Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Pentagon's Runaway Budget; The end of newspapers


The Pentagon's Runaway Budget By Carl Conetta


"Taking the new budget into account, the Defense Department has been granted about $7.2 trillion since 1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending ended."


Does the word "obscene" come to mind?

The End of Newspapers By Marie Benilde

"The transfer of advertising from newspapers to the net is often blamed, but the public has also become disillusioned with the content supplied by a journalistic elite that has lost credibility: newspapers are seen as politically biased, following the crowd, and uninterested in the needs of their readers."


Marie has this right.

Bring on the long overdue "new breed of editors"!


Bill

Monday, March 8, 2010

Calling All Rebels


Calling All Rebels By Chris Hedges

Ends with:

"Those who do not rebel in our age of totalitarian capitalism and who convince themselves that there is no alternative to collaboration are complicit in their own enslavement. They commit spiritual and moral suicide."


Chris Hedges is an excellent thinker/writer, and this compelling piece is certainly one of his best. The trouble is the picture it paints.

I still hold out hope because I see one possibility (and one only!), that we can somehow remove money from the political system (using the Internet) and thus elect representatives who do represent us. I still trust the "average American" to, on balance, do the right thing and select/elect our best people. I know they are out there, but I also know they have no power whatsoever. This is the problem and this is what we need to reverse, and we should waste no time doing it.

Maybe it's just me, but it's very clear how the Internet can be used for a voting system, and since I'm a programmer, how it can be done with enough security and integrity as to make it trustworthy. Why, I ask, isn't there a movement to do this? Where is M.I.T's design?

What makes Chris's piece so very scary is the scope of the problem.

For too many years now, I have been focused on what I saw as the Big 3 protagonists: Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, and Israel as being responsible for America's precipitous decline in almost every respect (freedom of speech being one of the remaining goodnesses). But I argued, essentially, that power in the hands of these organizations was very bad for America and we needed to do something about it.

Then, when we invaded the Middle East, it was no longer much of an argument. The dice were rolled and our farm was bet. Heretofore, the argument was that we might bet the farm, but now we had.

Of course, there are those who believe it's not that serious. People watch Fox "news" would never get this impression. But it's true. We did bet the farm on their crusade to establish military authority in the Middle East. We don't see it this way, because the "news" doesn't see it this way, but if you have any common sense left, you'll see that they have absolutely no intention of removing our military from the Middle East. Shifting it to Afghanistant - which everyone knows is impossible to conquer - but it serves as a convenient holding location for all those troops, who will be needed once the next phase of their crusade cuts in. They can't bring the troops home and disarm them, because they know they'll never get another shot at such a crusade again. That, another invasion, will not be tolerated, even by sheep.

So the troops are there, being moved around, but they are still there and - I fear - soon to become engaged in yet another campaign in the area, to keep the engine going until all the "terrorists" (anyone who opposes their authority) are dead. That's a lot of killing. But to people who truly believe the ends justify the means, it's a small price and well worth it.

Someone close to me recently pointed out that the Iraq's have their election and it's all evidence of the democracy we instituted in Iraq, and therefore how, in the end, we ultimately did the right thing. You don't have to play with words too much before you can see the sameness of "ends justify the means" and "ultimately did the right thing". One wording or the other denotes a fundamental attitude, that what we do along the way, as long as we get "there".

It's the kind of attitude that says there is no God, no purpose for our existence, no use to be good for it's own sake, no need for justice, no such thing as love, ...

Those afflicted with this attitude share much in common with their twain. Both enjoy music, travel, food, and those with the most money can indulge in the finest products mankind can create. They can have you send them your children to do the killing and dying, and they can pull more money right out of your pocket for their causes in a number of ways, all legal. Wars of conquest can be launched. All these things can happen so long as there are people to put together words and videos that tell people every day how right they are. Watch Fox "News" (or any of major news reporters) to see how it works.

We can fix this problem, hopefully before it's too late, by replacing those in power with people who believe the opposite: that the means justifies the ends.

One solution is to use the Internet to reinvent the election process. At last we can have gov't of/by/for the people, as our common hero Lincoln so eloquently said at Gettysburg, and it's actually within our reach, if we want it.

Of course, as the argument against goes, people need to be educated to make the best choice. But do people need to be educated before instituting such a system? No. We can err on the side of getting this job done, and we can trust that it will self-correct over time. Certainly the majority of Americans do not believe the ends justify the means (to put the whole wrong-headed philosophy I'm so against into a single perspective) and would replace all of it's practitioners given the chance.

America is in decline. Instead of staying the terrible course we're on, we can literally switch tracks. The world awaits and will support us. And regaining the world's respect is the best way to reduce, if not remove, the threat of terrorism using the terrible weapons that exist today. There are too many people quite willing to carry any weapon at all into battle, anywhere, and with the fevor of the zealot, knowing he/she is a hero to others. We cannot live under this threat, it's killing us.

We cannot kill all of the people who hate us. It's impossible. The more we kill, the more hate us. And how many people does it take to deliver a terrible weapon? I wouldn't digress into the meaning of terrible weapon, you can read all day about them using Google. They are real and they are terrible in every sense of the word.

With people who represent us and mankind at the helm, we can do wonderful things, such as replacing the TV with the Internet, and let a new breed of editors help guide us through the mass of channels it makes available. We can use our machines to feed and otherwise benefit everyone on the planet, and then we can reach for the stars. There are plenty of challenges out there to keep us busy. Compare this world to the one on a mission to establish authority in the Middle East, and ask yourself which road you want to be on.


Bill

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Time for a U.S. Revolution – Fifteen Reasons


Time for a U.S. Revolution – Fifteen Reasons by Bill Quigley

"The 1776 Declaration of Independence stated that when a long train of abuses by those in power evidence a design to reduce the rights of people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the peoples right, in fact their duty to engage in a revolution."


A Wrench in the Israeli Gears By Alison Weir

Alison Weir's account is powerful and disturbing, because there is never a word of any of this in the "news". If this article isn't detailed enough, see this website for considerable more details on this elephant in the American living room.

Mullen Wary of Israeli Attack on Iran by Ray McGovern

"Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came home with sweaty palms from his mid-February visit to Israel. He has been worrying aloud that Israel will mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran."


I've been watching this situation (Israel's power in America) for years now, and it's taken it's toll mostly because I find it so hard to accept that people are only concerned about what the "news" says is important. It's like there are 2 different worlds, the one portrayed by the "news" and the real world.

Something different going on these days is that I'm seeing larger numbers of reader feedback posts which are very negative towards Israel, and there is a sense of real anger in their tone. There was a time, and not long ago, when someone speaking out like this had little support and pretty much stood alone (myself included). Now it seems like people are really getting pissed off - as well they should. What I think I'm seeing is the scales of justice moving slowly to coming around.



Bill

Thursday, March 4, 2010

A look at some Big Picture stories


Many Voices Calling for War with Iran by Philip Giraldi

"Wanting to go to war with Iran has created some very strange bedfellows. Leading neoconservative Daniel Pipes’ assertion that President Barack Obama can salvage his presidency and get reelected by attacking Iran is about as low as it gets, suggesting as it does that an act of war can and should serve as a diversion from a failed domestic agenda. The soldiers and civilians who would inevitably die in such a conflict might not agree with Pipes that all is fair in politics. They would no doubt consider themselves betrayed and manipulated by a venal and disconnected political leadership, but no matter. It would not be a first time a neocon would consider a non-neocon casualty little more than a disagreeable statistic."



New issues push Iraq off radar for Obama, press By Joseph Curl

"Despite persistent violence and a critical election coming up, President Obama hardly ever mentions the war in Iraq - where more 110,000 U.S. troops remain - and leading American news outlets have drastically scaled back coverage of the conflict, moving on to domestic issues such as health care and the troubled economy."


You'd have to look really hard through history to find a better example of manipulation by a "news" propaganda machine then this. First it got in front of unleashing the invasion of Iraq, and now it's in front of it's retreat from prominence.

No doubt they consider themselves masterful in the art of deception, but anyone with half a brain and Internet access can readily see what's happened. If there were a case that illustrates collusion among the handful at the top of the broad-strokes editorial control center who gets to define and frame the issues that matter to us, this is right up there at the top.

Nowadays we read a lot about the flight of people from newspapers and TV to the Internet for their news. Nowhere in material on this subject is the above mentioned, perhaps because people don't even realize why they are walking away from the "news" propaganda machine, but they should know. Why? Because if the truth is not made plain they will find some way to stay in charge of our "news", i.e. deciding the framework of issues that matter to us.

Unfortunately, there are ways they could accomplish staying at the helm, but I'm not going to help them by giving any ideas on how to do it, suffice to say that it can be done. Indeed, we can expect it to be done. They will not give up their power without a major fight.

Sliding Backwards on Iraq? Raed Jarrar and Erik Leaver

Underscoring the above discussion on Iraq being moved to the back-burner, the subject matter, Iraq itself, refuses to cooperate.

The Iraqi people want the occupier out. That's their job # 1. This just can't be that hard to understand! Just imagine foreign troops in your neighborhood, and how you'd feel.

Beyond that, when the occupier is gone, which will happen, they will decide their own future. I can't see what that future holds, but I am quite assured there will be no love lost on the ousted occupier who brought death and destruction to their country on a scale not seen since Vietnam. Who, besides the Neocons, can even imagine those people being our friends for a long time to come. No, we'll be out and they will solve their own problems and fashion their own future with little or no regard for any of the bullshit we've been fed.

It's easy to guess some things, though. The majority Shites, with Iran's support and assistance, will be in charge of the political system, the minority Sunni's will fight them, perhaps with the assistance of other countries in the area, and the Kurds will take their autonomy as far as they can, likely in the form of an independent state.

This being the case, Iran is the obvious winner of the invasion, because in the end they will rule not only Iran, but effectively Iraq as well.

And America gets to be the loser. Not overnight, though. The gang behind the invasion will see to it that our pockets will be picked dry with payoff money to push the inevitable as far into the future as possible, so as to muddy and dilute the connection between what they've done and the results.

The Pentagon’s Runaway Budget by Carl Conetta


"Taking the new budget into account, the Defense Department has been granted about $7.2 trillion since 1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending ended.

...

Looking forward, the Obama administration plans to spend more on the Pentagon over the next eight years than any administration since World War II.

...

Measured in 2010 dollars, the Korean War cost $393,000 per year for every person deployed. And the Vietnam conflict cost $256,000. By contrast, the Iraq and Afghanistan commitments have cost $792,000 per year per person.

...

The factors outlined above have converged to give America a historically unique predominance in military spending. The United States today is responsible for nearly half of all military expenditure worldwide. In 1986, it claimed only 28 percent."


Is the Recovery Real? By Paul Craig Roberts

"The economy, in other words, is going nowhere.

...

As I have emphasized for years, an economy that moves its high productivity, high value-added jobs offshore is going nowhere but down. Except for the super-rich, there has been no growth in people’s incomes for a decade. To substitute for the missing income growth, consumers took on more debt. The growth in consumer debt kept the economy going. However, most consumers have now reached their maximum debt load, and millions went beyond their limit, resulting in foreclosures and lost homes.

There are no jobs to which people can be called back to work. The jobs have been given to the Chinese and Indians.

The economy is set for a “double-dip,” that is, renewed decline. This, of course, means larger federal, state, and local budget deficits. The U.S. federal deficit is now so large that it can no longer be financed by the trade surpluses of China, Japan, and OPEC.

...

The reason is that the dollar’s role as reserve currency is at stake. If the Federal Reserve has to monetize the federal deficit, the world will turn its back on a rapidly depreciating dollar. The minute the dollar loses the reserve currency role, the U.S. can no longer pay its bills in its own currency, and its days as a superpower come to a sudden end. Wars can’t be financed, and Washington’s pursuit of world hegemony will hit a brick wall.

The power-mad denizens of DC will do anything to further the expansion of their world empire."


As you can see, there are 2 realities: one fed us by the "news" propaganda machine, and the other described by people like Mr. Roberts. Which do you believe?



Bill

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

War Guilt in the Middle East


War Guilt in the Middle East by Murray Rothbard

I suspect there are far too few people willing to take the time and expend the effort to actually read a paper like this. It seems people want sound bites and screaming headlines, and not reason, which requires something too few are willing to do: think.

What makes this paper important? It's important because, if you read it to the end, you'll see that Mr Rothbard (in 1967) describes a useful, workable solution to the gigantic mess in the Middle East.



"Israel, therefore, faces a long-run dilemma which she must someday meet. Either to continue on her present course and, after years of mutual hostility and conflict be overthrown by Arab people’s guerrilla war. Or – to change direction drastically, to cut herself loose completely from Western imperial ties, and become simply Jewish citizens of the Middle East. If she did that, then peace and harmony and justice would at last reign in that tortured region."


My reasoning has come to exactly the same conclusion, although I could never articulate it as clearly.

Will Eliminating Nuclear Weapons Make Peace More Likely? by Ivan Eland

An excellent position paper on what should be done about nuclear weapons.

Learning From History: Can the US Win the Afghan War? by Ivan Eland

"So the U.S. escalation in Afghanistan is likely to face insurmountable long-term obstacles. "


Another great piece by Ivan Eland. I think he should also explore the connection between the winding up of Afghanistan and the winding down of Iraq in the "news", and the consequential shift of the American frame of reference from one to the other. See how easy it is to manipulate people? Think back, at the time of the pump-up for the invasion of Iraq, and how many times Saddam's face was on the TV and in the newspapers, and nary a word of (now plainly) more correct opposition to the plan. We were mightily duped then - and we're being mightily duped now. Nothing has changed, except some faces.


A Photo to Pass Along by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Where is justice?


Bill

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Whatever Happened to "We the People"?


Whatever Happened to "We the People"? By RALPH NADER

"The twin swelling heads of Empire and Oligarchy are driving our country into an ever-deepening corporate state, wholly incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.

...

American was not designed for Kings and their runaway military pursuits. How tragic that we have now come to this entrenched imperium so loathed by the founding fathers and so forewarned by George Washington’s enduring farewell address. "



Bill

Monday, March 1, 2010

Anger at injustice, as Martin Luther King wrote, is the political expression of love.


Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama by Chris Hedges

We owe Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney an apology. They were right about Barack Obama. They were right about the corporate state. They had the courage of their convictions and they stood fast despite wholesale defections and ridicule by liberals and progressives.

...

... Anger at injustice, as Martin Luther King wrote, is the political expression of love. ...



Bill