Patriotism & Propaganda Falling Short

THE DEAD RHETORIC OF WAR

By Chris Hedges/ Truthdig/ September 16, 2013

prop4

The intoxication of war, fueled by the euphoric nationalism that swept through the country like a plague following the attacks of 9/11, is a spent force in the United States. The high-blown rhetoric of patriotism and national destiny, of the sacred duty to reshape the world through violence, to liberate the enslaved and implant democracy in the Middle East, has finally been exposed as empty and meaningless. The war machine has tried all the old tricks. It trotted out the requisite footage of atrocities. It issued the histrionic warnings that the evil dictator will turn his weapons of mass destruction against us if we do not bomb and “degrade” his military. It appealed to the nation’s noble sacrifice in World War II, with the Secretary of State John Kerry calling the present situation a “Munich moment.”But none of it worked. It was only anoffhand remarkby Kerry that opened the door to a Russian initiative, providing the Obama administration a swift exit from its mindless bellicosity and what would have been a humiliating domestic defeat. Twelve long years of fruitless war in Afghanistan and another 10 in Iraq have left the public wary of the lies of politicians, sick of the endless violence of empire and unwilling to continue to pump trillions of dollars into a war machine that has made a small cabal of defense contractors and arms manufacturers such as Raytheon and Halliburton huge profits while we are economically and politically hollowed out from the inside. The party is over.

The myth of war, as each generation discovers over the corpses of its young and the looting of its national treasury by war profiteers, is a lie. War is no longer able to divert Americans from the economic and political decay that is rapidly turning the nation into a corporate oligarchy, a nation where “the consent of the governed” is a cruel joke. War cannot hide what we have become. War has made us a nation that openly tortures and holds people indefinitely in our archipelago of offshore penal colonies. War has unleashed death squads—known as special operations forces—to assassinate our enemies around the globe, even American citizens. War has seen us terrorize whole populations, including populations with which we are not officially at war, with armed drones that circle night and day above mud-walled villages in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. War has shredded, in the name of national security, our most basic civil liberties. War has turned us into the most spied-upon, monitored, eavesdropped and photographed population in human history. War has seen our most courageous dissidents and whistle-blowers—those who warned us of the crimes of war and empire, from Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning to Edward Snowden—become persecuted political prisoners or the hunted. War has made a few very rich, as it always does, as our schools, libraries and firehouses are closed in the name of fiscal austerity, basic social service programs for children and the elderly are shut down, cities such as Detroit declare bankruptcy, and chronic underemployment and unemployment hover at 15 percent, perhaps 20. No one knows the truth anymore about America. The vast Potemkin village we have become, the monstrous lie that is America, includes the willful manipulation of financial and official statistics from Wall Street and Washington.

We are slowly awakening, after years on a drunken bender, to the awful pain of sobriety and the unpleasant glare of daylight. We are being forced to face grim truths about ourselves and the war machine. We have understood that we cannot impart our “virtues” through violence, that all talk of human rights, once you employ the industrial weapons of the modern battlefield, is absurd. We see through the Orwellian assertions made by Barack Obama and John Kerry, who have assured the world that the United States is considering only an “unbelievably small, limited” strikeon Syria that is not a war. We know that the Pentagon’s plan to obliterate the command bunkers, airfields or the artillery batteries and rocket launchers used to fire chemical projectiles is indeed what the politicians insist it is not—a war. We know that the launching of several hundred Tomahawk missiles from destroyers and submarines in the Mediterranean Sea on Syrian military and command installations would be perceived by the Syrians—as we would should such missiles be launched against us—as an act of war. A Tomahawk carries a 1,000-pound bomb or 166 cluster bombs. One Tomahawk has appalling destructive power. Hundreds mean indiscriminate death from the sky. We have heard the careful parsing that does not preclude, should the Pandora’s box of war be opened and chaos envelope Syria, the possible deployment of troops on the ground. We have listened to Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concede that “there is a probability for collateral damage.” We know this means civilians will be killed to prevent the regime of Bashar Assad from killing civilians. Only the circular logic of war makes such a proposition rational. And this circular logic, no longer obscured by the waving of flags, the bombast of “glory and honor,” the cant of politicians, the self-exaltation that comes with the disease of nationalism, means that Barack Obama and the war machine he serves are going to face a wave of popular revulsion if he starts another war.

 Boldface by BPR Editor
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, foreign policy, Iraq, military, Syria, war | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DECISION TIME

BPR Quote of the Day

quote-more-than-any-other-time-in-history-mankind-faces-a-crossroads-one-path-leads-to-despair-and-woody-allen-206648

Posted in humor, Quotations | Tagged , | Leave a comment

THE MANIPULATED MARKET

The Myth of the ‘Free Market’ and How to Make the Economy Work for Us

By Robert Reich/ robertreich.org/ September 16,2013

One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the Right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the “free market” is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government. So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity — to make the economy work for us — are unwarranted constraints on the market’s freedom, and will inevitably go wrong.

By this view, if some people aren’t paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren’t worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they’ll earn next month or next week, that’s too bad; it’s just the outcome of the market.

According to this logic, government shouldn’t intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the “free market” knows best.

cs_freemarket_fishpondIn reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? ); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?) (4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.

These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t “intrude” on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t “free” of rules; the rules define them.

The interesting question is what the rules should seek to achieve. They can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we’re willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). Or some combination of all three — which aren’t necessarily in competition with one another. Evidence suggests, for example, that if prosperity were more widely shared, we’d have faster growth.

The rules can even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.

Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us; we wouldn’t be working for the economy.

Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game.

Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable “free market.”

If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn’t be deterred by the myth of the “free market.” We can make the economy work for us, rather than the other way around. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours.

 

 
 

 

Posted in Economics, economy, government, inequality, philosophy, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Center Left to Radical Right

BPR Quote of the Day

555057_620538864635594_1260208017_n

Posted in media, Quotations | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

FALLING INTO LINE

Rewarding “Group Think” on Syria

By Robert Parry/ Consortium News/ September 13, 2013

“Group think” is alive and well in Official Washington, with virtually all the important pundits marching in lock-step with the Obama administration’s accusations against the Syrian government and everyone fuming over an Op-Ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at a joint press conference regarding the Syrian crisis with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. (State Department photo)

There is something troubling — even a bit scary — to watch the mainstream U.S. media in a full stampede as we’re now seeing over the issue of the Syrian civil war and against Russian attempts to find a diplomatic way to steer the American pack from rushing over the cliff into another U.S. military intervention.

Nearly every U.S. pundit and politician — from neocon to liberal — is charging off in the same direction, accepting undocumented U.S. government claims about Syria’s alleged chemical attack on Aug. 21 as undeniably true and deriding Russian President Vladimir Putin for a New York Times Op-Ed that had the audacity to defend the Nuremberg principles against aggressive war.

“Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council,” Putin wrote, making an obvious and incontrovertible point. “Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Putin then added: “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.'”

Again, what Putin is saying here is clearly true, really not even debatable. U.S. presidents and pundits love to talk about America as the “indispensable nation,” a reference to its recurring role as a military interventionist around the world, supposedly to protect the interests of the “Free World” and “Civilization.”

But Putin really got under the skin of the U.S. establishment when he disagreed with President Barack Obama’s defense of “American exceptionalism.” Putin wrote, “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

Yet, for making these rather banal points, Putin was inundated with insults across Official Washington. Politicians said they were sickened by his affront, one even to the point of vomiting. Liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, usually a thoughtful writer, mocked the Russian president in highly personal terms.

“As I read Vladimir Putin’s sanctimonious op-ed about U.S. policy in Syria, I imagined the Russian president sitting at the keyboard in a lovely pink negligee,” Robinson wrote in a column entitled “Exceptional? You bet.”

Buying the Official Story

Beyond reflecting the conventional wisdom’s contempt for Putin, Robinson, like nearly every major U.S. opinion-leader, has accepted the U.S. government’s version of events regarding the alleged chemical attack on a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21.

Though the Obama administration has not released a single piece of verifiable evidence to support its “Government Assessment” fingering the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Robinson and his colleagues now report those assertions as flat fact, including the strange calculation that precisely “1,429” people died from poison gas. Other estimates have cited several hundred deaths, and the U.S. government has not explained the provenance of its number.

Yet, the U.S. tally of the dead and other claims are good enough for the American pundit class, evidence not required.

“When we see more than 1,400 men, women and children killed with poison gas, it is not our nature to look the other way,” Robinson wrote. “The moral case for a strike against the Assad regime is predicated on the fact that if the United States doesn’t do something, nobody will.”

But Robinson was far from alone in his contempt for Putin and acceptance of the U.S. rendition of the murky events of Aug. 21 half a world away. Up and down the opinion pages of American newspapers, there was mouth-open-wide credulity. Beyond the opinion pages and TV chat shows, I’ve heard the same conformity of opinion from usually thoughtful think-tank “experts.” It’s clear that any skepticism now, even just calling for public release of the U.S. evidence, is a threat to one’s career.

You might have hoped that one thing the U.S. mainstream press and pundits would have learned from the Iraq War — not to mention other misguided “group think” going back to the Tonkin Gulf resolution and beyond — is that the U.S. government is not always right in its assessments. Skepticism should not be equated with conspiracism.

Yet, over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been hearing a derisive and condescending tone slip into the words of the “respectable” opinion shapers toward any suggestion that the Obama administration should release recordings of intercepts, satellite photos of troop movements and other supposed proof to back up its accusations.

(CONTINUED-READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE)

 

Posted in Barack Obama, foreign policy, media, military, Syria | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

1984 or 2013?

-F-M53KI5iDjz6RApxZZhTl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVaiQDB_Rd1H6kmuBWtceBJ

Posted in political humor, political poster | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reflections on 9/11

By Arlen Grossman/ The Big Picture Report

gty_911_first_responders_depression_thg_110901_wg

No, we mustn’t forget 9/11 and the thousands of unfortunate victims of that fateful day. I just wish we didn’t dwell on it. The aftermath of that horrendous attack changed our country in major ways–and all of them bad.  

What is the point of dwelling on a horrible attack from which no good lessons were learned and for which we reacted in the worst possible ways? Why dwell on an event that pushed us into the easily frightened and bellicose people we are today?

Because of our heightened fear, we re-elected an incompetent, shallow-minded president, and illegally invaded and occupied countries that weren’t even responsible for 9/11. Because of that fear, we were able to justify crimes rationalized as “enhanced interrogation” (torture), “extraordinary rendition” (torture by proxy), and “collateral damage” (killing innocent civilians).

Why should we dwell on a tragic event that helped spur us into a more militaristic nation waging perpetual war–which allowed us to justify extravagant spending on the military/industrial complex while siphoning money from where it was desperately needed: schools, infrastructure, jobs, and social services.

Why dwell on an event that allowed us to meekly and willingly surrender so many of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and privacy, while becoming history’s most efficient surveillance state.

No, the victims of 9/11 shouldn’t be forgotten. But neither should we overly dwell on that horrific day that changed us into a nation our founders would be shocked to observe. A nation that in twelve years has changed from the land of the free into a fearful and divided military/security state ruled by leaders who no longer care about privacy, compassion, nor peace.

Next anniversary, we should remember 9/11, but please, let’s not dwell on it.  Our leaders failed to learn and we continue to pay a stiff price for the belligerent and frightened way we responded. At some point we need to learn from those mistakes.

When we do, that would be reason to dwell.

Posted in civil liberties, foreign policy, government, military, politics, Terrorism, war | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Imagine

BPR Quote of the Day

1229975_10151690024428218_204085283_n

Posted in foreign policy, Quotations, Syria, war | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Where Have All the Protesters Gone?

What Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

By David Sirota/ Nation of Change/ September 6, 2013

0321-03

A mere 72 hours after President Obama delivered an encomium honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, he announced his intention to pound yet another country with bombs. The oxymoron last week was noteworthy for how little attention it received. Yes, a president memorialized an anti-war activist who derided the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” Then that same president quickly proposed yet more violence — this time in Syria.

Among a political press corps that rarely challenges the Washington principle of “kill foreigners first, ask questions later,” almost nobody mentioned the contradiction. Even worse, as Congress now debates whether to launch yet another military campaign in the Middle East, the anti-war movement that Dr. King represented — and that so vigorously opposed the last war — is largely silent. Sure, there have been a few perfunctory emails from liberal groups, but there seems to be little prospect for mass protest, raising questions about whether an anti-war movement even exists anymore.

So what happened to that movement? The shorter answer is: It was a victim of partisanship.

That’s the conclusion that emerges from a recent study by professors at the University of Michigan and Indiana University. Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats “withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success” in the 2008 presidential election.

Had there been legitimate reason to conclude that Obama’s presidency was synonymous with the anti-war cause, this withdrawal might have been understandable. But that’s not what happened — the withdrawal occurred even as Obama was escalating the war in Afghanistan and intensifying drone wars in places like Pakistan and Yemen. The researchers thus conclude that during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead “motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.”

Not surprisingly, this hyper-partisan outlook and the lack of a more robust anti-war movement explain why political calculations rather than moral questions are at the forefront of the Washington debate over a war with Syria.

In that Beltway back and forth, the national media has focused as much on the horserace (will an attack politically weaken the president?) and political tactics (should the president have submitted to a congressional vote?) than on whether an attack would actually make things better in Syria.

Similarly, a top Democratic strategist told CNN that potential Republican opposition to a Syria attack “will coalesce Democrats around the president” in support of a military strike. Confirming that dynamic, Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton said a war resolution will pass not because of the supposed merits of an attack on Syria, but simply “because of loyalty of Democrats” who “just don’t want to see (Obama) shamed and humiliated on the national stage.”

This is red-versus-blue tribalism in its most murderous form. It suggests that the party affiliation of a particular president should determine whether or not we want that president to kill other human beings. It further suggests that we should all look at war not as a life-and-death issue, but instead as a sporting event in which we blindly root for a preferred political team.

An anti-war movement is supposed to be a check on such reflexive bloodlust. It is supposed to be a voice of reason interrupting the partisan tribalism. When it, too, becomes a victim of that tribalism, we lose something more than a political battle. As the distorted debate over Syria proves, we lose the conscience that is supposed to guide us through the most vexing questions of all.

Boldface added by BPR Editor 
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, foreign policy, government, Iraq war, media, military, politics, protests, Republican Party, Syria, war | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

WHAT WE KNOW NOW

Ten Things We’ve Learned About The NSA From A Summer Of Snowden Leaks

By Andy Greenberg/ Forbes/ September 9, 2013

k-bigpic

Lifehacker.com

The truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped,” Edward Snowden told readers of theGuardian in June. At the time, just a few weeks into the publication of documents that the 30-year-old former National Security Agency contractor had siphoned from his workstation in Hawaii, that prophetic statement might have seemed like grandstanding. But close to three months later, the collection of Snowden’s revelations has grown to the megaleak proportions of WikiLeaks’ Cablegate or Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, with no end in sight. For those who watch the watchers, Snowden may well have become the most important leaker of the 21st century.

Snowden himself has managed to take refuge in Russia and disappear from the headlines, putting the full spotlight back onto his bombshell documents. But as with all megaleaks, the sheer number of scoops he’s enabled threatens to overwhelm anyone tracking the NSA’s still-growing scandal. Here are a few highlights from what we’ve learned so far in the Summer of Snowden.

  • For more than a decade, the NSA has been working to systematically influence encryption standards or insert backdoors in the code of commercial encryption software to enable it to access Internet users’ communications, according to documents Snowden leaked to the Guardian, which were shared with the New York Times and Pro Publica. Though the published documents lack many details, the protocols the agency may have the ability to break or circumvent include Web encryption such as Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Security Layer, the Internet protocol encryption and authentication technology IPsec, common virtual private network systems used for anonymity and secure remote access, and Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol. (VoIP) The backdoor-planting projects, known as “Bullrun” in the United States and “Edgehill” within the NSA’s British equivalent the GCHQ, have made “vast amounts of encrypted Internet data…exploitable,” according to one leaked document.
  • The German newsweekly Der Spiegel wrote over the weekend that it had obtained NSA documents revealing that the agency has the ability to access a wide range of information stored on smartphones including iPhones, Blackberrys, and those running Google’s Android operating system. That information includes contacts, text message traffic, and location data–the paper alludes to the NSA’s compromise of “38 iPhone features.” Despite losing access to Blackberry’s messaging systems in 2009 after a change in how the company compressed data, the agency noted in a document that a breakthrough allowed it to regain access in 2010.
  • Snowden-leaked documents obtained and partially published by theWashington Post revealed the makeup of the so-called Black Budget, the $52.6 billion of government funding spent on classified programs. The budget showed that the NSA received $10.8 billion for the year 2013, second only to the CIA’s $14.7 billion. The budget confirmed that the NSA employs an elite hacking team it calls Tailored Access Operations, revealed the agency’s focus on hacking network routers and switches rather than servers and PCs, and exposed a program to combat “insider threats” by investigating 4,000 employees, which was (ironically) shelved to focus on reacting to WikiLeaks’ disclosures in 2010. The budget also outlined how much telecom firms are paid for their cooperation with the NSA’s surveillance.
  • Newly-revealed surveillance targets for the NSA, according to various Snowden leaks, include the presidents of U.S.-friendly countries such as Brazil and Mexicointernational organizations like the U.N. and E.U.–going so far as to bug embassies and hack the U.N.’s video conferencing systems–and Al Jazeera, the first revelation that the NSA has surveilled journalists. Earlier leaks, published by the Guardian, included a program that mapped out the frequency of NSA’s surveillance by country, showing a focus on the Middle East but also including American targets. Another document confirmed that President Obama has asked the NSA to draw up a list of potential cyberattack targets, including ones that could potentially disable enemy infrastructure.
  • Internal audit documents from the NSA, obtained by the Washington Post, show that the agency found 2,776 incidents in which its staff had broken its own rules governing surveillance in the year leading up to May 2012. In one case, a surveillance operation continued for three months before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is designed to oversee the agency, first heard about it and ruled it unconstitutional. In another comic example, analysts collected phone calls from the Washington area because its “202″ area code was confused with Egypt’s country code, “20.”
  • Even when the NSA follows its internal rules, it’s offered a surprising number of regulatory loopholes. A document published by the Guardian showed that the NSA makes broad exceptions to its mission of only spying on foreign targets. That includes collecting and storing information on Americans when it’s judged to contain “significant foreign intelligence” information, information about a crime that has been or may be about to be committed, is related to “the unauthorized disclosure of national security information,” or is involved in assessing “a communications security vulnerability.” In another exception, any encrypted data can also be held long enough to crack it.
  • Documents given to the Guardian revealed that the NSA helps to fund the spying operations of Britain’s GCHQ, in part to take advantage of the U.K.’s more relaxed regulations of its intelligence sector. Over three years, the NSA gave more than $150 million to British intelligence services, and 60% of GCHQ’s “refined intelligence” also reportedly came from the NSA’s analysis.
  • Other documents focusing on GCHQ and published by the Guardian showed that the British intelligence service has the ability to tap transatlantic fiberoptic cables for raw Internet data, much of which is shared with the NSA.
  • In a slideshow first published in part by the Washington Post, a program known as PRISM reportedly allowed direct access to the servers of companies including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and others. Most of the companies implicated in PRISM denied any such access, but several, including Apple and Facebook, responded by offering details for the first time about how often they cooperate with surveillance requests from the NSA and from law enforcement.
  • The Guardian kicked off the Snowden saga in June with an order sent to Verizon on behalf of the NSA demanding the cell phone records of all of Verizon Business Network Services’ American customers for a three month period. The order, which dealt with only those users’ metadata,specifically requested Americans’ records. In the following days, Senators Saxby Chambliss and Diane Feinstein publicly stated that similar orders have been issued to telecoms for the last seven years.

 

Posted in civil liberties, foreign policy, government, intelligence, law, media, scandals, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment