often I talk about these useless celebrities who dominate the national headlines, pushing out more deserving topics like the G8, but it's amazing how American law caters so much to celebrities. The rich and the famous can evade the law in ways not acceptable to the justice system or public safety or fairness.

I will be in LA later this summer, and I don't want to be run over by a drunk and drugged Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. And really the wider issue is that in the United States' large, refined legal system, a celebrity can just evade their right punishment.

Hilton drove drink. Thats a pretty damn serious offense and she has basically gotten away with it. It would have been even worse if she was granted a pardon; considering all the high-profile letters California courts were swarmed with, we should be glad that didn't happen.

As I said I usually don't care a bit about entertainment stories, but when it affects how American justice sees the criminals stories like the Hilton DUI arrest and imprisonment become more serious. Needless to say it has also received far to much press coverage.

Hilton will be under house arrest for the remaining 40 days of her sentence. Considering the size of her mansion that shouldn't be a problem.


NOTICE: This blog is Paris Hilton (and other unimportant persons) -free until another one of them finds a way to receive special treatment on such a level that the story is deemed worthy of a blog post.

8 June UPDATE: A screaming and crying Hilton has been ordered back to jail to finish out her 45 days by a judge. CNN and other US news organizations have complete coverage of the Paris Hilton story, as it is their top story. Apparently a spoiled rich socialite serving out the time in jail she was meant to serve is more important than the G8 summit, Iraq, and American immigration politics combined. Another fine moment for American (celebrity) journalism...

technorati tags: paris+hilton, hilton, paris, paris+jail

CIA authorized to destabilize Iran's government (?)

The CIA returning to the dark days of overthrowing stable governments and causing more trouble than its worth?

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

Many have called ABC News "traitors" for its report. I call it journalism. Uncovering unacceptable programs like this and letting the public know what its government is doing is something journalists are supposed to do — not clog the airways with worthless muck like Anna Nicole Smith stories. We deserve to know what junk the government is doing, especially if it is as bad as invading on the sovereignty of another state! Iran is not an enemy. There is no war. Therefore, authorizations like the one alleged above is outrageous.

There is no way in hell this CIA program can help the situation in Iran. Iran is defiantly moving on with its nuclear program, but overthrowing the government would likely result in a takeover by diehard radicals — the real danger. And if you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bad, wait until you see the guys just itching for power over Iran's still undeveloped yet potentially daunting nuclear program.

Attacking Iran militarily would also only make the problem worse.

So what should we do with Iran? When all else seems to fail, time for real diplomacy. And sanctions? Are they helping? Let's wait and see. But sanctions shouldn't be the only diplomatic action the United States is pushing for.

technorati tags: Iran, cia, covert, black-ops, ABC+news, news, spy, journalism, politics, united+states, sanctions, iran+nukes, ahmadinejad

What they should have said: in the wake of recent attacks

Following the shootings at Virginia Tech (see here)...
Bush apparently pushed politics aside as he became what one reporter dubbed the 'Consoler in Chief', bringing together a scarred nation after a time of tragedy — thus emphasizing the positive aspect of a president whose approval ratings are in the 30%s. Unsurprisingly the mainstream media dared not attack the president for mourning with his nation, just as it didn't after 9/11. It would make the look bad, and the president, with the upper hand, would attack them back, thus making public perception of the (not so) 'liberal media' even worse. However, in 9/11's case the president did indeed exploit a tragedy for his own political gain. Bush told the mourners at Virginia Tech, "people all over this country are thinking about you, and asking God to provide comfort for all who have been affected."

Funny how he got to the college promptly, whereas his visit to New Orleans after the disastrous Hurricane Katrina hit was very delayed. Yes the shootings were a horrible act, but didn't Katrina cause much more damage, especially under Bush's incompetent watch? I guess he would have no place to address the mourners in the wake of Katrina; the city of New Orleans was virtually destroyed.

In my world Bush would have, instead of just drowning the mourners with sympathy and partaking in soft politics, used this event to emphasize the need for gun control and a society that helps its members, especially those needing help the most (e.g. the mentally ill). He would not need to exploit the Virginia Tech massacre to be able to use it as an example of a fusion of society failing its peers and, more notably, the all-to-easiness in acquiring a firearm. Instead of saying the shootings were unimaginable, and that one cannot grasp with why or how a human could perform such a heinous act, Bush could bring attention to the need for families, friends, and authorities to see warning signs in troubled behavior — which had been true in the shooter's (Cho Seung-Hui) case.

Most importantly — and at least — Bush could have said that it was a time for unity and reflection upon our society and governmental policies instead of just playing the sympathy card and mentioning 'God' a few times.

In the White House press briefing following the shootings, the cautious statements Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino (Press Secretary Tony Snow is being treated for cancer) provided a great example of this administration's stubbornness on gun control. Even before she was asked about 'gun rights', Perino brought them up.

In my world there would be no objection to gun control, but that's not the case here. At the very least Perino could have stonewalled in a different manner by saying it was 'not right to exploit this tragedy with a hot-button political issue'. Knowing how the press corps seem to operate following a national tragedy, they probably wouldn't object. Even if they did, Perino would end up looking better than she did.

If you're going to exploit a tragedy, why not do it for the better? If not, just don't exploit it at all.

technorati tags: bush, george+w+bush, virginia+tech, vtech+shootings, cho+seung-hui, dana+perino, white+house+press, media, society, gun+rights, communication

Warping facts and rewriting history: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Even as the American public seem to be getting smarter about politics — albeit slowly — public belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories seems to be on the rise. A partial explanation may be the public’s annoyance with their government, which they could help solve if people took more action in national politics and voted.

These conspiracy theorists think everyone is against them and employ pseudo-fact to support their flawed claims. These people cannot be swayed by verifiable video footage or eyewitness accounts — nothing can stop their irrational conspiracy speculation about what happened on 11 September 2001.

The only 9/11 theory that has any merit is, unsurprisingly, the official version of what happened. Pearl Harbor, no doubt, was also not a conspiracy, but the John F. Kennedy assassination is up for grabs, but no one on either side (official or conspiracy) can garner enough evidence to support their claims.

Yes, there are plenty of accounts to confirm US intelligence services knew of the impending 9/11 attack, but did not take action because of bureaucratic incompetence. Intelligence services did not get the correct data or relay it, and gave the tips of an attack the benefit of the doubt, like what happened with Pearl Harbor (the radar station knew Japanese planes were coming but did not know whether they were Japanese and were not notified to be on the lookout). It was a failure of imagination, as the 9/11 Commission put it, in the US intelligence services. However, they did not ignore data on purpose because they wanted 3,000 people to loose their lives in a massive terrorist strike.

The BBC investigated many conspiracy theories and, eventually, debunked them, including the 9/11 one.

These theories have gotten more media coverage and analysis, some of which has been good, as of late.

A Scripps Howard poll gave some disturbing data:

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
…
The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.
…
The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

A Zogby poll found:

People are completely divided on whether they believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44%) or justified an attack on Iraq (44%). Approximately one in ten (11%) is not sure.
…
Close to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.

Curiously enough, conservatives, according to this poll, gave the media a negative score in its 9/11 coverage. Why is this so interesting? The media was acting patriotic and very loyal in every way to the Bush administration for the weeks following. The media did not sufficiently do its job in the aftermath of 9/11: they did not question what the government was saying, analyze why the attacks happened, report a lot of important news, or challenge Bush in his exploitation of the attacks. This led to an overall media support of the Iraq war as war critics were drowned out and not put on air nearly as much as talking-point ridden war hawks.

I remember nearly every television channel had a flag design at the bottom of the screen, and there was nonstop talk of the war on terror. Most everyone was following along with the government’s policy, a dangerous thing to do when the people are confused and scared and need facts and rationality now more than ever.

Ignorance is ignoring all true evidence and thinking the evil government was the sole perpetrators of 9/11. You know what, deniers of the terrorist attack on US soil on 11 September 2001, it's all going too far. Some people, myself included, lost friends and relatives in 9/11 and don't need people like the 'Truthers' spreading warped and pseudo-factual conspiracy theory views of historical events when there is plenty of evidence to support the mainstream view! They use architectural evidence like they know anything about the topic; how could explosives blow up the towers then? How could they fall the way they did when it was clearly a structural breach when two of the largest commercial aircrafts in existence (at the time) crashed head on into buildings not designed for high-speed air crashes?!

Enough is enough. I see the loss of rationality is as evident in the 9/11-deniers as it is in the followers of the Bush administration's 'war on terrorism'. Both sides are messing with history and fact in order to advance political, ideological motives. Shame on both the 9/11 exploiters (e.g. Bush) and the 9/11 fact deniers (e.g. Truthers). There is a time for reaping political capital, and there is a time to question and attack the mainstream view of things, but with things like 9/11, either action is a dangerous one leading to a slippery slope of exploiting every terror case and holding a revisionist, paranoid attitude of every event.

Some conspiracy theorists think of their spreading of their false notions as their duty to society; their spreading of ignorance and fallacies only hurts society. On the other hand, the spreading of ignorance and possible fallacies by people who believes everything an authority (e.g. the government) says is also produces a negative impact on society.

We must question things presented to us, but not become paranoid and use the same pseudo-facts politicians may be using. 9/11 conspiracies are just as invalid as Iraq prewar evidence: one came from the conspiracy theorists, the other from the government. Those of us stuck in the middle should never cease from questioning what we see and what we are told, but there is a point where people question too much and form a false reality.

I think at least one thing myself and the radical right-wing can agree on is that these 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold false notions and use unbelievably invalid facts to support their almost non-existant argument that the government of the United States of America was the sole perpetrator of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, the Pentagon in northern Virginia, and the third, failed, attack (Flight 93) on 11 September 2001.

Just as the conspiracy theorists blame the government, the Bush administration holds the ambiguous general terrorist movement  — as if it were one concrete force — as its scapegoat and poster-child for evil.

technorati tags: 9/11, 9/11+conspiracy, conspiracy+theories, truthers, politics, media, terrorism, september+11th, opinion, arguement, government, bush, news+media, fact, in+the+news, history

Libby trial verdict: guilty

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Obsessing over Anna Nicole Smith in the US media

When news about Anna Nicole Smith's death first broke, I decided to continue my policy on keeping this blog Anna Nicole-free, along with my denial of over-hyped and frankly insignificant people like the dead JonBonet Ramsey and celebrities. However... An Anna Nicole Smith burial speculation story and look at demented teens bent on killing homeless people and smoking pot both outrank a story on US courts derelicting their duties by allowing what CNN calls “anti-terror laws” put in place by the Bush administration in its policies on enemy combatitants at GITMO. I'm actually not that surprised. Whilst channel surfing, which I don't often do, I noticed all three major cable news networks — CNN, Fox 'News', and MSNBC — all practically ignored important stories and focused on Anna Nicole Smith, including the tiny aspects of her legacy and death. Even when the topic was supposed to be serious matters like politics, science, or headlines these news networks felt it better to focus on celebrity. The likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears has also been a major focus, though they hold little significance in the real news. I am afraid the media is not doing its job. Every time any of these people gets a DYI or a different haircut, the mainstream news media is on top of the story with a vigor that used to be reserved only for tabloids.

People may want entertainment, but they have E! and People for that. One of the news media's many jobs is to have a balance between what people 'want' and what they 'need' to be informed in a civil society. So-called infotainment now rules supreme in the chambers of many American news organizations. Between much ineffectiveness over reporting and analyzing fairly US politics — especially caving into Bush's rhetoric on the 'war on terror' — and the rise of pointless information stories and unsourced bias, the state of the US news media: poor. They have failed to give the people what they need; and their standing as one of the pillars of a free and democratic society is in shambles. There are also external problems for the media, like the Bush White House attacking them whenever a story critical, even factual, against the administration is published. Bush must have a warped idea of democracy. By the way, a Google search of "Anna Nicole Smith" returns 25,400,000 results. "Darfur" has less than one-fifth the results of that. It's not only the news media with their priorities mixed.

Read more at this great site on the American news media. See also On the Media and CJR Daily.

Feel free to send in your views on the news media — US and otherwise — as well as what you think of society's prioritization of issues and topics, how some less important issues get drastically less notice, and how celebrity news invasion has effected you. Personally, I find it hard to visit any major news site or go to any public place without seeing or hearing celebrity gibber-gabble.

More posts on the news establishment soon.

technorati tags: anna+nicole+smith, entertainment, infotainment, media, news+media, US+News+media, opinion, bush, democracy

Now Pace contradicts White House on Iran

Remember the White House's questionable accusations that Iran is not only messing up Iraq (I smell a scapegoat), but also arming the parties to the sectarian conflict? — which the United States is doing too (many in the Iraqi Army fight alongside factional militiamen). Journalists, experts, and Iran's president have all called Bush's bluff on many of these charges. Now Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and thus the highest ranking officer in the American military, has joined the club. Pace has been known, as it is well documented in Bob Woodward's State of Denial (still reading it, by the way), to be meek to the demanding White House — especially previous Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a power freak if the Department of Defense ever knew one. About time Pace stood up for rationality.

The most senior US military officer has said there is no proof the Iranian government has directly armed Shia groups fighting in Iraq.

Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, appeared to contradict claims made by US officers in Iraq.

The US presented evidence this week it said proved the "highest levels" of Iran's government were supplying arms used by Shia militants in Iraq.

Gen Pace said all it proved was "things made in Iran" are being used in Iraq.

Though it gives me no comfort to defend a country like Iran, just imagine all the US-made weapons being used by people with far from good intentions, from all different conflicts across the globe. Surely there are some weapons being used by militants in Iraq made in America, and given to the militants — often unintentionally like in the case of Iraq's army — by they US. Funny that both Iran and the US are dumping weapons in Iraq, considering it ultimately helps neither of them.

Bush remains defiant as usual on Iran's involvement in Iraq, maintaining mindless political rhetoric over logic and only inflaming US-Iran relations. How can he expect everyone to believe him without proof? We already fell for his Iraq scheme. This is a man who would stand in the face of all rational facts and spin his own truth, sadly many still believe him.

Naturally the American president's orders for US troops to kill any Iranian 'meddlers' does not help anything. Iran and the United States should be working together on Iraq. Instead, they are both making it worse while eroding their relations.

The article continues...

Speaking anonymously on Sunday, US defence officials in Baghdad told reporters that the Iranian were supplying sophisticated bombs capable of penetrating the armour of a US-made Abrams tank.
...
Suggestions by some analysts that the US allegations against Iran were intended to prepare public opinion in the US for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities have prompted public statements by the leaders of both nations.

US President George W Bush dismissed suggestions of a plan to attack Iran as "noise" by critics of his administration.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in an interview with US TV, said he was ready for talks with the US, but would defend Iran in the event of any attack.

As soon as some progress is made on the North Korean front, Bush gets the US into even more of a hole with Iran. Great. Some are convienent timing of the Bush administration's allegations about Iran. That Iran is probably sending weapons into Iraq is nothing new. As usual the Bush administration did not really provide ample evidence of its allegations...
As an NBC News reporter blogs,

That's the difficult thing about this story -- without having access to information the U.S. government says it can't give us, it's impossible to evaluate the accusations that these weapons are coming only from Iran in operations authorized by the Iranian government. It's particularly difficult because the U.S. doesn't speak to Iran – so it uses other countries –- and the media to send its messages.

However, like in the lead-up to the Iraq war, even The New York Times followed the White House's lead. American news media is often following what the government says without questioning the lack of evidence, or just convicting even with a lack of evidence, on everything from Iraq's WMDs (patriotic bandwagon; ignorant support of botched government talking points) to the John Mark Karr/JonBonet Ramsey (acting as judge and jury; innocent before guilty and reasonable doubt, forget about it! attitude) debacle.

Speaking of contradictions, those close to a major Shia militia leader in Iraq, head of the radical so-called Madhi Army inflaming the sectarian violence in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, say he is lying low in Iraq and has not left for Iran, contrary to what US officials have said.

technorati tags: bush, shia, shiite, al-sadr, peter+pace, white+house, news+media, US+media, iraq, iran, iran+weapons, insurgency, sectarian+violence, politics,

Drama over Iran: Ahmadinejad counters Bush

There is ample buzz over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with ABC News (about time for the US media to do something like this). He basically says that Iran is not the evil demon killing people in Iraq, and that, for peace's sake, the US should leave Iraq. It goes without saying I strongly dislike Ahmadinejad — his ideology, cavalier actions, amazingly off-target beliefs, etc. — but there is no reason Iran would want an instable Iraq, for the same reasons China does not want North Korea to messily collapse.

In an exclusive interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refused to address accusations that his country was supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, saying instead that Iran asked for peace and was against conflict of any kind.

Ahmadinejad skirted questions about weapons smuggling and stressed instead that the key to establishing peace in Iraq was for Americans, and all other foreigners, to leave.

Read the interview in its entirety here.

On the American political front...

For a long time now, Bush admininstration officials have been promising reporters proof that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weaponry to Iraqi militants.

The administration finally unveiled its case this weekend, first in coordinated and anonymous leaks to a trusting New York Times reporter, then in an extraordinarily secretive military briefing at which no one would speak on the record, journalists weren't allowed to photograph the so-called evidence, and nothing even remotely like proof of direct Iranian government involvement was presented.

The result: The White House got the headlines it wanted.

And before you know it, the White House will be attacking the media for criticizing the Bush administration's poor actions. Remember: the mainstream American media was extremely hawkish in the lead up to the Iraq war, even The New York Times (thanks to the irresponsible reporting of one Judith Miller). In addition, after 9/11 criticism of the White House was at an effective stop as the 'patriotism' flowed through the veins of each and every American wanting to get their revenge on the evil terrorists that killed thousands of innocents — by, in turn, killing thousands of Middle Eastern civilians. It was, and still is, a sad time for the US news media. The Bush administration always needs a scapegoat it seems.

The allegations that Iran is promoting Iraqi violence to a great extend are questionable. Even if Iran is, and that is a good possibility, the White House is most certainly blowing it out of proportion in able to blame someone for the problems in Iraq. Now that they've somewhat admitted that Iraq is not going too well, they need someone to blame besides Congress, Democrats, and the media. Iran is mostly posturing — on Iraq and their nuclear program (more on that later). Iran has too much to loose.

Iraqis already fed up with the US v. Iran fighting (political or physical), and their using Iraq as a proxy.

Cheney has repeatedly warned Iran not to 'meddle' in Iraqi affairs; the Iraq Study Group, and other rational voices, have said even though Iran is not perfect it's best for everyone the US work with them on Iraq.

There has been plenty of talk on attacking Iran also, of course it is next to impossible the Bush administration would try to pull a preemptive stunt like that, especially without the support of even their hawkish base.

Update: Good blog post on Iran here.

technorati tags: iraq, iran, bush, ahmadinejad, white+house, news+media, politics

Everything in moderation? A tale of two global problems

Two major topics lately are bird flu (H5N1, aka Avian flu) and climate change (aka global warming). These potential catastrophes have several things in common: they both are at a global scale with vast impact, both are scientific, and both are hyped, in one way or another (downplayed or over-played). More bird flu deaths and spreading have brought that issue back in the headlines and a recent report of notable significance by the IPCC have evermore raised awareness on climate change and its partly human causes.

Some say — or seem to be saying — the demonic West is being selfish about bird flu’s affects on places like Indonesia; some — countries and corporations alike — are controversially commercializing/politicizing a potential pandemic, risking lives for their own profit and selfishness.

Some say rich nations need to work on reducing greenhouse emissions; some are (somewhat) hypocritical for saying other industrial countries are causing all the climate change problems. Some are stating the latest international report on climate change is too rhetoricized and vague (somewhat contrary to the IPCC’s clear standing on the topic, but I get the writer’s point). Some send mixed signals by treating the environmentalism relating to global warming as a new hyped-up religion of sorts and saying nothing in the studies have really changed. Some say the battle against human-caused climate change is a war. Some, including powerful Washington think tank AEI, even offered large sums of money to people in exchange for their disputing the IPCC’s recent report. This kind of scientific corruption is nothing new and some has been linked to the US government and energy corporations like Exxon — whose products promote global warming — in the past.

Me? Well I am worried about bird flu, though I shall not lose sleep over it, and climate change is not the best thing either. Neither are impending doom, a monster that will eat you when you sleep at night, and neither are totally harmless. The sureness about global warming’s impending eventuality, and the fact we know it is already showing its effects, is more than that of bird flu. Bird flu is more chance-related in whether it will be a real danger (i.e. will the disease spread from human to human and in what form).

I think we need to work on climate change by finding alternative energy sources like geothermal power — which could serve ten percent of the United State’s electricity needs by 2050 at minimal cost. Solar-harnessing, as well as sources getting energy from the kinetic movements of wind and water, (solar power, wind power, water power, respectively) are also promising, easy, virtually non-polluting power alternatives that are cost efficient in the long term, especially if they help hamper the economically damaging effects of global warming. While I am not as committed or hyped as Al Gore on the subject, action needs to be taken by citizens, governments, and companies alike.

People, governments, and companies also should be prepared for bird flu. Preparation and preventative measures are fine, they’re moderate; hype, scaremongering, or denial can all lead to great harm, albeit different types of harm, for both the issues of climate change and bird flu. The EU is being tough on both issues, working on the bird flu problem since before it reached Turkey and the Russian Urals — long before the US media finally jumped on the bird flu wagon, although late and with plenty of confusing hype. The EU is not doing a great job with global warming, but it’s a start. They now have proposed arguably the toughest auto emissions standards on the planet. When you really get down to it, bird flu is just another potential pandemic and climate change is coming no matter what, human caused or not. What worries me about the latter is that really humans may be pushing climate change to a dangerous level where its effects will be all too disastrous. What worries me about both is if they are too hyped, it will be like the boy who cried wolf. People, including policymakers, will be tired and confused by the hype and mayhem and any efforts against a real threat would be hampered greatly by such a consequence.

There are the global-warming-is-human-stunted-and-dangerous deniers and the people crying wolf. The latter are promoting and feeding hysteria, for example, saying last summer’s heat and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 were both directly caused by global warming and not just a weather pattern to an extent (then why wasn’t there another Katrina in 2006, I ask). Lastly, there are the people who neither like the hype nor the denial. I am one of those people. It will be easy for those uneducated on these topics, partly by fault of the media and their governments, to be in any of the first two camps and easily switch between them. If there is no unseasonable heat this coming summer I am sure there will be plenty switching from the hype to the denial camp; if there is, I am sure there will be some switching from denial to hype — for the wrong reasons.

Be prepared for global warming; use common sense and preventative measures for bird flu. Don’t buy into the often propaganda hype sometimes utilized by individuals and bodies to promote their causes — whether they are hyping up awareness about bird flu or climate change or playing down either issue. Both are important issues, and one can do more, politically and personally, to work against the inevitable one, human-caused global warming, than the other one.


Songs stuck in my head right now: "I Bet You Would Look Good On The Dance Floor" by the Arctic Monkeys and "Such Great Heights" by The Postal Service.

technorati tags: IPCC, politics, news+media, bird+flu, avian+flu, h5n1, climate+change, global+warming

Why should Europe have to be buddy-buddy with the US on Iraq?, an article critique

Like in this post, I am going to critique a frequent Slate contributor on her view of Europe's role in and perspective of the American ordeal in Iraq, and what it should be. A while back, I critisized Anne Applebaum for wanting to lay blame for the 'lack of pressure' on North Korea on China and how she cavalierly proposed options for China that would hurt them and the situation in both Koreas (i.e. the entire region). It seemed she was writing from a narrow view, which surprises me because she wrote an exceptional book: Gulag: A History.

This time, I have a smaller bone to pick with Ms. Applebaum's latest article. Number one, maybe I am out of the loop, but what is this "Old Europe" she constantly talks about? Is it Western Europe, because there are plenty of British and other peoples criticizing US policy too. Number two, it is only typical to hear the 'don't critisize, help out!' babble, and this article, with a subtitle of "A New Year's resolution for Europe: Less carping, more helping.", is a good example of that mentality.

She quotes German and French newspapers in her introduction, while they are pretty muich doing their jobs: reporing the news. The newspapers are not supposed to help out, that is not their jobs! She then mixes up what is on the cover of an array of French and German newspapers with the various perspectives European people have of Iraq — if someone did have another plan or idea, it would probably not be on the front page but the op-ed page. As if American papers did not have the --. It is not as much gloating as it is pointing out the fairly obvious about the Bush administration and its plan for Iraq.

On the day James Baker's Iraq Study Group report was published, I gritted my teeth and waited for the well-earned, long-awaited Franco-German "Old European" gloat to begin. I didn't have to wait long. "America Faces Up to the Iraq Disaster" read a headline in Der Spiegel. In the patronizing tones of a senior doctor, Le Monde diagnosed the "political feverishness" gripping Washington in Baker's wake. Süddeutsche Zeitung said the report "stripped Bush of his authority," although Le Figaro opined that nothing Baker proposed could improve the "catastrophic state" of Iraq anyway.

And then, for two weeks … silence. If there are politicians, academics, or journalists anywhere in Germany and France who have better ideas about how to improve the catastrophic state of Iraq, they aren't talking very loudly. There is no question that America's credibility has been undermined by the Iraq war in "Old Europe" as everywhere else. There is no question that America's reputation for competence has been destroyed. But that doesn't mean there are dozens of eager candidates, or even one eager candidate, clamoring to replace us.

In her article, Applebaum also hits a nerve with me when she treats "Old Europe" as if it was one group of people — similar, but much more generalizing, to the steriotypes people put on [so-called] Hollywood-types and African Americans in the US.

Not everyone should have to help everyone else when they are in the doldrums, although it would be nice (and utopian), it is not feasible and is selfish for a country like the US to be already plenty self-centered and expect the whole world to rush to its aid when it makes a mistake. Nor would the US allow help... remember the ensuing aid offers following Hurricane Katrina? The Cold War is over, and no one really gets anything for helping America either, especially when the US is wrong.

A more cold, but still down-to-earth, point against Applebaum would be: why should Europe have to painstaking help fix something it did not cause? The US started the Iraq war and knowingly damaged its reputation for it, why should an unrelated third party swoop to unappreciated assistance?

Presumably, these are the same optimists who used to believe that a Franco-German-British diplomatic team could persuade Iran to stop conducting nuclear-weapons research. Presumably, they didn't notice that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran last week—not, perhaps, the clearest signal that he wants to make friends with bien pensants Europeans—or that French President Jacques Chirac recently declared that his views on Syria exactly matched those of his U.S. counterpart.

Isn't the cynicism she expresses in the above quote the same kind of stuff she is no-noing Europe for reporting, or, in her view, expressing and "patronizing"?

Maybe the Old Europeans will find inspiration to support and contribute further to the alliance, diplomatically and ideologically, if not militarily.

This is the point where she looses me and talks about NATO — which has basically nothing to do with Iraq.

Applebaum seems to be very supportive of alliances favouring one side, the United States, which, in her perfect world, would make the US like the rock star or popular student and Europe like the US's groupies or staunch followers. She does not make any mention of the United Nations in her article, also something to think about.

Characterizing France and German as the faces of Europe; newspaper headlines as op-ed pieces; and thinking that everyone should always come to the aid of the US while contradicting herself in her own patronizing of Europe are what makes this and the previous article of Ms. Applebaum's I critiqued lackluster insight. As I said in my last Applebaum critique:

she needs to work on her logic in the delicate sphere of international politics, governmental and regional stability, and foreign relations.

Happy holidays everyone.

technorati tags: news, politics, slate, anne+applebaum, applebaum, critique, media, news+media, in+the+news, current, iraq, north+korea, NATO, united+nations, europe, germany, france, united+states, usa, old+europe, international+relations, international, foreign+affairs, opinion, in+perspective, clearthought, article, diplomacy

What's in a name?

No matter how you spin it, Iraq is in some kind of civil war. Sectarian violence at this level, cultural fissures at the magnitude they are registering now are the backup of this claim.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it probably isn't a moose. A name is a name, a label a label, Iraq is in civil war.

With all this talk about how the media and others are describing the Iraqi infighting by using or not using "civil war", I wonder...

Lingual semantics is possibly the last thing we — or, more relevantly, the news media — should be worrying about in the present situation in Iraq, but the words "civil war", lack of, or other policy on, have become major in technical and political roles in describing the disastrous venture. Just look at the volume of news articles not on Iraqi civil war, but on the description of Iraq as "civil war". There is a plus to all this: maybe the American news media is starting to spit out some of the rhetoric the White House shoves down their throats. If only they had done that — and their jobs — before the US got involved in the Iraq war.

Maybe we should focus less on the words; more on the actual things the words describe/represent.

For more...

Oxford English Dictionary definition: "civil war" ("a war between citizens of the same country").

Princeton WordNet definition: "civil war" ("a war between factions in the same country").

Council on Foreign Relations report: Iraqi civil war (see also related links on page).

New York Times article: "Scholars agree Iraq...'civil war'".

Wikipedia entry: "Civil war in Iraq.

"Terror", "terrorism", "terrorist" are also interesting phrases used commonly [esp. in US politics]. The general definition of "terrorism" can include a variety of areas of terror, whereas the commonly used FBI version states "terrorism" as usually physical attacks not aggressed by the government (heaven forbid the US govt. would commit acts of 'terror'), and so on. Terrorism is the scare — physical or emotional — of people for political, religious, cultural (ideological, etc.) reasons, not just some extremist Islamists killing innocent people in their fight against "freedom". See here for more on the different definitions of "terrorism".

technorati tags: Iraq, civil+war, Iraq+war, war, politics, white+house, usa, united+states, news, in+perspective, clearthought, news+media, media

Warming, warming, warming...

Global warming and climate change: the inevitability, the issue, the danger, the scenario, and the crisis.

I may have missed out on analyzing the Stern Review**, but this latest climate change study is totally new to the news.

The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year.

While I think the carbon emission market set up in Europe is a brilliant idea, it has been hard to implement and there have reportedly been misunderstandings and loopholes in enforcing the principles of the project — which is like a carbon dioxide (CO2 is one of the leading greenhouse emissions) stock market. The United States is by far the number one polluter of greenhouse gasses, and shows no sign of letting up soon.

At the recent United Nations climate summit in Nairobi, a number of delegations, including those of Britain, Australia and the US, pointed out that they had managed to grow their economies without significant increases in carbon emissions.

Proof enough, or just that nasty UN getting on the righteous "freedom"-loving Americans again? Who needs stupid diplomacy? .

Coming up right behind the US is rising power China, expected to take the number one spot in a while. America has yet to show any promise, with no help to the news media (versus the near-ample coverage British media has given the scientific issue of climate change). Any time that global warming has potentially been tied to something regular people can associate with (e.g. 2005's Hurricane Katrina hitting the US gulf coast), that smidgen of credibility and sensibility is knocked off the table by the media that does talk about global warming and possible implications blowing things like hurricanes out of proportion! Therefore, you have the groups of: sensible educated people who believe in scientific climate change (that's me), those who don't believe it at all [because they are narrow-minded or otherwise], those who believe it because of the hyped version that links global warming to temporary things (unseasonably summer heat, hurricanes — yet to be proven tied to the kind of climate change we are really talking about), and those who don't believe in global warming because of the sensationalized version they get.

The United States may have left the building of realism of impending ecological disaster for now, but at least there are international consortiums — such as the IPCC (see aforelink) — working on this serious matter.

**: From 1 Nov.

Check out the latest global warming report commissioned by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the Stern Review. It shows that climate change could easily and greatly devistate the economies of the world very fast. The more we wait, the higher the economic, humanitarian, and environmental toll will be.

technorati tags: news+media, media, climate+change, ecology, environment, science, stern+review, global+warming, greenhouse, international, united+states, USA, china, UK, hurricaine, weather, katrina, un, united+nations, diplomacy, IPCC

Israel's disproportionality, defenders and friends

(Left) An explosion in Gaza, an Israeli-controlled part of the Palestinian Authority. The West Bank is Israeli-controlled and occupied by Israel, against agreements with their neighbours and the international community (e.g. the United Nations).

I believe in Israel's right to 'defend itself', but much of what it has been doing since its inception — by Zionist terrorists mind you (even the UN labels the early Zionists and some today as such) — are disproportional responses resulting in more breed terrorists (I am working on a post comparing Israeli offenses to the attempts to put out wildfires, which often result in more. It is called the Fire Paradox.). All this along with a domestic apartheid-like system with, in comparison to South Africa, Jews as whites and Arabs as blacks. Also the Western world wanted a democratically-elected government in Palestine... and they got one Hamas. You can't cherry pick everything!

Another thing is that the US press has been too friendly to Israel; almost always on the side of Israel and afraid to often make even fair criticisms (see below).
And people should not be called anti-Semitic, as I have been called, for being against much of what Israel does. Even if someone is totally against Israel (which I am not) that does not make them anti-Semitic. (I have plenty of Jewish friends, so don't attack me for being 'hypocritical' or 'anti-Semitic' for that either.) It is the same logic that Carl Rove helped use against those against the United States' hegemonic wars: you are with us or you are with the terrorists that attacked us.
On The Media transcript on how the US news media covers Israel's conflicts;
J.J. Goldberg (editor of The Forward, a liberal Jewish newspaper in New York City):

I think at the moment, the American press is attempting to be scrupulously balanced. X number of bombs here, X number of rockets there, a story about a family that suffered losses in Lebanon, a story about a family that suffered losses in Israel. But when you look at the death tolls, you have to ask why is the balance so scrupulous?

I, myself, am not totally anti-Israel; I am not totally pro-Israel either. I see many forms of [extreme] Zionism as racism... just because I am not Jewish does not mean I should be treated differently, nor should I get special treatment and nor should people of the Jewish faith.

The State of Israel is certainly not a democracy or fair government, and should not be seen as one, as long as they continue this elitist Jewish stance — treating others as second-class citizens. It does not matter what they were founded upon (Zionism of the Jewish faith), early colonial America was founded upon Puritan Christianity, but the US is not a Puritan state!

technorati tags: zionism, zionist, news+media, news, us+new+media, israel, palestine, jew, anti-semitic, on+the+media, us+press, press, lebanon, commentary, opinion, in+perspective, clearthought, gaza, west+bankCategories: israel, palestine, gaza, west, bank, commentary, news, opinion, zionism