Mainstream Media Commercial

4 questions the media needs to start asking

Why Iraq?

First a shout out to Greenspan's loose lips, without them journalists would have continued their indefensible silence on the giant turd in the room namely our manifest energy interests in the cradle of civilization. Even with big Al's feeble back-peddling his initial candor should be acknowledged. However, oil isn't the only reason we chose to unseat Saddam. The answer to "Why Iraq" is a confluence of factors. Greed. Ignorance. Racism. Oh, how people squirm when someone utters the "R" word. But I submit for your consideration: Would we have as quickly invaded a white, Christian nation? Or would we allow over 1 million European civilians die during an American military occupation? Be it Korea, Vietnam, Panama or Nicaragua, the current war is just an extension of an egregiously racist foreign policy. We feel Western lives hold more value than everyone else. And this approach has more than once doublebacked and hit us where the good Lord split us.

What is the best way to end the occupation?

If you only listen to the two options presented by the mainstream media it looks like we're jolly well fucked. We've got two choices: 1) stay in Iraq until the second coming of Christ or 2) leave Iraq and watch the inevitable genocide ensue. What we need to do is make friends with the neighboring countries like Syria and Iran, who are creeps to be sure, but has that ever stopped us before? Suharto of Indonesia was an unsavory character and we supplied him with arms, or Davalier of Haiti wasn't exactly a saint but we spirited him away to France when the peasants came for his head. These men were the worst our species can offer who so happened to be BFFs with our country. So why not recruit Ahmadinejad and al-Assad? They're willing to lend a helping hand. Think about it, none of the surrounding states want to see a renegade Iraq next door endangering their stability. If there's any trepidation to whether or not we can trust Ahmadinejad, the head of the I.A.E.A., Mohamed ElBaradei, came out as a closeted freedom hater by stating the obvious, that there's no evidence supporting a "weaponized" Iranian nuclear program. But what does he know, he only heads the International Atomic Energy Agency. He doesn't realize diplomacy is for wimps, momma's boys and the French.

What is the best way of defending ourselves?

Thanks to the imprudent policies of Reagan and every president thereafter militant Islamists rose from the margins of Arab society into an influential sect. Legitimized as a defense against American imposition, our incessant bullying makes bin Laden's message attractive to antagonized, young Muslims. That's why we need to kiss our military palaces goodbye and exit Iraq immediately. This threat cannot be confronted with a bludgeon, we need to implement laser-like delicacy with police, not military, tactics, punish those who attacked us, not non-combatants. With our spying technology - which can be used lawfully under third party supervision - soft targets could be secured, and the criminals apprehended. The only person I know of on T.V. who's saying any of this is my president, Mike Gravel. He even broke the taboo and called for a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Which is smart because what do people like bin Laden say in every third video they release? Free Palestine. Holocaust denial is energized by the conflict as well. If there were to be a tenable, two-state solution extremists around the world would lose a lot of their purchase.

Can America really do that?

American Exceptionalism. This one is untouchable. Ironically, most of our entanglements could be avoided if the press applied this question more often. Fact - America is just another country like Estonian. We shouldn't be granted entitlements on an international level just because we're a graceless giant. Does the U.S. have the right to demand a military base in Turkey or Russia? No! Can we dictate who should or shouldn't have the bomb? No! Should we be able to violate a nation's sovereignty? No! A little humility goes a long way. While the car bombs we detonate, the democratically elected leaders we depose and the ethnic cleansing we support may go unnoticed or is readily forgotten by us, the victims left in our wake are rarely as forgiving as we are to ourselves.

"Neocon" is the new "Liberal"

A while back I was reading a blog entry (I forget exactly where) which called for the labeling of neocons as "regressives". I thought that was pretty slick. In the immortal words of a great President: "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."

In the early seventies a bunch of crafty old men began meeting in dark rooms, their fear flowed from the previous decade of hippy love and mutual cooperation which meant American business was under attack. In order to swing the pendulum of popular opinion back in these old codgers' direction they needed to enunciate the goodness of corporations through a tide of propaganda. This tactic rested upon the demonization of a political philosophy, liberalism, and the adoption of the hitherto shunted idea of neoconservatism. It is difficult to comprehend what variety of mountain these men needed to scale. Liberal politics was the prevalent view at the time, it was the word "conservative" which carried the stench of disgrace. But like all capable propagandists, they had money. Enough money to found their own think tanks, and so disinformation collectives such as The Heritage Foundation, Accuracy in the Media, the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture sprung from the void. They told the "capitalist story" and handed out booklets to Republican Presidents with talking points. Reagan became the realization of neoconservatism, the religious right and "free market" mentality (I would go so far as say "free market morality"). You can find a remarkably well-written essay on the decent of liberalism here.

Neoconservatism was popularized simply to aid American corporations, what's more elitist than that? To smash workers' rights, deregulate environmental restrictions and militarize our culture, this is the origin of the culture wars. Meaningless, polarizing issues such as gay marriage to divert attention from the thievery happening in plain sight. This wealth of deception lead to a "Happy Meal" mindset amongst consumers. It's about the quick fix of sugar and starch followed by a minor prize at the end, something cloying and disposal to temporarily take our minds off how miserable we feel. It breaks, we cry and the cycle begins anew. Instead of buying what you need with business and government placed at a comfortable distance from the other the two have become nearly indistinguishable. The result is calamitous, a niche society of selfish toddlers. Perhaps that's why religion is so important or maybe that's why we act offended by sex but privately giggle at Britney Spears' naughty parts. Where are the risk takers? In Venezuela, people are protesting over a television station - the government is reading our ecards! Where's our march on Washington? Why are we not packing the jails as a conspicuous demonstration of our discontent - Thoreau-style? I am as guilty as the next guy for this complacency. The revolution can always come tomorrow, we think, but today I've got a pilates class.

But as the tried and true cliche goes, the pendulum will swing the other way, and it seems the neocons are strangling themselves with the very leash they fought so hard to control. Progress is slow and it takes a true superman to overcome the trappings of his or her culture. However, I believe "neocon" is turning out to be the next "liberal". It isn't the result of any propaganda mills or dark room planning, it's due to bombast, the kind which allows the gross national happiness to plummet while the super rich get richer. Nobody's investing in Republican campaigns. There's no viable mainstream Republican candidates and the "big tent" can't rival the diversity and charm of the other side. Hopefully, I'm seeing the growing pains of a nation ready to become an adult.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION: "How Modern Liberals Think"

Evan Sayet speaks about the mind of the "modern Liberal" in which he explores what he views as the moral waffling of progressive thinkers. He goes as far as to say that Liberals (to him the Democrats set the limits of the American left) are perpetually wrong and their positions against Israel, bloody preemptive strikes, Corporate exploitation and dehumanization are evil.

This video made me angry, and I can't respond to the entire lecture right now, but I'd love to hear some of your responses.

Independent Media in a time of war

Vocal polemicist and host of Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman, discusses the way American reporting has degenerated into something identical to State-sponsored media. We're not just talking about Fox News either. Some of the most venerable news outlets, such as CNN, is placed under Goodman's microscope, and it's tragic to find how lop-sided toward the military American coverage is. A highlight from the short, 30-minute documentary is Amy's suggestion that 24-hour networks invite doctors along with retired Generals onto their evening "newscasts" to inform people of how the recently-deployed bombs the General talked about in the previous segment effects the human targets on the ground.

A major theme presented in the film is the power of images. For a deeper analysis on the topic the ever-illuminating Susan Sontag wrote an exquisite book entitled Regarding the Pain of Others and is well worth your time.