Monday, May 30, 2005
STAR TRIBUNE EDITORIAL ON MEMORIAL DAY: "BUSH LIED"
[...] "President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.[...]
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious."
Read the whole article here.
STAR TRIBUNE HAS THE GUTS TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. UNLIKE MANY OTHERS. LET ME JUST SAY ONE THING:
BY NOT SPEAKING UP, BY BEING MEEK AND TAME AND SERVILE, BY BEING UNABLE TO CHALLENGE THE POWER WHEN NECESSARY, MOST MEDIA IN AMERICA ARE ONGOING ACCOMPLICES OF THE IRAQ DISASTER AND OF THE LOSS OF HUMAN LIVES.
DAY BY DAY, AS THEY CONTINUE TO NOT DO THEIR JOB, ENTERTAINING BUT NOT INFORMING, THEY ARE CO-RESPONSIBLE OF ANY NEW DEATH.
THE MAJORITY OF MEDIA HAVE DESECRATED THE MEANING OF MEMORIAL DAY. SHAME ON THEM.
[...] "President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.[...]
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious."
Read the whole article here.
STAR TRIBUNE HAS THE GUTS TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. UNLIKE MANY OTHERS. LET ME JUST SAY ONE THING:
BY NOT SPEAKING UP, BY BEING MEEK AND TAME AND SERVILE, BY BEING UNABLE TO CHALLENGE THE POWER WHEN NECESSARY, MOST MEDIA IN AMERICA ARE ONGOING ACCOMPLICES OF THE IRAQ DISASTER AND OF THE LOSS OF HUMAN LIVES.
DAY BY DAY, AS THEY CONTINUE TO NOT DO THEIR JOB, ENTERTAINING BUT NOT INFORMING, THEY ARE CO-RESPONSIBLE OF ANY NEW DEATH.
THE MAJORITY OF MEDIA HAVE DESECRATED THE MEANING OF MEMORIAL DAY. SHAME ON THEM.
Read the last post in Rep. John Conyers' blog. He mentions yesterday's new revelations of the Sunday Times and the fact that he has written a letter to Ronald Rumsfeld, requesting documents and files relevant to 2002 when, according to the new revelations, the bombings in Iraq were unjustifiably double the number of 2001. A clear attempt to provoke a reaction from Iraq and have an excuse for war.
Good news: it appears that the campaign for signatures to the letter to be delivered to Mr. Bush, asking for answers in relation to the Downing Street Memo, has been "overwhelming". Please sign the letter, if you haven't yet. Unlike lies, truth is the most "patriotic" item in a democracy. And the letter is a request for truth.
Good news: it appears that the campaign for signatures to the letter to be delivered to Mr. Bush, asking for answers in relation to the Downing Street Memo, has been "overwhelming". Please sign the letter, if you haven't yet. Unlike lies, truth is the most "patriotic" item in a democracy. And the letter is a request for truth.
"Great Lies of the American Free Press" by David R. Hoffman
Very interesting article, read it here.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
At a Catholic High School in Alabama
Girl banned from graduation ceremony because pregnant
Girl banned from graduation ceremony because pregnant
Read here about another a fine (and disgusting) example of Catholic "piety" and "compassion".
A high-school student, Alysha Cosby, got pregnant and because of this was banned from the graduation ceremony at her Catholic High School. The father of the child, another student at the same high-school, did not receive the same unfair treatment.
Not only does the whole story speak volumes of the lack of humanity and compassion of the Catholic directors of that school, but also of their sexist attitude (as the writer of the article pointed out) by which only the woman is punished.
But I cannot help thinking another fact: surely the banning of the pregnant girl does not convey a "pro-life" message, does it? How many girls end up having an abortion exactly in order to not suffer isolation and unfair treament from their communities?
But really I am not surprised by the behaviour of those Catholic directors. "Pious" Catholics, especially those belonging to clergy and organizations, are well known for their intolerant self-righteousness, peculiarly matched to duplicity and, often, coverups of sexual abuses.
In public they preach the "word of the Looord", "love thy neighbour" and so on. But when they should really apply humanity and compassion they don't. Do as I say, don't do as I act. Disgusting.
Read the article here.
A high-school student, Alysha Cosby, got pregnant and because of this was banned from the graduation ceremony at her Catholic High School. The father of the child, another student at the same high-school, did not receive the same unfair treatment.
Not only does the whole story speak volumes of the lack of humanity and compassion of the Catholic directors of that school, but also of their sexist attitude (as the writer of the article pointed out) by which only the woman is punished.
But I cannot help thinking another fact: surely the banning of the pregnant girl does not convey a "pro-life" message, does it? How many girls end up having an abortion exactly in order to not suffer isolation and unfair treament from their communities?
But really I am not surprised by the behaviour of those Catholic directors. "Pious" Catholics, especially those belonging to clergy and organizations, are well known for their intolerant self-righteousness, peculiarly matched to duplicity and, often, coverups of sexual abuses.
In public they preach the "word of the Looord", "love thy neighbour" and so on. But when they should really apply humanity and compassion they don't. Do as I say, don't do as I act. Disgusting.
Read the article here.
Some people are able to speak up
English MP George Galloway: "Blair and Bush are possessed of a kind of messianic belief... that someone gave them the right to step outside of international law; go anywhere, do anything, pay any price in other people's blood, to reshape the world in their image"
You can listen to the interview by clicking here.
An excerpt:
English MP George Galloway: "Blair and Bush are possessed of a kind of messianic belief... that someone gave them the right to step outside of international law; go anywhere, do anything, pay any price in other people's blood, to reshape the world in their image"
You can listen to the interview by clicking here.
An excerpt:
[Thom Hartmann] Yeah. George Galloway, Member of Parliament in the, in Great Britain, of the House of Commons. Why do you believe that Tony Blair decided to join president Bush in waging war when, as has recently emerged with this Downing Street memo, he knew that the case was flimsy, and do you think that either Blair or Bush or people in their administration should be prosecuted on any, on any level for this activity?
[George Galloway] Well, first of all I am sure that they will not be prosecuted, because it is only losers that are prosecuted. In the international system that we have there's no chance of the likes of Henry Kissinger, for example, the greatest living war criminal in the world today with the blood of millions of people in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos and Chile and East Timor or in many other places on his hands. He will never appear in a court or be behind bars. That's for the tin pot tyrants, the tiny tyrants like Milosevic; they get sent there. The big tyrants never face justice.
I wish I knew the answer to your first question, why did Tony Blair join it? Certainly, it's been utterly ruinous to his political reputation. He will, he will be followed into the history books and into the grave with this mark of Cain on his forehead. He will be remembered for nothing other than that he followed George W. Bush over a cliff; took the rest of us with them, and we haven't yet reached the bottom, I'm afraid. All I can say from my own conversations with Mr. Blair, man to man, are that I think that both him and George W. Bush are possessed of a kind of messianic belief that somebody, God perhaps, gave them the job of shouldering the white man's burden, which is the world. That someone gave them the right to step outside of international law; go anywhere, do anything, pay any price in other people's blood, to reshape the world in their image; in the image that they want to see. And I think that both men will be damned in history. Both men have made their respective countries the two most hated countries in the world. They have endangered the lives and safety of our citizens. They have damaged our economic and cultural and social interests, and they should face prosecution, but never will.
Other topics are touched in the interview. Click here to listen to the interview. Read the transcript here.
In this video you can hear George Galloway vehemently telling off the US senators while dismissing some allegations on him.
New revelations from the Sunday Times: US and UK tried to provoke Iraq into war as early as 2002 through bombing raids
New revelations have emerged through the Sunday Times that prove that USA and England started bombing raids in 2002 in Iraq with the intention of provoking a reaction and have an excuse for a large scale war.
Yet another piece of evidence, besides the number already available, including the Downing Street Memo, that proves that warmongering plans had for long existed, despite the public assertions of US and UK.
How do you call a situation in which two countries carry out secret war plans without the respective citizens knowing? I call it a conspiration.
New revelations have emerged through the Sunday Times that prove that USA and England started bombing raids in 2002 in Iraq with the intention of provoking a reaction and have an excuse for a large scale war.
Yet another piece of evidence, besides the number already available, including the Downing Street Memo, that proves that warmongering plans had for long existed, despite the public assertions of US and UK.
How do you call a situation in which two countries carry out secret war plans without the respective citizens knowing? I call it a conspiration.
Rep. John Conyers is writing a letter to Ronald Rumsfeld, calling the last revelations "a smoking bullet in the smoking gun" and asking to receive documents, minutes, computer files of the period in question, RawStory.com reports (read here the story).
From: roland tellez
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:18 PM
To: Michael Moore
Subject: another disheartened troop...
Dear Mr. Moore,
I just wanted to thank you for showing the world that some of us, while serving our country with pride, serve our current president and his administration with sadness and remorse. It is not easy to speak out against this meaningless war when you are serving on a remote tour and the only thing giving comfort to your fellow servicemen and women is the false reality that we are fighting for a great cause. This false reality that once brought comfort to my mind now injects anger, sorrow, and fear through my soul. May God forgive us all.
Roland Tellez, Sra. U.S.A.F.
That is a sad letter. It surely must be very hard for American soldiers right now, for those who understand (or are starting to understand) the lies, the deceit, the empty rhetoric of those who sent them to Iraq, to be there, doing their job with a dignity that the people in Washington, in the Bush administration, have never had and never will have.
This war has to end. And truth shall be brought to light, after so many lies. Those who lied and caused the death of thousands and thousands of people in a war that had no necessity, waged by deception, must be held accountable for all.
This war has to end. And truth shall be brought to light, after so many lies. Those who lied and caused the death of thousands and thousands of people in a war that had no necessity, waged by deception, must be held accountable for all.
A LITTLE QUIZ FOR MY READERS
I will write two quotes and you have to guess who they are by, I will give you four choices for each one.
1st quote
"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them."
WHO SAID THAT?
1. George Bush
2. Ronald Rumsfeld
3. Carl Rowe
4. Adolf Hitler
2nd quote
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
WHO SAID THAT?
1. George Bush
2. Carl Rowe
3. Hermann Goering
4. Ronald Rumsfeld
Do you think you got the answers right?
Ok, now, before giving you the answers let me express a simple consideration. In various moments in history, people in certain countries have been deceived, given misrepresentations of reality by their leaders. Often their leaders have exploited people's most irrational forces of fear, hate, revenge, in order to gain popular support to then engage hidden plans of power pursuit, death and destruction. While the process of deceit occurs, most people don't realize, often they might be intimidated. There might be signs that things don't feel quite right, but these signs might be overlooked as a consequence of blind loyalty, cowardice, or laziness.
Have you heard about the Downing Street Memo? That could be a sign not to overlook, to avoid further disasters and deceit.
And now the answers to the quiz.
The first quote was by Adolf Hitler, and the second by Hermann Goering.
Asking for truth is the most patriotic thing you can do. Sign online this letter to demand truth. Because Americans have been deceived on the Iraq war, the evidence is there.
I will write two quotes and you have to guess who they are by, I will give you four choices for each one.
1st quote
"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them."
WHO SAID THAT?
1. George Bush
2. Ronald Rumsfeld
3. Carl Rowe
4. Adolf Hitler
2nd quote
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
WHO SAID THAT?
1. George Bush
2. Carl Rowe
3. Hermann Goering
4. Ronald Rumsfeld
Do you think you got the answers right?
Ok, now, before giving you the answers let me express a simple consideration. In various moments in history, people in certain countries have been deceived, given misrepresentations of reality by their leaders. Often their leaders have exploited people's most irrational forces of fear, hate, revenge, in order to gain popular support to then engage hidden plans of power pursuit, death and destruction. While the process of deceit occurs, most people don't realize, often they might be intimidated. There might be signs that things don't feel quite right, but these signs might be overlooked as a consequence of blind loyalty, cowardice, or laziness.
Have you heard about the Downing Street Memo? That could be a sign not to overlook, to avoid further disasters and deceit.
And now the answers to the quiz.
The first quote was by Adolf Hitler, and the second by Hermann Goering.
Asking for truth is the most patriotic thing you can do. Sign online this letter to demand truth. Because Americans have been deceived on the Iraq war, the evidence is there.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
PLEASE POST THIS IN YOUR BLOG TOO, with links
SIGN ONLINE THE LETTER OF REP. JOHN CONYERS TO GEORGE BUSH TO HAVE ANSWERS ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE DOWNING STREET MEMO.
YOU CAN FIND THE LETTER HERE.
As you know the Downing Street Memo has not received proper coverage by media. They are trying to let the issue just fade away, let your voice be heard.
"A request of truth can never be wrong, while blissful ignorance and denial lead ultimately to disasters"
Joe London
SIGN ONLINE THE LETTER OF REP. JOHN CONYERS TO GEORGE BUSH TO HAVE ANSWERS ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE DOWNING STREET MEMO.
YOU CAN FIND THE LETTER HERE.
As you know the Downing Street Memo has not received proper coverage by media. They are trying to let the issue just fade away, let your voice be heard.
"A request of truth can never be wrong, while blissful ignorance and denial lead ultimately to disasters"
Joe London
When religious (and Republican) fanaticism is criminal in education
Recently DrChrist, well known orthodox Catholic zealot and nearly priest, has once again mentioned abstinence-only education in his blog, thus once again giving his personal support to an ideological policy of Mr. Geoge Bush which has proved ineffective on society scale and criminal, as it does not provide teens who are already sexually active (or those who will be) with all necessary information to protect themselves against unintended pregnancies or STDs in the best way possible.
People like DrChrist, of course, privilege blind, dull and sheepish obedience to Catholic orthodoxy, rather than facts and objective data that prove that abstinence-only education is an idiotic, merely ideological, harmful and money wasting policy. And it is a wrong policy not because abstinence in itself is not effective against unintendend pregnancies or STDs (when people are actually abstinent) but because it is a fact that not all teenagers choose to be abstinent, for reasons that have to do with the way real human beings are biologically programmed. It is simply ignorant and foolish to deny this.
For this reason, a comprehensive education, which may stress abstinence while providing complete, vital information on contraception and protection, is the best and most reasonable type of approach. An approach which would spread ignorance and ideology, nor humiliate teenagers' personality. Of course, those who want to be abstinent will continue to be abstinent, if they so wish, but at least all the others, the majority, will protect themselves properly.
Education policies should be developed on the grounds of facts and evidence, not on the grounds of theology. Christian fanatics might fail to see my point, but in doing so they are not doing a good service to the health of thousands of people.
As a refresher of facts:
From the Washington Post
Recently DrChrist, well known orthodox Catholic zealot and nearly priest, has once again mentioned abstinence-only education in his blog, thus once again giving his personal support to an ideological policy of Mr. Geoge Bush which has proved ineffective on society scale and criminal, as it does not provide teens who are already sexually active (or those who will be) with all necessary information to protect themselves against unintended pregnancies or STDs in the best way possible.
People like DrChrist, of course, privilege blind, dull and sheepish obedience to Catholic orthodoxy, rather than facts and objective data that prove that abstinence-only education is an idiotic, merely ideological, harmful and money wasting policy. And it is a wrong policy not because abstinence in itself is not effective against unintendend pregnancies or STDs (when people are actually abstinent) but because it is a fact that not all teenagers choose to be abstinent, for reasons that have to do with the way real human beings are biologically programmed. It is simply ignorant and foolish to deny this.
For this reason, a comprehensive education, which may stress abstinence while providing complete, vital information on contraception and protection, is the best and most reasonable type of approach. An approach which would spread ignorance and ideology, nor humiliate teenagers' personality. Of course, those who want to be abstinent will continue to be abstinent, if they so wish, but at least all the others, the majority, will protect themselves properly.
Education policies should be developed on the grounds of facts and evidence, not on the grounds of theology. Christian fanatics might fail to see my point, but in doing so they are not doing a good service to the health of thousands of people.
As a refresher of facts:
From the Washington Post
"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs." [Read the whole article here]
From now on, considering all the evidence available, and considering the reality of human beings (not of winged angels), it is criminal to deny vital information to teenagers, and expect that all of them are totally abstinent, when even adults, not even Catholic priests with their theology, are.
Read all my posts on this topic here.
From now on, considering all the evidence available, and considering the reality of human beings (not of winged angels), it is criminal to deny vital information to teenagers, and expect that all of them are totally abstinent, when even adults, not even Catholic priests with their theology, are.
Read all my posts on this topic here.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Interesting article: I used to be a neocon by Drew O'Neill (click here to read it)
www.afterdowningstreet.org
"The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
"About AfterDowningStreet.org:
ADS is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war."
"The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
This is, I think, much of the problem of the modern dilemma: direct experience has been discounted, and in its place all kinds of belief systems have been erected. I would prefer a kind of intellectual anarchy where whatever was pragmatically applicable was brought to bear on any situation; where belief was understood as a self-limiting function. Because, you see, if you believe something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite; which means that a degree of your human freedom has been forfeited in the act of committing yourself to this belief.
-Terrence McKenna
-Terrence McKenna
Never too late
"Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war 'with no justification'. [...]
'If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong,' he told the newspaper. 'Congress must be told the truth.' "
Read the whole article found on the Guardian here.
"Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war 'with no justification'. [...]
'If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong,' he told the newspaper. 'Congress must be told the truth.' "
Read the whole article found on the Guardian here.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY
Coalition of citizen groups seek formal inquiry into whether Bush acted illegally in push for Iraq war
Read all about it on The Raw Story (click here)
Pastor apologizes for sign
A Baptist pastor decided to apologize and take down a sign outside his church that suggested that the Muslim holy book should be put in a toilet. [...]
Although Lovelace stood his ground early in the week, saying he knew the sign would be offensive,Lovelace's statement on Wednesday said his intentions were to "exalt the Bible and its teaching."
"It was certainly not my intent to insult any people of faith, but instead to remind the people in this community of the preeminence of God's Word," he said.
"It was certainly not my intent to insult any people of faith, but instead to remind the people in this community of the preeminence of God's Word," he said.
Read the whole article on biblicalrecorder.com
*
MY COMMENT: I am not surprised. Such episodes of vulgar intolerance are the direct result of most theistic points of view, Christianity included, at their consequential worst. They all blindly believe that their religion is the truest while others are, at best, a step behind.
Let's face it: the episode of the sign of the Baptist pastor suggesting that the Muslim holy book should be put in the toilet, however extreme, is coherent with the presumption of superiority many American Christians have, which leads to idiotic intolerance, not unlike Islamic fundamentalism. Notice the words of the pastor: "exalt the Bible and its teaching", "remind [...] the preminence of God's Word".
Christianity can be a source of intolerance when it claims to possess the absolute truth exclusively. This can be seen at all levels, even in the policies of the Bush administration which is undoubtedly fundamentalistic. Bush "listens to higher fathers" to wage wars and promotes "Christian" views regarding abstinence, sexual education, same-sex marriage and so on. Think about the heinous effects religious arrogance can have on politics and civil life.
On TheRawStory: "FLASH: COALITION OF GROUPS ASK CONGRESS TO FORMALLY FILE FOR INQUIRY INTO SECRET IRAQ 'DOWNING STREET MEMO;' FIRST LEGAL STEP IN BID FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION... DEVELOPING..."
Something might be moving, finally. Hopefully. According to Bradlog, details on this should follow shortly on TheRawStory.
Something might be moving, finally. Hopefully. According to Bradlog, details on this should follow shortly on TheRawStory.
To Rep. John Conyers
Comment posted on Rep. John Conyers' blog.
Dear Mr. Conyers,
You are doing a great service to democracy by fighting for a free press which should inform instead of 'dumbing down' or entertaining.
But I see the corporate logic running the news as so tenacious and pervasive and so dangerously geared with a policy of fear and 'faith' (self-righteousness) on which the current administration capitalizes, that I am not very optimistic, even though I am not pessimistic either.
I remember that only a few weeks before the recent presidential elections the majority of American people still believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 (according to a poll). The effects produced by continuous misinformation are hard to remove: when a lie is repeated for months, a few instances of correction on paper or TV do not have the power to flush the lie away completely. A crust of misinformation remains, still able to determine attitudes and votes.
So this is how I see it. Until the situation changes (and it might not change very soon), until new necessary standards are in place, it is necessary to use imagination and people 'mobilization' to break through the curtain of silence. In this sense, your idea of sending congressmen to England is GREAT. But if the president does not reply to the letter of the 89 congressmen, and if the whole issue is not given proper coverage, one may also want to consider a peaceful march of thousands of people in Washington, that surely should get some coverage ("Day of fair news" or something like that). Because truth simply is the most precious part of a democracy, the most 'patriotic'.
The majority of people still have not heard, or understood, what the Downing Street Memo is about and they have the right to know, if democracy and truth matter.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that this administration is just letting the summer come, hoping that, after, people will bother even less to know what the Downing Street Memo is, or if there's a media problem in America.
Again, I am much grateful for your efforts. Truth in U.S. media matter to the whole world. Because we have seen that lies lead to war.
Regards,
Joe London
Dear Mr. Conyers,
You are doing a great service to democracy by fighting for a free press which should inform instead of 'dumbing down' or entertaining.
But I see the corporate logic running the news as so tenacious and pervasive and so dangerously geared with a policy of fear and 'faith' (self-righteousness) on which the current administration capitalizes, that I am not very optimistic, even though I am not pessimistic either.
I remember that only a few weeks before the recent presidential elections the majority of American people still believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 (according to a poll). The effects produced by continuous misinformation are hard to remove: when a lie is repeated for months, a few instances of correction on paper or TV do not have the power to flush the lie away completely. A crust of misinformation remains, still able to determine attitudes and votes.
So this is how I see it. Until the situation changes (and it might not change very soon), until new necessary standards are in place, it is necessary to use imagination and people 'mobilization' to break through the curtain of silence. In this sense, your idea of sending congressmen to England is GREAT. But if the president does not reply to the letter of the 89 congressmen, and if the whole issue is not given proper coverage, one may also want to consider a peaceful march of thousands of people in Washington, that surely should get some coverage ("Day of fair news" or something like that). Because truth simply is the most precious part of a democracy, the most 'patriotic'.
The majority of people still have not heard, or understood, what the Downing Street Memo is about and they have the right to know, if democracy and truth matter.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that this administration is just letting the summer come, hoping that, after, people will bother even less to know what the Downing Street Memo is, or if there's a media problem in America.
Again, I am much grateful for your efforts. Truth in U.S. media matter to the whole world. Because we have seen that lies lead to war.
Regards,
Joe London
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Obituary by Nancy Greggs:
"In Memoriam: the Television News Media (1950 - 2005)"
on DemocraticUnderground.com.
"In Memoriam: the Television News Media (1950 - 2005)"
on DemocraticUnderground.com.
What type of freedom of the press in the U.S.A.?
In these days an important Forum for Media Bias and the Freedom of the Press, hosted by U.S. Congress Representative John Conyers is taking place in Washington.
If you live in the U.S., which George Bush claims to be an example of democracy to be exported to other countries, you may think your are given all the news that you have the right to know about.
Wrong.
Listen to Randi Rhodes's testimony (click here) and you will have an idea of what's going on in the U.S. when it comes to freedom of the press.
Amongst the many things she mentions, the fact that USA has been ranked 29th in the world in freedom of the press (sources: Freedom House). She also said:
"The dumbing down of America is by design. The less people know, the happier this administration and its loyalists are."
In these days an important Forum for Media Bias and the Freedom of the Press, hosted by U.S. Congress Representative John Conyers is taking place in Washington.
If you live in the U.S., which George Bush claims to be an example of democracy to be exported to other countries, you may think your are given all the news that you have the right to know about.
Wrong.
Listen to Randi Rhodes's testimony (click here) and you will have an idea of what's going on in the U.S. when it comes to freedom of the press.
Amongst the many things she mentions, the fact that USA has been ranked 29th in the world in freedom of the press (sources: Freedom House). She also said:
"The dumbing down of America is by design. The less people know, the happier this administration and its loyalists are."
"So what is really going on? It's certainly not good business. Corporate news has become propaganda, and it's propaganda for a Republican majority today, a Republican majority tomorrow, and a Republican majority forever."
"Where are the voices of our soldiers and where are the pictures?"
Read more on the Forum for Media Bias in BradBlog here and here (other testimonies can be heard in this second link).
So maybe you can start to understand why you may have not heard about the Downing Street Memo?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Bush's propaganda machine and its effects on the news
Blogger Oklahoma Hippy writes:"The Propaganda Machine is the reason that most Americans have never heard of the Downing Street Memo, but they all know who Scott Peterson is. They know who the runaway bride is. They are kept distracted with American Idol and Michael Jackson's trial."
Blogger Oklahoma Hippy writes:"The Propaganda Machine is the reason that most Americans have never heard of the Downing Street Memo, but they all know who Scott Peterson is. They know who the runaway bride is. They are kept distracted with American Idol and Michael Jackson's trial."
Fortunately some people maintain clarity of mind, purpose and civil ethics, one of this is Representative John Conyers, Jr. who released today a statement regarding a Congressional Research Service analysis which shows that media have turned away from news of national importance to cover news of mere sensation (found on newswriter.us). This is an excerpt:
“Over the past decade, many have expressed concern that news coverage of significant events has been supplanted by coverage of entertaining or sensational events that have a minimal impact of the lives of hardworking Americans. Today, I discovered that this is true-a congressional study that I am releasing shows that the mainstream media has been more interested in stories about Michael Jackson’s trial, the Scott Peterson trial, and the “runaway bride” than it has been in covering the Downing Street memo-the memo casting significant doubt on several of the Administration’s pre-war assertions and raising questions about whether the American people and the Congress were misled in the lead up to the Iraq war."
[...] It is a sad day when the media-our watchdogs and guardians of free speech-find it more “newsworthy” to report on Michael Jackson and the “runaway bride” than the possibility that Americans were deceived in the lead up to the Iraq War. It’s time we get our priorities back in order.” Read it all here.
Letter to the public editor of the New York Times
To Mr. Byron E. Calame
Public Editor
New York Times
public@nytimes.com
Subject: Do the media revere the president more than truth?
Dear Mr. Calame,
I appreciated your looking on the coverage of the "Downing Street Memo".
However, despite the articles of Douglas Jehl and Paul Krugman, there persists a strong impression of a general downplay of the news regarding what you aptly defined the undisputed "minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue". A downplay that appears incomprehensible in the light of the gravity of those minutes.
Those minutes suggest that Mr. Bush was not "misled" by poor intelligence, rather he encouraged the creation of misleading intelligence in order to carry out war plans he had had in his mind for long time. A secret war timetable had been decided already while public statements denied that.
The minutes also suggest that there was awareness that Iraq was not a danger compared to other nations, while everyone was publicly using apocalyptic words regarding Saddam Hussein (the New York Times, too, contributed to echo the "virtual reality" on Iraq created by the Bush administration, for which the NYT has notably expressed a "mea culpa").
In sum, what the Downing Street Memo suggests is that the Iraq war was made possible by mendacity and deceit, not by the unfortunate and unintentional use of poor intelligence.
Now, is the coverage by U.S. media and the NYT proportionate to the gravity of all the above? Or proportionate to the outrage of the too few people that have had the chance of being informed (often by foreign papers!)? I think not at all.
I am sorry, but I have to note that The New York Times is behaving consistently with the pre-war errors: they have not verified Bush assertions then, and in this case, too, they don't appear to actively and energetically work to let truth emerge clearly and be known by people.
Mind you, I am not talking about "censorship" in absolute terms. I am talking about a downplay of news which surely makes the Whitehouse happier than those who care for truth. At least this is the impression.
Are the media scared to draw the ultimate unpleasant conclusions? Are they scared to mention the possibility that a president, this president, might have lied and deceived intentionally? When did this unreasonable reverence start?
Is this what we shall expect from the media nowadays? A sure massive coverage of any sex scandal available, and a substantial silence on the most devastating issues that regard the ethics of the administration running a country?
Thank you very much for your attention,
My best regards,
Joe London
[links added, in this blog version of the letter]
To Mr. Byron E. Calame
Public Editor
New York Times
public@nytimes.com
Subject: Do the media revere the president more than truth?
Dear Mr. Calame,
I appreciated your looking on the coverage of the "Downing Street Memo".
However, despite the articles of Douglas Jehl and Paul Krugman, there persists a strong impression of a general downplay of the news regarding what you aptly defined the undisputed "minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue". A downplay that appears incomprehensible in the light of the gravity of those minutes.
Those minutes suggest that Mr. Bush was not "misled" by poor intelligence, rather he encouraged the creation of misleading intelligence in order to carry out war plans he had had in his mind for long time. A secret war timetable had been decided already while public statements denied that.
The minutes also suggest that there was awareness that Iraq was not a danger compared to other nations, while everyone was publicly using apocalyptic words regarding Saddam Hussein (the New York Times, too, contributed to echo the "virtual reality" on Iraq created by the Bush administration, for which the NYT has notably expressed a "mea culpa").
In sum, what the Downing Street Memo suggests is that the Iraq war was made possible by mendacity and deceit, not by the unfortunate and unintentional use of poor intelligence.
Now, is the coverage by U.S. media and the NYT proportionate to the gravity of all the above? Or proportionate to the outrage of the too few people that have had the chance of being informed (often by foreign papers!)? I think not at all.
I am sorry, but I have to note that The New York Times is behaving consistently with the pre-war errors: they have not verified Bush assertions then, and in this case, too, they don't appear to actively and energetically work to let truth emerge clearly and be known by people.
Mind you, I am not talking about "censorship" in absolute terms. I am talking about a downplay of news which surely makes the Whitehouse happier than those who care for truth. At least this is the impression.
Are the media scared to draw the ultimate unpleasant conclusions? Are they scared to mention the possibility that a president, this president, might have lied and deceived intentionally? When did this unreasonable reverence start?
Is this what we shall expect from the media nowadays? A sure massive coverage of any sex scandal available, and a substantial silence on the most devastating issues that regard the ethics of the administration running a country?
Thank you very much for your attention,
My best regards,
Joe London
[links added, in this blog version of the letter]
Monday, May 23, 2005
"Why is it that I have not heard about this?"
In these days, when I write about the Downing Street memo, very frequently I hear the following remark from American people: "Why is it that I have not heard about this on the media?"
These questions should be posed, and attempts of answers should be made if one cares about the democracy in a country that claims to be so so full of it (democracy, that is) that it should export it to other countries.
U.S. media appear to be in a state of torpor. Meek, tame, complacent, knee-trembling, timid. Borrowing from a George Carlin's expression there seem to be a process of "pussification" of U.S. media. But as sad and disturbing as this might sound, the more appropriate expression might be another. America in now under a form of disguised oligarchic regime.
The combined effect of unconditional support typical of religious people (Bush's flaunted religious "piety" is not coincidental) which becomes blind partisanship, fear cleverly fueled, enormous interests of the military-economical machine behind the Bush administration, delusions of grandeur, fanatic neocon crave after global power (ever heard about PNAC? Check who's behind and what they think) and unprecedented control over media (particularly TV on which most rely), all have created conditions in which the Bush admistration can act nearly unchallenged.
But when, like in the case of the Downing Street memo, you have evidence that the Bush administration has shamefully lied and deceived, thus betraying the mandate given by people, and media fail to give coverage proportionate to the gravity of this, one can justifiably think the situation resembles that of an oligarchic regime, subtly and "modernly" enforced, yet still an oligarchy, where power is used to maintain and consolidate itself and pursue hidden objectives, using any means available, intimidation, lies, deceit, conspiracy, bending facts and evidence. It is a sad and disturbing conclusion, but facts are not always pretty.
FAIR.org (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has pointed out how the coverage of the Downing Street memo has been downplayed (read here). Main newspapers (The NYT and the Washington Post) have resumed the topic only after thousands of people have sent enraged emails, asking for coverage, but as of now I have not heard of any front page article. But does it sound normal that newspapers should cover news of absolute gravity only when readers complain? And why is it that readers are nearly forced to have absolutely unimportant, or not so important, news shoved down their throats (regarding Janet Jackson's tits and whatnot) while news fundamental for a democracy are hardly given?
Isn't it about time that media stop this infotainment crap (especially on TV) and start working seriously? Why is it that American people should refer to foreign newspapers to read real news?
The situation in the U.S. has become so unbelievably surreal that when one wants to hear real news, one should watch Comedy Central (remember John Stewart at Crossfire? "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America" he said to journalists Paul Bengala and Tucker Carlson, meaning that journalism in America is too compliant with politicians and corporations).
Sorry, but I really think something is rotten in the realm of American media, which means, I am afraid, the same can be said of American democracy. It's an oligarchic regime. And the sooner all American people realise that (I know many do already), and start demanding things that are normal for a democracy, truth for example (the most "patriotic" item ever), the better the whole world will be.
Write to newspapers and demand coverage, write to politicians, write in your blogs, talk to your neighbours, get informed, do not content yourself with what is (not) presented on TV and on U.S. newspapers.
In these days, when I write about the Downing Street memo, very frequently I hear the following remark from American people: "Why is it that I have not heard about this on the media?"
These questions should be posed, and attempts of answers should be made if one cares about the democracy in a country that claims to be so so full of it (democracy, that is) that it should export it to other countries.
U.S. media appear to be in a state of torpor. Meek, tame, complacent, knee-trembling, timid. Borrowing from a George Carlin's expression there seem to be a process of "pussification" of U.S. media. But as sad and disturbing as this might sound, the more appropriate expression might be another. America in now under a form of disguised oligarchic regime.
The combined effect of unconditional support typical of religious people (Bush's flaunted religious "piety" is not coincidental) which becomes blind partisanship, fear cleverly fueled, enormous interests of the military-economical machine behind the Bush administration, delusions of grandeur, fanatic neocon crave after global power (ever heard about PNAC? Check who's behind and what they think) and unprecedented control over media (particularly TV on which most rely), all have created conditions in which the Bush admistration can act nearly unchallenged.
But when, like in the case of the Downing Street memo, you have evidence that the Bush administration has shamefully lied and deceived, thus betraying the mandate given by people, and media fail to give coverage proportionate to the gravity of this, one can justifiably think the situation resembles that of an oligarchic regime, subtly and "modernly" enforced, yet still an oligarchy, where power is used to maintain and consolidate itself and pursue hidden objectives, using any means available, intimidation, lies, deceit, conspiracy, bending facts and evidence. It is a sad and disturbing conclusion, but facts are not always pretty.
FAIR.org (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has pointed out how the coverage of the Downing Street memo has been downplayed (read here). Main newspapers (The NYT and the Washington Post) have resumed the topic only after thousands of people have sent enraged emails, asking for coverage, but as of now I have not heard of any front page article. But does it sound normal that newspapers should cover news of absolute gravity only when readers complain? And why is it that readers are nearly forced to have absolutely unimportant, or not so important, news shoved down their throats (regarding Janet Jackson's tits and whatnot) while news fundamental for a democracy are hardly given?
Isn't it about time that media stop this infotainment crap (especially on TV) and start working seriously? Why is it that American people should refer to foreign newspapers to read real news?
The situation in the U.S. has become so unbelievably surreal that when one wants to hear real news, one should watch Comedy Central (remember John Stewart at Crossfire? "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America" he said to journalists Paul Bengala and Tucker Carlson, meaning that journalism in America is too compliant with politicians and corporations).
Sorry, but I really think something is rotten in the realm of American media, which means, I am afraid, the same can be said of American democracy. It's an oligarchic regime. And the sooner all American people realise that (I know many do already), and start demanding things that are normal for a democracy, truth for example (the most "patriotic" item ever), the better the whole world will be.
Write to newspapers and demand coverage, write to politicians, write in your blogs, talk to your neighbours, get informed, do not content yourself with what is (not) presented on TV and on U.S. newspapers.
[The sheep picture is by NEFF and was found in the Web, I overlapped a still image (also found in the Web) of a video of George Bush giving the finger. That giving the finger acquires more and more meaning every day. I see it as a finger to people and democracy.]
News originally found in bradblog.com
Read the text of the testimony of British MP George Galloway in front of the U.S. Congressional Committee investigating on the "Oil for food scandal". This text appears to have been "inexplicably" removed from the U.S. Government Web site, but can still be read via The Times of London.
On May 17th, MP George Galloway had the guts to speak up in front of the U.S. Congressional Committee, delivering the truth, however unpleasant. "Not since attorney Joseph Welch confronted the soon-to-fall Anti-Communist Crusader/Idealogue, Joseph McCarthy in 1954 with his now famous "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" testimony can we recall such a direct shaming of a Congressional Committee" writes Bradblog.com.
You can watch the whole video here (via BBC).
An excerpt:
You can watch the whole video here (via BBC).
An excerpt:
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his."
Here is another excerpt, the full text can be read here:
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
*
I have read through some comments in a dailykos.com thread and many American people were impressed and grateful because Galloway had openly spoken the truth. Several have hoped that the US had more politicians like Galloway. But the feeling I got from the comments was also that of a longing, a longing for truth, for real democracy, for real information, and this is sad, because truth, democracy, real information is what Americans should have. Last time I checked the speech of Galloway was the only one not available at the Senate's Web site. Removed. How's that for a country which claims to be an example of democracy and freedom?
Blips #19 - From The Martian Desk by Gilles d'Aymery
Think Again: Lost in Translation
by Eric Alterman
May 19, 2005
While the U.S. media has been obsessing about Newsweek, “the nuclear option,” and Michael Jackson’s masturbatory habits, for the past two weeks, their UK counterparts have been up in arms over the so-called “Downing Street memo,” a leaked secret document that consists of the minutes of a meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s senior national security team. The memo shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that the American and British governments had decided to invade Iraq in early 2002 – while lying to the public about their true intentions. Despite the flap in Britain, however, we’ve barely heard a squeak about this smoking gun on this side of the Atlantic.
[Read the whole article here]
LACK OF COVERAGE OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMO: DECLINE OF U.S. DEMOCRACY AND ACCEPTANCE OF IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY?
"Delayed for two weeks after first reported and buried in the back pages of most major U.S. newspapers is the blockbuster story that key players in the British government believed the case for the invasion of Iraq was “thin” and that the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence to provide a rationale for an aggressive U.S. policy. In contrast, a merely symbolic and exhortative visit to Iraq by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is headline news in the same papers. The media coverage of those two stories—in inverse proportion to their importance—is a symptom of the decline of the republic and the ascension of the imperial presidency."
(Ivan Eland, read the whole article here).
(Ivan Eland, read the whole article here).
"This is a Peter Pan administration"
Very insightful post by blogger Mark Anderson. This is only an excerpt:
"[...] There is an anti-lie, anti-failure bias in the press, timid as they are. Living with the consequences of your actions is called being an adult. This is a Peter Pan administration and the MSM is flying right after them into Never Never Land. Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News are a tagteam Tinkerbell.
When the White House attacks the media you may safely assume that the faith-based shadow that allows Peter Pan to fly is coming undone.
What is new about our current media environment is the overwhelming dominance of Media players whose career is built on excommunicating anyone who even timidly suggests that Never Never Land is not on the planet Earth."
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Media coverage on the "Memogate" is slowly but inexorably pulling off: U.S. Congressmen will send investigators to probe Blair on the Downing Street Memo
The "memogate" scandal raises
"serious questions on abuse of power"
and conspiracy.
After a shameful silence on U.S. media, it appears that the Downing Street Memo scandal is slowly, but inexorably, finding its way on newspapers. Articles have appeared in the last few days on the NYT and on the Washington Post, as well as in various others newspapers, although not yet with the stress they should have, considering the gravity of the facts involved.
Much of this belated reaction (the secret memo leaked on May 1st) is due to the enraged reaction of thousands of U.S, citizens who sent thousands of indignated emails to newspapers, complaining for the pavid downplay of the scandal by the media. This confirms the importance of people acting and reacting, using simple but effective ways available.
But much of this growing surge of attention is also due to the efforts of Democrats. A group of 89 Democrats wrote a letter to Mr. Bush to ask whether the memo was accurate. The Bush administration has tried to shrug it off. However Democrats are insisting on requiring answers on a scandal that can, by all means, be defined as a smoking gun of conspiracy perpetrated by the Bush administration. In fact, it appears - with evidence greater than ever on the leaked secret memo - that George Bush intentionally manipulated facts and intelligence so that could fit his intention of starting a war on Iraq.
Now it seems that U.S. Congressmen are considering sending some investigators to probe Blair directly, as the Sunday Times reports today (read here).
Congressman John Conyers, who drafted the letter to Mr. Bush has said the memo raised “very serious questions about an abuse of power , . . it is a very serious constitutional matter”. [...]
“There are members saying that if they knew then what they know now they wouldn’t have given him those powers (to wage war),” Conyers said.
On the downplay of the memo scandal on U.S. media, John Coyers stated “I deplore the fact that our media have been so reticent on the question of whether there was a secret planning of a war for which neither the Congress nor the American people had given permission”.
John Conyers will host a Forum concerning the state of the freedom of the press in the US (read here).
Read today's article of the Sunday Times here.
United States Representative John Conyers Jr., a democrat from Detroit, keeps track of new stories regarding the Downing Street memo in his blog.
In Conyers' blog I found a comment by Dr. Alan H. Levinson interesting. An excerpt:
"[...] PLEASE, PLEASE, excuse my language. I never intend to be insulting by word or action, but in my ire and immaturity, I would like to address the media as PUSSIES. In my dictionary, this word has nothing to do with cats, or genetalia...but much to do with cowardice, weakness, fearfullness, spinelessness, powerlessness, helplessness, browbeaten, demoralized weak-kneed, wimpy, disappointing, malfunctioning, failing, disregarding, discounting, ignoring, trembling, cringing......my fingers are getting tired!! I wonder what they see when they look in the mirror. Does Wolf Blitzer hold himself proudly? If I was him, or any of the other slaves to this monstrosity of an administration, I would wipe the drool off my chin, shave the hair coming out of my ears, and find my favorite warm cave where I could listen to water drop from the ceiling.
I hope you get the point. I will try to make it clear to them with my next barrage of letters and phone calls."
I could not agree more.
In Conyers' blog I found a comment by Dr. Alan H. Levinson interesting. An excerpt:
"[...] PLEASE, PLEASE, excuse my language. I never intend to be insulting by word or action, but in my ire and immaturity, I would like to address the media as PUSSIES. In my dictionary, this word has nothing to do with cats, or genetalia...but much to do with cowardice, weakness, fearfullness, spinelessness, powerlessness, helplessness, browbeaten, demoralized weak-kneed, wimpy, disappointing, malfunctioning, failing, disregarding, discounting, ignoring, trembling, cringing......my fingers are getting tired!! I wonder what they see when they look in the mirror. Does Wolf Blitzer hold himself proudly? If I was him, or any of the other slaves to this monstrosity of an administration, I would wipe the drool off my chin, shave the hair coming out of my ears, and find my favorite warm cave where I could listen to water drop from the ceiling.
I hope you get the point. I will try to make it clear to them with my next barrage of letters and phone calls."
I could not agree more.
