By MARC MCDONALD
"Authorizing the pre-emptive, go-it-alone use of force now, right in the midst of continuing efforts to enlist the world community to back a tough new disarmament resolution on Iraq, could be a costly mistake for our country."
--Sen. Paul Wellstone, in October, 2002, speaking against the resolution to authorize the Iraq War
Something has always bothered me about the tragic 2002 death of the great Paul Wellstone. And the more I read about Wellstone's death in a supposedly "accidental" small plane crash, the more doubts I have about the official story.
Now, a new documentary examines Wellstone and aims to raise funds for a new investigation. Wellstone: They Killed Him raises troubling questions about Wellstone's death that have never been properly explained.
At this site you can watch a fascinating 15-minute preview of this film. You can order order a copy of the DVD at the site.
As the site notes, on Oct. 25, 2002:
"At 10:18, the plane is disabled, seven miles from the airport. The King Air A-100 turbo prop flies treetop level over shocked witnesses, five miles out: no lights, crabbed cockeyed, engines spooling down, so low witnesses are amazed it stays airborn. Three more miles and the plane stalls, dropping into the woods, killing all eight on board: Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Mn), his wife Sheila, daughter Marcia, aides Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic, Will McLaughlin, pilot Richard Conry and co-pilot Michael Guess. How to account for the experienced pilots' behavior, unless they had been disabled? But why would anyone go to such trouble to so publicly kill the senior senator from Minnesota? Cui bono? Who benefits? That’s the question VFW veterans in Willmar, Minnesota have. They heard the Senator tell of the threat Vice President Cheney made to Wellstone shortly after the Senator's No vote on the Iraq War. ‘Go along with the program, if you know what’s good for you and Minnesota. Stop sticking your nose into 9/11.’
Intimidation was one tactic used by the FBI on witnesses who had been directed to the FBI (local cops were frozen out) which then suppressed their testimony, just as the FBI sanitized the crash site eight hours before the NTSB came on the scene. The national media began the cover-up right away: bad weather, icing; that scenario didn’t work so the NTSB blamed it on the pilots. Though a high profile crash that many in Minnesota were skeptical about, the NTSB couldn’t afford to hold a public hearing; the truth would quickly become evident. This film, begun the day after the crash, gives voice to the people of the Iron Range: witnesses, first-responders, citizens, assassination experts such as Prof. James Fetzer and Four Arrows."
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Progressive Music Classics. "Major Malfunction" by Keith LeBlanc
.
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
The tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger inspired many touching speeches, books and works of art, which paid tribute to the lives of the astronauts who died in that disaster in 1986.
But one work of art that took a different approach to the tragedy was Major Malfunction by the great Keith LeBlanc, who has often been associated with Britain's experimental/sound collage/dub label On-U Sound.
"Major Malfunction" was released not long after the Challenger tragedy. A major theme of On-U Sound productions is the scary implications of rampant, out-of-control technology. And although I may be wrong, my interpretation of this piece is that LeBlanc saw something in the Challenger disaster that was very sinister and yet undefined at that early date.
As it turns out, LeBlanc was correct in following his instincts. There was something very sinister about the Challenger disaster. However, it took many more years for the truth to start to emerge.
Although there is still a great deal we don't know about the Challenger disaster, it has since emerged that the Reagan administration had pushed to militarize the space shuttle program, with the result that NASA began to downplay safety issues.
That was the startling conclusion reached in the 2007 book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age by Richard C. Cook.
In the book, Cook reveals the bombshell that Reagan wanted Challenger to be launched against the experts' recommendations so he could speak with teacher Christine McAuliffe live during his State of the Union speech.
And who is Cook, you might ask? Is he some left-wing, conspiracy-pushing author with an axe to grind? No, actually, he was a respected lead resource analyst for NASA.
To me, the Challenger disaster sums up a great deal of the problems with the extremist modern-day Republican party. The modern-day GOP after all, despises all government programs, with the exception of "military" spending. While they're not championing massive trillion-dollar budgets for fat, greedy "defense" contractors, they're busy slashing budgets elsewhere.
In short, if it's not part of "military" spending, the GOP has no use for it.
And, additionally, since the GOP has so much contempt for non-military spending, they seek to slash all non-Pentagon spending to the bone. Note that this approach means that most budget-starved government programs tend to perform poorly under GOP rule. And the GOP even reaps a bonus from all this, as it confirms their self-fulfilling philosophy that "government is inefficient."
It's a win-win situation for the GOP and it's a sad characteristic of the American empire in decline.
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
The tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger inspired many touching speeches, books and works of art, which paid tribute to the lives of the astronauts who died in that disaster in 1986.
But one work of art that took a different approach to the tragedy was Major Malfunction by the great Keith LeBlanc, who has often been associated with Britain's experimental/sound collage/dub label On-U Sound.
"Major Malfunction" was released not long after the Challenger tragedy. A major theme of On-U Sound productions is the scary implications of rampant, out-of-control technology. And although I may be wrong, my interpretation of this piece is that LeBlanc saw something in the Challenger disaster that was very sinister and yet undefined at that early date.
As it turns out, LeBlanc was correct in following his instincts. There was something very sinister about the Challenger disaster. However, it took many more years for the truth to start to emerge.
Although there is still a great deal we don't know about the Challenger disaster, it has since emerged that the Reagan administration had pushed to militarize the space shuttle program, with the result that NASA began to downplay safety issues.
That was the startling conclusion reached in the 2007 book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age by Richard C. Cook.
In the book, Cook reveals the bombshell that Reagan wanted Challenger to be launched against the experts' recommendations so he could speak with teacher Christine McAuliffe live during his State of the Union speech.
And who is Cook, you might ask? Is he some left-wing, conspiracy-pushing author with an axe to grind? No, actually, he was a respected lead resource analyst for NASA.
To me, the Challenger disaster sums up a great deal of the problems with the extremist modern-day Republican party. The modern-day GOP after all, despises all government programs, with the exception of "military" spending. While they're not championing massive trillion-dollar budgets for fat, greedy "defense" contractors, they're busy slashing budgets elsewhere.
In short, if it's not part of "military" spending, the GOP has no use for it.
And, additionally, since the GOP has so much contempt for non-military spending, they seek to slash all non-Pentagon spending to the bone. Note that this approach means that most budget-starved government programs tend to perform poorly under GOP rule. And the GOP even reaps a bonus from all this, as it confirms their self-fulfilling philosophy that "government is inefficient."
It's a win-win situation for the GOP and it's a sad characteristic of the American empire in decline.
Sunday, September 02, 2012
GOP Exists in Alternate Universe at Bizarre, Lie-Filled Convention
By MARC McDONALD
Recently, I had a political discussion with a right-wing acquaintance. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. During the argument, my acquaintance called Obama an "idiot." When I asked for some proof of this, he replied, "Well, Obama said 'Internets' in an interview. He thinks it's called 'Internets.' That's really stupid."
Having grown weary of the discussion, I didn't even bother to challenge my acquaintance's contention. I did, though, think it was a bit odd. After all, the use of the term "Internets" was a well-known Bush blunder. Bush made the blunder during a debate with Al Gore, in 2000. Amazingly, Bush made the mistake again in 2004, during a debate with John Kerry. It was the second screwup that was widely ridiculed in the media.
"Was Rush now trying to somehow make the claim to his audience that this was in fact Obama's mistake?" I wondered.
Doing a little research on the Internet revealed that Obama once indeed did say "Internets." However, there was a big, big difference between the screwups made by Obama and Bush.
After all, when Obama said "Internets" he quickly corrected himself a few words later in the same sentence.
Obama is one of the most eloquent and intelligent speakers I've ever heard. But the fact is, like all modern U.S. presidents, he has an array of video cameras recording his words for hours every day. Given the grueling demands of his job and the stress that comes with it, it really shouldn't be surprising that he (or any president) might have an occasional verbal stumble. I mean, the only reason we don't have evidence of verbal stumbles by the likes of Washington and Jefferson is that there were no video cameras around in the 18th century.
Anyway, this whole episode got me to thinking. The Right-Wing in this country has built up such a formidable propaganda network that wingnuts can happily dwell within it and never be exposed to the Real World of actual facts, science, logic, reason and truth. It's clear that my right-wing acquaintance got his "Obama said 'Internets'" quote from the likes of Drudge and he has never even heard about Bush's far more famous (and uncorrected) blunder.
So Obama must be stupid, right? After all, Rush says so.
Such is the mind of the Right-Winger these days.
Which brings me to my main point. Politicians in America have historically never been the most honest class of people in the nation. But today's Republicans has set a new record for outrageous and blatant lies. It's gotten so bad that even the drowsy mainstream media has awoken from its usual slumber and started pointing out these outrageous lies.
For example, at the GOP convention, Paul Ryan trotted out his outrageous lie that Obama had supposedly promised to save a Wisconsin GM plant that later closed. Ryan no doubt thought that this latest lie wouldn't be scrutinized by a media that has allowed so many other GOP lies to pass unchallenged.
No doubt, Ryan was stunned when numerous mainstream media outlets across the nation picked apart his GM fable and exposed it for the lie that it was. (As it turns out, the Wisconsin GM plant closed before Obama even took office).
Other GOP convention lies were similarly exposed by the media ("Obama has slashed Medicare!" "Obama is responsible for the U.S. credit downgrade!")
I'm sure that the GOP is stunned by the recent fact-checking by a newly vigilant media. (And frankly, I'm as stunned as the GOP is, after watching the media let Republicans lie through their teeth for many years).
I guess the question now is this: why, in this election cycle, does the GOP have such contempt for the truth (especially when it can no longer get away with it?)
The answer to that question is simple. Because the GOP knows that, in fact, it can get away with it. This article's opening anecdote is proof positive of that. As that anecdote demonstrated, there are still many, many right-wingers out who get all of their news and info from the Fox/Drudge/Rush GOP Propaganda Network.
My right-wing acquaintance has never even heard that it was in fact Bush who made a fool of himself with his infamous "Internets" remarks. And my right-wing acquaintance will never even hear the mainstream media's debunking of Ryan's claims about the Wisconsin GM plant's closure. After all, he sure as hell isn't going to ever hear about it on Rush's show.
Such is the power of today's Great Right-Wing Propaganda Network. It is all-powerful, it is massive, it is everywhere, and it is 24 hours a day. If you are a wingnut getting your "news" from it, you'll never even feel the need to venture out in the Real World and expose yourself to any other news outlet. And you'll happily continue to live in an alternate universe, where Obama will always be a Socialist Muslim Kenyan whose birth certificate is a fraud.
Recently, I had a political discussion with a right-wing acquaintance. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. During the argument, my acquaintance called Obama an "idiot." When I asked for some proof of this, he replied, "Well, Obama said 'Internets' in an interview. He thinks it's called 'Internets.' That's really stupid."
Having grown weary of the discussion, I didn't even bother to challenge my acquaintance's contention. I did, though, think it was a bit odd. After all, the use of the term "Internets" was a well-known Bush blunder. Bush made the blunder during a debate with Al Gore, in 2000. Amazingly, Bush made the mistake again in 2004, during a debate with John Kerry. It was the second screwup that was widely ridiculed in the media.
"Was Rush now trying to somehow make the claim to his audience that this was in fact Obama's mistake?" I wondered.
Doing a little research on the Internet revealed that Obama once indeed did say "Internets." However, there was a big, big difference between the screwups made by Obama and Bush.
After all, when Obama said "Internets" he quickly corrected himself a few words later in the same sentence.
Obama is one of the most eloquent and intelligent speakers I've ever heard. But the fact is, like all modern U.S. presidents, he has an array of video cameras recording his words for hours every day. Given the grueling demands of his job and the stress that comes with it, it really shouldn't be surprising that he (or any president) might have an occasional verbal stumble. I mean, the only reason we don't have evidence of verbal stumbles by the likes of Washington and Jefferson is that there were no video cameras around in the 18th century.
Anyway, this whole episode got me to thinking. The Right-Wing in this country has built up such a formidable propaganda network that wingnuts can happily dwell within it and never be exposed to the Real World of actual facts, science, logic, reason and truth. It's clear that my right-wing acquaintance got his "Obama said 'Internets'" quote from the likes of Drudge and he has never even heard about Bush's far more famous (and uncorrected) blunder.
So Obama must be stupid, right? After all, Rush says so.
Such is the mind of the Right-Winger these days.
Which brings me to my main point. Politicians in America have historically never been the most honest class of people in the nation. But today's Republicans has set a new record for outrageous and blatant lies. It's gotten so bad that even the drowsy mainstream media has awoken from its usual slumber and started pointing out these outrageous lies.
For example, at the GOP convention, Paul Ryan trotted out his outrageous lie that Obama had supposedly promised to save a Wisconsin GM plant that later closed. Ryan no doubt thought that this latest lie wouldn't be scrutinized by a media that has allowed so many other GOP lies to pass unchallenged.
No doubt, Ryan was stunned when numerous mainstream media outlets across the nation picked apart his GM fable and exposed it for the lie that it was. (As it turns out, the Wisconsin GM plant closed before Obama even took office).
Other GOP convention lies were similarly exposed by the media ("Obama has slashed Medicare!" "Obama is responsible for the U.S. credit downgrade!")
I'm sure that the GOP is stunned by the recent fact-checking by a newly vigilant media. (And frankly, I'm as stunned as the GOP is, after watching the media let Republicans lie through their teeth for many years).
I guess the question now is this: why, in this election cycle, does the GOP have such contempt for the truth (especially when it can no longer get away with it?)
The answer to that question is simple. Because the GOP knows that, in fact, it can get away with it. This article's opening anecdote is proof positive of that. As that anecdote demonstrated, there are still many, many right-wingers out who get all of their news and info from the Fox/Drudge/Rush GOP Propaganda Network.
My right-wing acquaintance has never even heard that it was in fact Bush who made a fool of himself with his infamous "Internets" remarks. And my right-wing acquaintance will never even hear the mainstream media's debunking of Ryan's claims about the Wisconsin GM plant's closure. After all, he sure as hell isn't going to ever hear about it on Rush's show.
Such is the power of today's Great Right-Wing Propaganda Network. It is all-powerful, it is massive, it is everywhere, and it is 24 hours a day. If you are a wingnut getting your "news" from it, you'll never even feel the need to venture out in the Real World and expose yourself to any other news outlet. And you'll happily continue to live in an alternate universe, where Obama will always be a Socialist Muslim Kenyan whose birth certificate is a fraud.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Progressive Music Classics. "When The Revolution Comes" by The Last Poets
.
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Today's "controversial" hip hop artists like to think that they're somehow dangerous. But most of these artists wouldn't know "dangerous" if it ran over them on the highway. (Memo to all the "original gangstas" out there: using the "F" word a lot, singing lyrics demeaning to women, and bragging about all your bling-bling is hardly revolutionary).
And speaking of revolutionary, the radical band The Last Poets really were dangerous. In 1968, the band emerged from Harlem with their powerful music (which has often been cited as a prototype for today's rap).
Just how radical were The Last Poets? Well, their 1971 album, This Is Madness was listed by COINTELPRO during the Nixon administration. And any artist who was an enemy of Nixon's goons is a friend to Progressive Music Classics.
In contrast to The Last Poets, it's depressing how apolitical much of today's African-American music is. But given the stranglehold that large media corporations have over today's popular music, it's clear that a band like The Last Poets wouldn't be given the time of day were they to emerge today. Today's music executives want the airwaves to be safe, sanitized, and corporate-friendly.
Hence, corporate-soft-drink-shilling musical mediocrities like Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston get all the big record contracts. Black music never sounded so safe and bland. Yes, there are the occasional "controversies" like 2 Live Crew's sexually graphic songs. (Of course, that's just the sort of "controversy" that Corporate America prefers: lots of sex to shift product).
The Last Poets didn't do Pepsi commercials. What they did deliver was red-hot rage and anger, taking on topics like the oppression of African-American people, as well as detailing the many crimes of the U.S. government. Hardly the sort of lyrics that Corporate America wanted young people to be exposed to.
"When The Revolution Comes" is one of The Last Poets' most powerful statements. It is fiercely intelligent, angry poetry at its best, and it spares no targets (including apolitical African-Americans). I only wish today's rappers (with their juvenile lyrics and adolescent-level sexual maturity) were as similarly inspired to comment on the Decline and Fall of the American Empire.
Whatever happened to radical, dangerous, risk-taking music that aimed to inspire, rather than shift lots of units?
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Today's "controversial" hip hop artists like to think that they're somehow dangerous. But most of these artists wouldn't know "dangerous" if it ran over them on the highway. (Memo to all the "original gangstas" out there: using the "F" word a lot, singing lyrics demeaning to women, and bragging about all your bling-bling is hardly revolutionary).
And speaking of revolutionary, the radical band The Last Poets really were dangerous. In 1968, the band emerged from Harlem with their powerful music (which has often been cited as a prototype for today's rap).
Just how radical were The Last Poets? Well, their 1971 album, This Is Madness was listed by COINTELPRO during the Nixon administration. And any artist who was an enemy of Nixon's goons is a friend to Progressive Music Classics.
In contrast to The Last Poets, it's depressing how apolitical much of today's African-American music is. But given the stranglehold that large media corporations have over today's popular music, it's clear that a band like The Last Poets wouldn't be given the time of day were they to emerge today. Today's music executives want the airwaves to be safe, sanitized, and corporate-friendly.
Hence, corporate-soft-drink-shilling musical mediocrities like Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston get all the big record contracts. Black music never sounded so safe and bland. Yes, there are the occasional "controversies" like 2 Live Crew's sexually graphic songs. (Of course, that's just the sort of "controversy" that Corporate America prefers: lots of sex to shift product).
The Last Poets didn't do Pepsi commercials. What they did deliver was red-hot rage and anger, taking on topics like the oppression of African-American people, as well as detailing the many crimes of the U.S. government. Hardly the sort of lyrics that Corporate America wanted young people to be exposed to.
"When The Revolution Comes" is one of The Last Poets' most powerful statements. It is fiercely intelligent, angry poetry at its best, and it spares no targets (including apolitical African-Americans). I only wish today's rappers (with their juvenile lyrics and adolescent-level sexual maturity) were as similarly inspired to comment on the Decline and Fall of the American Empire.
Whatever happened to radical, dangerous, risk-taking music that aimed to inspire, rather than shift lots of units?
Thursday, July 26, 2012
The Real Reason the U.S. Doesn't Have Sensible Gun Laws
MARC MCDONALD
Let's get real: the true reason the U.S. doesn't have sensible gun laws has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Instead, it has everything to do with our broken political system and our "cash & carry" legislative process, in which our politicians whore themselves out to the highest bidder.
Does the Second Amendment really forbid any and all restrictions on guns? It's a silly argument that only extremist crazies like National Rifle Association members make. But does it hold up to scrutiny?
Americans of previous generations didn't believe in unlimited gun rights. In fact, during the so-called "Wild West" era of the 1800s, many areas had stricter gun control than what we have today.
I was at a right-wing acquaintance's house recently and I noticed that he had a magnet on his refrigerator that purported to list the Bill of Rights. It included the Second Amendment---or rather a paraphrasing of it. It read: "The Second Amendment guarantees the Right to Bear Arms."
I wondered why the text didn't simply include actual wording of the Second Amendment itself. After all, the latter is only one sentence.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's a convoluted, vague sentence that frankly defies any easy explanation.
To me, the words "well regulated" indicate that the Second Amendment does not give a blank check to unlimited gun rights. And the word "militia" indicates that maybe we're talking about gun rights for a militia, not ordinary individuals.
One thing I do find amusing, though, is the gun crowd's tendency to tip-toe away from the actual wording of their beloved Second Amendment. I've had a number of debates with gun lovers over the years and, invariably, I'll ask them to quote the Second Amendment. Without exception, they're stumped when I ask them to quote the Second Amendment, word for word. (This, despite the fact that they claim to know for certain exactly what it means).
Many so-called "experts" have debated how the Founding Fathers really felt about gun rights. But they're missing the real issue.
A "gun" to the Founding Fathers was nothing like the devices we call "guns" today. To the Founding Fathers, guns were bulky, unreliable, crude, primitive, often-inaccurate, contraptions that fired only one shot. They had virtually nothing in common with a modern high-precision lethal killing instrument like a Glock.
I think it's entirely misleading and idiotic to debate what the Founding Fathers thought about "guns" when the weapons of their century were so completely different from today's guns. After all, one person armed with an modern day assault rifle, fitted with a high-capacity magazine, could easily and quickly have taken out dozens of armed soldiers from the era of the Founding Fathers.
What would the Founding Fathers have thought about an AK-47? We really have no idea.
In fact, the Second Amendment doesn't even mention the word "guns." Personally, I think one way progressives could fight back against the NRA is to beat them at their own game.
If the NRA really believes there should be zero restrictions on arms, then we need to call their bluff. We need to start pushing for everyone's unlimited right to hand grenades, plastic explosives, rocket launchers and shoulder-fired missiles. We need to back the NRA into a corner and force them to finally admit that there has to be at least some limits to the ownership of arms.
Despite former Congressman Anthony Weiner's flaws, there was one thing he did that was brilliant: his 2009 amendment to repeal Medicare. Weiner's move revealed the GOP to be the hypocrites that they are, when they refused to support his amendment, despite their stated hostility toward Medicare. (True, the mainstream media didn't give this story the attention it deserved---but if progressives started using this tactic more often, we could go a long ways toward exposing the hypocrisy of the Republican Party).
Of course, all of this would require the Democrats to finally grow a backbone---and, there's little chance of that ever happening. Outside of a few tough-as-nails progressives, like Alan Grayson, today's Democrats are a bunch of wimps who are afraid of their own shadow.
In fact, on the gun control issue, we progressives get screwed in numerous ways. First, the NRA has won every battle, to the point where it has a tough time coming up with new targets to rally its base. Second, the Democrats refuse to stand up to the NRA. And third, despite the latter, the Conservatives have successfully painted the Dems as "the party that wants to take away your guns," when, in fact, the Dems have no intention of ever standing up to the NRA.
Meanwhile, the horrific massacres go on and on---as America continues to suffer from by far the highest violent crime rates of any First World nation.
Since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed in 1968, an astonishing one million Americans have been shot dead with guns. For all the attention the media has given the Aurora massacre, it's important to remember that on any given day in America, many people are shot dead with guns. And we can expect the bloodshed to continue for a long, long time, thanks to our broken and corrupt political system.
Let's get real: the true reason the U.S. doesn't have sensible gun laws has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Instead, it has everything to do with our broken political system and our "cash & carry" legislative process, in which our politicians whore themselves out to the highest bidder.
Does the Second Amendment really forbid any and all restrictions on guns? It's a silly argument that only extremist crazies like National Rifle Association members make. But does it hold up to scrutiny?
Americans of previous generations didn't believe in unlimited gun rights. In fact, during the so-called "Wild West" era of the 1800s, many areas had stricter gun control than what we have today.
I was at a right-wing acquaintance's house recently and I noticed that he had a magnet on his refrigerator that purported to list the Bill of Rights. It included the Second Amendment---or rather a paraphrasing of it. It read: "The Second Amendment guarantees the Right to Bear Arms."
I wondered why the text didn't simply include actual wording of the Second Amendment itself. After all, the latter is only one sentence.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's a convoluted, vague sentence that frankly defies any easy explanation.
To me, the words "well regulated" indicate that the Second Amendment does not give a blank check to unlimited gun rights. And the word "militia" indicates that maybe we're talking about gun rights for a militia, not ordinary individuals.
One thing I do find amusing, though, is the gun crowd's tendency to tip-toe away from the actual wording of their beloved Second Amendment. I've had a number of debates with gun lovers over the years and, invariably, I'll ask them to quote the Second Amendment. Without exception, they're stumped when I ask them to quote the Second Amendment, word for word. (This, despite the fact that they claim to know for certain exactly what it means).
Many so-called "experts" have debated how the Founding Fathers really felt about gun rights. But they're missing the real issue.
A "gun" to the Founding Fathers was nothing like the devices we call "guns" today. To the Founding Fathers, guns were bulky, unreliable, crude, primitive, often-inaccurate, contraptions that fired only one shot. They had virtually nothing in common with a modern high-precision lethal killing instrument like a Glock.
I think it's entirely misleading and idiotic to debate what the Founding Fathers thought about "guns" when the weapons of their century were so completely different from today's guns. After all, one person armed with an modern day assault rifle, fitted with a high-capacity magazine, could easily and quickly have taken out dozens of armed soldiers from the era of the Founding Fathers.
What would the Founding Fathers have thought about an AK-47? We really have no idea.
In fact, the Second Amendment doesn't even mention the word "guns." Personally, I think one way progressives could fight back against the NRA is to beat them at their own game.
If the NRA really believes there should be zero restrictions on arms, then we need to call their bluff. We need to start pushing for everyone's unlimited right to hand grenades, plastic explosives, rocket launchers and shoulder-fired missiles. We need to back the NRA into a corner and force them to finally admit that there has to be at least some limits to the ownership of arms.
Despite former Congressman Anthony Weiner's flaws, there was one thing he did that was brilliant: his 2009 amendment to repeal Medicare. Weiner's move revealed the GOP to be the hypocrites that they are, when they refused to support his amendment, despite their stated hostility toward Medicare. (True, the mainstream media didn't give this story the attention it deserved---but if progressives started using this tactic more often, we could go a long ways toward exposing the hypocrisy of the Republican Party).
Of course, all of this would require the Democrats to finally grow a backbone---and, there's little chance of that ever happening. Outside of a few tough-as-nails progressives, like Alan Grayson, today's Democrats are a bunch of wimps who are afraid of their own shadow.
In fact, on the gun control issue, we progressives get screwed in numerous ways. First, the NRA has won every battle, to the point where it has a tough time coming up with new targets to rally its base. Second, the Democrats refuse to stand up to the NRA. And third, despite the latter, the Conservatives have successfully painted the Dems as "the party that wants to take away your guns," when, in fact, the Dems have no intention of ever standing up to the NRA.
Meanwhile, the horrific massacres go on and on---as America continues to suffer from by far the highest violent crime rates of any First World nation.
Since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed in 1968, an astonishing one million Americans have been shot dead with guns. For all the attention the media has given the Aurora massacre, it's important to remember that on any given day in America, many people are shot dead with guns. And we can expect the bloodshed to continue for a long, long time, thanks to our broken and corrupt political system.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Progressive Music Classics. "Privatise the Air" by Gary Clail & On U-Sound
.
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Today's Republican Party has become so extreme that it's actually become difficult to parody their positions.
As an example, a while back, I was considering writing an article about the GOP being so ferociously opposed to President Obama that they'd even oppose a proposal by Obama to cut taxes. And sure enough, the GOP did oppose just such a proposal (Obama's payroll tax cut).
What's alarming is that the GOP is continuing to move further and further to the right. We've come a long ways since the likes of Richard Nixon set up the EPA. These days, the GOP is fighting to abolish the EPA. And I'd bet money that not one in ten thousand Republicans even knows that Nixon set it up in the first place.
Republicans have moved the U.S. so far rightward that they're actually running out of targets these days. So, in order to continue rallying the base, the GOP has to simply invent targets. "Obamacare" is a good example. The GOP would have us believe that it's "socialism" when in fact Obamacare's mandate was originally conceived by the Heritage Foundation and supported by top Republicans in the 1990s.
In 1989, the great U.K. experimental dub-master Gary Clail released End of the Century Party. On this classic album, Clail set his sights on the rampant privatization schemes that were hatched by the Thatcher government.
Thatcher succeeded in shredding Britain's social safety net, just as the GOP has gutted what remains of America's social safety net. Of course, in the U.S., the process has been more extreme. In contrast to Britain, in the U.S., there wasn't much of a social safety net in the first place.
The Republicans have succeeded in gutting America's programs for the poor and the working class. Now, they're set their sights on Medicare, via the Ryan plan. I have no doubt they'll succeed in privatizing that program, as well, (which will eliminate Medicare as we know it).
How much longer before they privatize the air, too?
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Today's Republican Party has become so extreme that it's actually become difficult to parody their positions.
As an example, a while back, I was considering writing an article about the GOP being so ferociously opposed to President Obama that they'd even oppose a proposal by Obama to cut taxes. And sure enough, the GOP did oppose just such a proposal (Obama's payroll tax cut).
What's alarming is that the GOP is continuing to move further and further to the right. We've come a long ways since the likes of Richard Nixon set up the EPA. These days, the GOP is fighting to abolish the EPA. And I'd bet money that not one in ten thousand Republicans even knows that Nixon set it up in the first place.
Republicans have moved the U.S. so far rightward that they're actually running out of targets these days. So, in order to continue rallying the base, the GOP has to simply invent targets. "Obamacare" is a good example. The GOP would have us believe that it's "socialism" when in fact Obamacare's mandate was originally conceived by the Heritage Foundation and supported by top Republicans in the 1990s.
In 1989, the great U.K. experimental dub-master Gary Clail released End of the Century Party. On this classic album, Clail set his sights on the rampant privatization schemes that were hatched by the Thatcher government.
Thatcher succeeded in shredding Britain's social safety net, just as the GOP has gutted what remains of America's social safety net. Of course, in the U.S., the process has been more extreme. In contrast to Britain, in the U.S., there wasn't much of a social safety net in the first place.
The Republicans have succeeded in gutting America's programs for the poor and the working class. Now, they're set their sights on Medicare, via the Ryan plan. I have no doubt they'll succeed in privatizing that program, as well, (which will eliminate Medicare as we know it).
How much longer before they privatize the air, too?
Thursday, July 05, 2012
For Cost of One Month of Iraq War, 'God Particle' Could Have Been U.S. Triumph
By MARC McDONALD
Note: on July 10, 2012, this article ran on Peoplesworld.org, which is a "daily news website of, for and by the 99% and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker."
The discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, announced this week, is one of the biggest triumphs in the history of science. The discovery was announced by scientists at the CERN, the research center in Switzerland that operates the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the massive particle accelerator that detected the Higgs boson.
Once upon a time, most big scientific breakthroughs like this were made in the U.S. But in an era of declining science budgets and fewer science degrees awarded, America is increasingly no longer the leader in cutting-edge science.
The Large Hadron Collider cost around $8 billion. Although that sounds like a steep price tag, it's important to keep this figure in perspective. After all, during the Iraq War, the U.S. was typically spending $8 billion every month in that disastrous and unnecessary conflict.
For that same $8 billion that we pissed away every month in the Iraq War, the U.S. could have built its own Large Hadron Collider. And the amazing Higgs boson scientific breakthrough could well have been a U.S., not a European, triumph.
It's also important to remember that, for their $8 billion, the Europeans will almost certainly be enjoying many other benefits in the years to come, via the LHC. Who knows what other major unforeseen scientific breakthroughs the LHC will make possible? (If you doubt this, consider that the World Wide Web itself was originally invented at CERN, as a means of sharing computer data, before it went on to conquer the world).
Yes, the $8 billion spent on the LHC will likely pay benefits to Europe for decades to come.
By contrast, what, exactly, did the U.S. get for spending $8 billion per month in Iraq? We didn't get anything in return, except to draw out that disastrous war yet another bloody month.
Even today, nearly a decade after George W. Bush ordered the invasion, Iraq remains a shambles. It is still one of the most dangerous and unstable nations on earth. And Iraq must be the only nation in world history where on a given day, car bombs can kill 100 people and the world's media outlets no longer consider such a tragedy front page news.
Indeed, Iraq remains a broken, bloodied state and a shattered society, abandoned by the West. Outside of the nation's large oil reserves, the U.S. simply doesn't care about Iraq, much less its people.
The Iraq War remains one of the great tragedies of human history, with hundreds of thousands (if not a million) needless deaths. And, of course, the fiscal cost was tremendous, as well, with the U.S. sinking well over $1 trillion into the quagmire.
And for the cost of only one month of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have enjoyed one of the great scientific triumphs of history.
But that's really the story of modern day America: a nation that has increasingly gutted budgets for essentials like science and education, while lavishing trillions of dollars for death, destruction, and greedy, pampered defense contractors.
Note: on July 10, 2012, this article ran on Peoplesworld.org, which is a "daily news website of, for and by the 99% and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker."
The discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, announced this week, is one of the biggest triumphs in the history of science. The discovery was announced by scientists at the CERN, the research center in Switzerland that operates the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the massive particle accelerator that detected the Higgs boson.
Once upon a time, most big scientific breakthroughs like this were made in the U.S. But in an era of declining science budgets and fewer science degrees awarded, America is increasingly no longer the leader in cutting-edge science.
The Large Hadron Collider cost around $8 billion. Although that sounds like a steep price tag, it's important to keep this figure in perspective. After all, during the Iraq War, the U.S. was typically spending $8 billion every month in that disastrous and unnecessary conflict.
For that same $8 billion that we pissed away every month in the Iraq War, the U.S. could have built its own Large Hadron Collider. And the amazing Higgs boson scientific breakthrough could well have been a U.S., not a European, triumph.
It's also important to remember that, for their $8 billion, the Europeans will almost certainly be enjoying many other benefits in the years to come, via the LHC. Who knows what other major unforeseen scientific breakthroughs the LHC will make possible? (If you doubt this, consider that the World Wide Web itself was originally invented at CERN, as a means of sharing computer data, before it went on to conquer the world).
Yes, the $8 billion spent on the LHC will likely pay benefits to Europe for decades to come.
By contrast, what, exactly, did the U.S. get for spending $8 billion per month in Iraq? We didn't get anything in return, except to draw out that disastrous war yet another bloody month.
Even today, nearly a decade after George W. Bush ordered the invasion, Iraq remains a shambles. It is still one of the most dangerous and unstable nations on earth. And Iraq must be the only nation in world history where on a given day, car bombs can kill 100 people and the world's media outlets no longer consider such a tragedy front page news.
Indeed, Iraq remains a broken, bloodied state and a shattered society, abandoned by the West. Outside of the nation's large oil reserves, the U.S. simply doesn't care about Iraq, much less its people.
The Iraq War remains one of the great tragedies of human history, with hundreds of thousands (if not a million) needless deaths. And, of course, the fiscal cost was tremendous, as well, with the U.S. sinking well over $1 trillion into the quagmire.
And for the cost of only one month of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have enjoyed one of the great scientific triumphs of history.
But that's really the story of modern day America: a nation that has increasingly gutted budgets for essentials like science and education, while lavishing trillions of dollars for death, destruction, and greedy, pampered defense contractors.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obamacare Victory: GOP Spin Doctors Have Their Work Cut Out For Them
By MARC MCDONALD
I must admit, I've quite stunned by the Supreme Court's upholding of "Obamacare." I've never really been a fan of Obamacare, as I would prefer a European style single-payer system.
But still, I hugely enjoyed the High Court's decision today. It will be immensely entertaining to see GOP Nazi pigs like Limbaugh and Levin desperately try to spin this news to their deluded Kool-Aid-drinking base.
The Great GOP Propaganda Noise Machine usually prevails when it targets a specific issue. (i.e. "Reagan Won the Cold War" "Obamacare is Socialism" "Obama's Birth Certificate is bogus" etc. etc.) I get the feeling that the GOP Propaganda Noise Machine will eventually find an angle to exploit and will work hard to try to diminish Obama's victory. (And, as they usually do, the GOP Noise Machine will get the mainstream media to take the bait).
Speaking of the mainstream media, CNN really had a spectacular failure today in initially screwing up the story. I originally got a CNN alert that claimed the Supreme Court had struck down the mandate. I was quite stunned when I turned on my PC a few minutes later and saw the news that the mandate had in fact been upheld.
After months of hearing smug GOP partisans claiming that "Obamacare" would be overturned, it's an enormously enjoyable feeling knowing that today, all these people are sitting around shell-shocked and depressed. I normally don't take pleasure in other people's pain. But today I will make an exception.
Hey, Pig-Man Rush----How are you going to spin this one?
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I must admit, I've quite stunned by the Supreme Court's upholding of "Obamacare." I've never really been a fan of Obamacare, as I would prefer a European style single-payer system.
But still, I hugely enjoyed the High Court's decision today. It will be immensely entertaining to see GOP Nazi pigs like Limbaugh and Levin desperately try to spin this news to their deluded Kool-Aid-drinking base.
The Great GOP Propaganda Noise Machine usually prevails when it targets a specific issue. (i.e. "Reagan Won the Cold War" "Obamacare is Socialism" "Obama's Birth Certificate is bogus" etc. etc.) I get the feeling that the GOP Propaganda Noise Machine will eventually find an angle to exploit and will work hard to try to diminish Obama's victory. (And, as they usually do, the GOP Noise Machine will get the mainstream media to take the bait).
Speaking of the mainstream media, CNN really had a spectacular failure today in initially screwing up the story. I originally got a CNN alert that claimed the Supreme Court had struck down the mandate. I was quite stunned when I turned on my PC a few minutes later and saw the news that the mandate had in fact been upheld.
After months of hearing smug GOP partisans claiming that "Obamacare" would be overturned, it's an enormously enjoyable feeling knowing that today, all these people are sitting around shell-shocked and depressed. I normally don't take pleasure in other people's pain. But today I will make an exception.
Hey, Pig-Man Rush----How are you going to spin this one?
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, June 25, 2012
Will U.S. Media Ever Admit Al Gore Was Right About Global Warming?
By MARC MCDONALD
If any public leader in U.S. history has ever been vindicated on the biggest issue of the era, it'd have to be Al Gore. He has been repeatedly vindicated on global warming. But millions of Americans remain unaware of this. And the corporate U.S. MSM seems reluctant to give him credit.
It's not the first time Gore has been vindicated. After all, he was an early champion of the Internet, long before anyone else in Congress was even aware of its possibilities.
But instead of giving Gore some credit, the MSM took the GOP's bait and ran with the false story that Gore had supposedly arrogantly claimed to have "invented the Internet." What should have been a big positive for Gore in the 2000 race quickly turned into a negative.
In his 2004 book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken wrote about how the so-called "liberal" media gave Gore a raw deal in the 2000 presidential campaign. The MSM's coverage was much more positive about Bush than Gore (this, according to a comprehensive study by the respected Pew Charitable Trusts).
As Franken wrote, during the 2000 campaign, "the media just hated Al Gore."
"Somewhere along the line, the pack decided that Al Gore was a sanctimonious, graspy exaggerator running against a likeable if dim-witted goof-off."
Gore must feel like Rodney Dangerfield. Amazingly, to this day, Gore gets no respect. The U.S. mainstream media has yet to give Gore proper credit for being right all along about global warming, another issue he embraced early on.
Consider this: back in 1997 Gore helped broker the Kyoto Protocol, which was aimed at fighting global warming. (Of course, the Bush administration later withdrew from the treaty).
Since 2000, nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred, according to NASA. (Note that the modern record-keeping era dates back to the 1880s).
Consider this: what if during those years, the world had experienced normal or cooler-than-average temperatures? What do you think the GOP and Rush would have done with that?
They would have had a field day.
We would have constantly heard about "Al Gore the Fraud" each and every day. I have no doubt that the Great GOP Propaganda Noise Machine would have hammered this message home constantly. And sooner or later, the corporate media would have taken the bait (just as they did with the bogus "I invented the Internet story").
But no: as it turns out, instead, 2000-2010 was the warmest decade in the modern era. And what do we hear from the GOP (or, for that matter, from the corporate MSM?) Nothing.
It just goes to show you how completely the Rich & Powerful and the Corporations control the flow of information in this country.
Heads, these corporate pigs win. And tails, they also win.
Meanwhile, the planet goes to hell.
If any public leader in U.S. history has ever been vindicated on the biggest issue of the era, it'd have to be Al Gore. He has been repeatedly vindicated on global warming. But millions of Americans remain unaware of this. And the corporate U.S. MSM seems reluctant to give him credit.
It's not the first time Gore has been vindicated. After all, he was an early champion of the Internet, long before anyone else in Congress was even aware of its possibilities.
But instead of giving Gore some credit, the MSM took the GOP's bait and ran with the false story that Gore had supposedly arrogantly claimed to have "invented the Internet." What should have been a big positive for Gore in the 2000 race quickly turned into a negative.
In his 2004 book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken wrote about how the so-called "liberal" media gave Gore a raw deal in the 2000 presidential campaign. The MSM's coverage was much more positive about Bush than Gore (this, according to a comprehensive study by the respected Pew Charitable Trusts).
As Franken wrote, during the 2000 campaign, "the media just hated Al Gore."
"Somewhere along the line, the pack decided that Al Gore was a sanctimonious, graspy exaggerator running against a likeable if dim-witted goof-off."
Gore must feel like Rodney Dangerfield. Amazingly, to this day, Gore gets no respect. The U.S. mainstream media has yet to give Gore proper credit for being right all along about global warming, another issue he embraced early on.
Consider this: back in 1997 Gore helped broker the Kyoto Protocol, which was aimed at fighting global warming. (Of course, the Bush administration later withdrew from the treaty).
Since 2000, nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred, according to NASA. (Note that the modern record-keeping era dates back to the 1880s).
Consider this: what if during those years, the world had experienced normal or cooler-than-average temperatures? What do you think the GOP and Rush would have done with that?
They would have had a field day.
We would have constantly heard about "Al Gore the Fraud" each and every day. I have no doubt that the Great GOP Propaganda Noise Machine would have hammered this message home constantly. And sooner or later, the corporate media would have taken the bait (just as they did with the bogus "I invented the Internet story").
But no: as it turns out, instead, 2000-2010 was the warmest decade in the modern era. And what do we hear from the GOP (or, for that matter, from the corporate MSM?) Nothing.
It just goes to show you how completely the Rich & Powerful and the Corporations control the flow of information in this country.
Heads, these corporate pigs win. And tails, they also win.
Meanwhile, the planet goes to hell.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Progressive Music Classics. "The Day John Kennedy Died" by Lou Reed
.
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Today's selection is Lou Reed's heartbreaking "The Day John Kennedy Died," which appeared on Reed's 1982 masterpiece album, The Blue Mask.
A lot of cultural and social critics have written that America lost its innocence on November 22, 1963. That may be the case. In this song, Reed seems to be saying that we lost our idealism as well, as a nation and as a people.
Like many of us, Reed yearns for the ability to somehow turn back the clock and reverse the horror of JFK's death: a watershed moment from which America never really recovered. (And frankly, it's pretty much been all downhill for the U.S. since then).
I realize that it's easy to romanticize Camelot and to build Kennedy up as this mythic Progressive Hero. But if you think that's naive, consider that Kennedy was very likely killed by the Military Industrial Complex. He made some very powerful enemies, so clearly, he must have been doing something right.
Of course, these days, America's Rich & Powerful no longer have to resort to assassinating our leaders. They simply make sure that whoever wins the White House is bought and paid for long before the oath of office is ever administered.
.
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Today's selection is Lou Reed's heartbreaking "The Day John Kennedy Died," which appeared on Reed's 1982 masterpiece album, The Blue Mask.
A lot of cultural and social critics have written that America lost its innocence on November 22, 1963. That may be the case. In this song, Reed seems to be saying that we lost our idealism as well, as a nation and as a people.
Like many of us, Reed yearns for the ability to somehow turn back the clock and reverse the horror of JFK's death: a watershed moment from which America never really recovered. (And frankly, it's pretty much been all downhill for the U.S. since then).
I realize that it's easy to romanticize Camelot and to build Kennedy up as this mythic Progressive Hero. But if you think that's naive, consider that Kennedy was very likely killed by the Military Industrial Complex. He made some very powerful enemies, so clearly, he must have been doing something right.
Of course, these days, America's Rich & Powerful no longer have to resort to assassinating our leaders. They simply make sure that whoever wins the White House is bought and paid for long before the oath of office is ever administered.
Friday, May 25, 2012
How Right-Wingers Took Over Wikipedia
By MARC MCDONALD
Wikipedia is one of the most useful sites on the Web. It's a fantastic reference source that provides an incredible wealth of data on an endless variety of topics.
A big strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article. If, for example, an expert on quantum mechanics happens to notice a small factual error in the Wikipedia article on that topic, he or she can easily fix it on the spot. By harnessing the power of the knowledge of millions of people, Wikipedia has grown into the world's biggest reference resource.
However, Wikipedia's strength is also its biggest flaw. The very fact that anyone can edit an article means that errors, spin and bias can easily creep into the Wikipedia database.
If you're looking to read up on millions of disparate topics, from aardvarks to Frank Zappa, Wikipedia can offer you an enormous amount of helpful info that is reasonably free of bias.
But there's one big exception: articles on current political figures and topics.
Here, Wikipedia falls woefully short in its goal of providing a "neutral point of view."
Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia's political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin. And thousands of articles on political figures ranging from Ronald Reagan to Glenn Beck have been either sanitized, or given a pro-GOP slant.
Normally, the open nature of Wikipedia prevents such mischief. Typically, if someone introduces biased, or incorrect information into an article, it is quickly corrected by other visitors.
But this process has clearly failed on Wikipedia when it comes to thousands of articles on current political topics.
The reason is obvious: the right-wing "contributors" are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force. In this respect, they're much like Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio in that they believe if they simply repeat something over and over, it becomes "fact."
To be sure, from my experience with Wikipedia over the years, I've seen some of this behavior from progressives as well on Wikipedia---but it is nickel-dime, compared to the massive, sweeping efforts made by right-wingers to bend reality to suit their point of view.
I first started noticing Wikipedia's right-wing spin in 2008 when I accessed the main article on George W. Bush. I was looking for some quick info about Valerie Plame. I was surprised to find zero mentions of Plame in the Bush article.
I then tried to raise this issue on the article's "Discussions" page and I found that merely typing in the word "Plame" triggered a text robot that blocked any posts from mentioning Plame on that article. Clearly, a Bush-friendly editor was very determined to sanitize the article of any and all mentions about Plame.
I found this truly astonishing. Whatever one thinks of the Plame affair, it's incredible that Wikipedia main article about Bush would contain zero mentions about this case. It were as though Karl Rove himself had edited the article and had carefully airbrushed out anything that could possibly have a hint of negativity about his boss.
By contrast, the Wikipedia articles on various Democrats could have been written by Rush Limbaugh himself.
For example, at the same time Wikipedia was blocking any mentions of the Plame affair from the Bush article, the main Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton included a massive, seven-part "Controversies" section. This section rounded up every single right-wing nutcase allegation ever made against Clinton (quite an impressive feat when you consider all the crazed conspiracy theories that swirled around Clinton in the 1990s).
By contrast, at the time, no "Controversies" section existed in the Bush article (although there was a modest two-part "Criticism and public perception" section).
Of course, Wikipedia's contest is dynamic and fluid and a lot of what I found in 2008 has now changed. For example, there is now a very brief mention of Plame in the Bush article.
But it's clear that the ongoing right-wing spin process continues to contaminate Wikipedia articles.
A recent example is the Wikipedia article on Glenn Beck.
Do you remember Beck's controversy from May 17, 2005? That was the day Beck made astonishing and chilling remarks about killing Michael Moore. His exact words were: "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could."
Beck's remarks (understandably) created a firestorm of controversy. Moore even opened his 2011 book, Here Comes Trouble: Stories from My Life with the Beck quote, as an example of the crazy, violent rhetoric that he has faced over the years from the wingnut crowd.
It's important to note that at no time did Beck ever claim he was joking, or making the comment in jest. And Beck never apologized or faced any consequences for his remark.
No doubt, after a while, Beck just wanted the whole issue to go away. And today, it's clear that he's gotten his wish. In fact, seven years later, it's as though the incident never occurred.
If you read the Wikipedia article on Beck, there is absolutely nothing about Beck's comments about killing Michael Moore. Not one word. In fact, the article is largely sanitized of Beck's long history of making inflammatory, crazy remarks.
For example, do you remember Beck's controversial 2010 Tides Foundation remarks? That episode too, has been completed omitted from the Wikipedia article on Beck. In fact, the article reads like a big, wet sloppy kiss and a Valentine to Beck.
Of course, the article on Beck is hardly the only slanted article on Wikipedia. A casual scan of topics ranging from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton also shows a heavy right-wing spin.
One of the very few exceptions is the Wikipedia article on global warming. After a long, ferocious back-and-forth struggle over the years, Wikipedia's editors finally locked down that article to prevent tampering from the wingnut climate change deniers.
On that article, one currently finds a detailed FAQ on the discussions page that answers all the questions that weary Wikipedia editors have had to answer, over and over, in disputing the Rush Limbaugh crowd. As a result of this policy, the "global warming" article is one of the few major Wikipedia articles that hasn't been subjected to right-wing spin.
The problem is, thousands of other Wikipedia articles are open to editing by anyone---and as a result, virtually every article on a right-wing figure has been carefully sanitized. At the same time, most Wikipedia articles on Democratic figures tend to read like they were edited by Fox News.
The Wikipedia articles on everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama round up every single nutcase right-wing allegation ever made against these people. And if the likes of progressive commentators from Ed Schultz to Michael Moore ever did or said anything in the least bit controversial, you can be sure to read about it in detail on Wikipedia.
One quick example to prove my point: at different times in their careers, both Schultz and Beck have gotten into trouble for using the word "slut." But while the Wikipedia article on Schultz details the controversy his comment created, the Wikipedia article on Beck completely avoids any mention of the time Beck called Cindy Sheehan a "slut." As ever, the double standard on Wikipedia is blatant and sickening.
Of course, since Wikipedia's content is fluid and dynamic, the situation may have changed by the time you read this. But if that's the case, you can be assured that such content won't survive long on Wikipedia before it is eventually deleted or altered by right-wingers.
As I said, the right-wingers are tenacious and determined. They'll do whatever it takes to bend Wikipedia to suit their reality.
Today's right-wingers know exactly what they want. And they'll play hardball to do whatever it takes to win. For example, we saw this in the 2000 elections, when the GOP brownshirt thugs staged riots and intimidated the Florida voter counters, while Al Gore's people just sat around politely waiting for the phone to ring.
The right-wingers may not have the facts on their side. But they do have the determination and will to get what they want by brute force. And as a result, Wikipedia, the world's largest and most popular reference site, now has a right-wing slant on thousands of its articles.
Wikipedia is one of the most useful sites on the Web. It's a fantastic reference source that provides an incredible wealth of data on an endless variety of topics.
A big strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article. If, for example, an expert on quantum mechanics happens to notice a small factual error in the Wikipedia article on that topic, he or she can easily fix it on the spot. By harnessing the power of the knowledge of millions of people, Wikipedia has grown into the world's biggest reference resource.
However, Wikipedia's strength is also its biggest flaw. The very fact that anyone can edit an article means that errors, spin and bias can easily creep into the Wikipedia database.
If you're looking to read up on millions of disparate topics, from aardvarks to Frank Zappa, Wikipedia can offer you an enormous amount of helpful info that is reasonably free of bias.
But there's one big exception: articles on current political figures and topics.
Here, Wikipedia falls woefully short in its goal of providing a "neutral point of view."
Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia's political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin. And thousands of articles on political figures ranging from Ronald Reagan to Glenn Beck have been either sanitized, or given a pro-GOP slant.
Normally, the open nature of Wikipedia prevents such mischief. Typically, if someone introduces biased, or incorrect information into an article, it is quickly corrected by other visitors.
But this process has clearly failed on Wikipedia when it comes to thousands of articles on current political topics.
The reason is obvious: the right-wing "contributors" are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force. In this respect, they're much like Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio in that they believe if they simply repeat something over and over, it becomes "fact."
To be sure, from my experience with Wikipedia over the years, I've seen some of this behavior from progressives as well on Wikipedia---but it is nickel-dime, compared to the massive, sweeping efforts made by right-wingers to bend reality to suit their point of view.
I first started noticing Wikipedia's right-wing spin in 2008 when I accessed the main article on George W. Bush. I was looking for some quick info about Valerie Plame. I was surprised to find zero mentions of Plame in the Bush article.
I then tried to raise this issue on the article's "Discussions" page and I found that merely typing in the word "Plame" triggered a text robot that blocked any posts from mentioning Plame on that article. Clearly, a Bush-friendly editor was very determined to sanitize the article of any and all mentions about Plame.
I found this truly astonishing. Whatever one thinks of the Plame affair, it's incredible that Wikipedia main article about Bush would contain zero mentions about this case. It were as though Karl Rove himself had edited the article and had carefully airbrushed out anything that could possibly have a hint of negativity about his boss.
By contrast, the Wikipedia articles on various Democrats could have been written by Rush Limbaugh himself.
For example, at the same time Wikipedia was blocking any mentions of the Plame affair from the Bush article, the main Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton included a massive, seven-part "Controversies" section. This section rounded up every single right-wing nutcase allegation ever made against Clinton (quite an impressive feat when you consider all the crazed conspiracy theories that swirled around Clinton in the 1990s).
By contrast, at the time, no "Controversies" section existed in the Bush article (although there was a modest two-part "Criticism and public perception" section).
Of course, Wikipedia's contest is dynamic and fluid and a lot of what I found in 2008 has now changed. For example, there is now a very brief mention of Plame in the Bush article.
But it's clear that the ongoing right-wing spin process continues to contaminate Wikipedia articles.
A recent example is the Wikipedia article on Glenn Beck.
Do you remember Beck's controversy from May 17, 2005? That was the day Beck made astonishing and chilling remarks about killing Michael Moore. His exact words were: "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could."
Beck's remarks (understandably) created a firestorm of controversy. Moore even opened his 2011 book, Here Comes Trouble: Stories from My Life with the Beck quote, as an example of the crazy, violent rhetoric that he has faced over the years from the wingnut crowd.
It's important to note that at no time did Beck ever claim he was joking, or making the comment in jest. And Beck never apologized or faced any consequences for his remark.
No doubt, after a while, Beck just wanted the whole issue to go away. And today, it's clear that he's gotten his wish. In fact, seven years later, it's as though the incident never occurred.
If you read the Wikipedia article on Beck, there is absolutely nothing about Beck's comments about killing Michael Moore. Not one word. In fact, the article is largely sanitized of Beck's long history of making inflammatory, crazy remarks.
For example, do you remember Beck's controversial 2010 Tides Foundation remarks? That episode too, has been completed omitted from the Wikipedia article on Beck. In fact, the article reads like a big, wet sloppy kiss and a Valentine to Beck.
Of course, the article on Beck is hardly the only slanted article on Wikipedia. A casual scan of topics ranging from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton also shows a heavy right-wing spin.
One of the very few exceptions is the Wikipedia article on global warming. After a long, ferocious back-and-forth struggle over the years, Wikipedia's editors finally locked down that article to prevent tampering from the wingnut climate change deniers.
On that article, one currently finds a detailed FAQ on the discussions page that answers all the questions that weary Wikipedia editors have had to answer, over and over, in disputing the Rush Limbaugh crowd. As a result of this policy, the "global warming" article is one of the few major Wikipedia articles that hasn't been subjected to right-wing spin.
The problem is, thousands of other Wikipedia articles are open to editing by anyone---and as a result, virtually every article on a right-wing figure has been carefully sanitized. At the same time, most Wikipedia articles on Democratic figures tend to read like they were edited by Fox News.
The Wikipedia articles on everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama round up every single nutcase right-wing allegation ever made against these people. And if the likes of progressive commentators from Ed Schultz to Michael Moore ever did or said anything in the least bit controversial, you can be sure to read about it in detail on Wikipedia.
One quick example to prove my point: at different times in their careers, both Schultz and Beck have gotten into trouble for using the word "slut." But while the Wikipedia article on Schultz details the controversy his comment created, the Wikipedia article on Beck completely avoids any mention of the time Beck called Cindy Sheehan a "slut." As ever, the double standard on Wikipedia is blatant and sickening.
Of course, since Wikipedia's content is fluid and dynamic, the situation may have changed by the time you read this. But if that's the case, you can be assured that such content won't survive long on Wikipedia before it is eventually deleted or altered by right-wingers.
As I said, the right-wingers are tenacious and determined. They'll do whatever it takes to bend Wikipedia to suit their reality.
Today's right-wingers know exactly what they want. And they'll play hardball to do whatever it takes to win. For example, we saw this in the 2000 elections, when the GOP brownshirt thugs staged riots and intimidated the Florida voter counters, while Al Gore's people just sat around politely waiting for the phone to ring.
The right-wingers may not have the facts on their side. But they do have the determination and will to get what they want by brute force. And as a result, Wikipedia, the world's largest and most popular reference site, now has a right-wing slant on thousands of its articles.
Sunday, May 06, 2012
Viva la France: Socialist Hollande Wins Presidency
By MARC McDONALD
I've really enjoyed following the recent French elections. I must admit, I feel envious of the French in many ways. One thing I greatly admire is their election system. There, voters have a choice of numerous candidates, from the far left to the far right. (I should note that, in France, the "far right" refers to a candidate that is in many ways far to the left of most U.S. Democratic politicians---a fact that is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media). I also like the run-off aspect of the French election system. There, one would never see a debacle like "Bush v. Gore," which made a mockery of democracy in the U.S.
On Sunday, Socialist Francois Hollande won the French presidency. And unlike America's wimpy Dems, Hollande doesn't shy away from his strong Progressive convictions. He has pledged a 75 percent tax on those making over $1 million a year.
I notice that the U.S. and U.K. corporate media have tried to portray this as an extremist stance that will harm France's economy. Strangely enough, the same articles usually go on to claim that this tax policy won't raise much money anyway. But if that's the case, then why the fierce opposition to it by the corporate media?
In any case, claims that Hollande is an "extremist" are wildly off the mark. He is, after all, popular with most of the French people. And, in fact, his popularity really started to soar after he announced the 75 percent tax on the rich. Publications like "The Economist" and "The Wall Street Journal," which have tried to portray Hollande as a dangerous extremist and as bad for French democracy are laughable. The fact is, it's the corporate media itself that is contemptuous of democracy. The People, after all, have spoken. And to ridicule the will of The People is to show how the corporate media really despises democracy.
I see a lot of misinformation and outright lies about France in the U.S. corporate media. Generally, the image portrayed of France is that of a nation that is suffering from a horrible economy, where the people are gloomy and miserable and, if France would only "see the light" and deregulate its economy, U.S.-style, it'd prosper.
This, of course, is all a crock. I know this, because I've been to France and I've seen it first-hand. OK, the economy does have its problems. But in France, I saw none of the extreme, bottom-of-the barrel poverty that is increasingly common in the U.S.
France, of course, is not a utopia. But it is a nation that where the gap between rich and poor is much less extreme than the U.S. In France, even the poor have a substantial social safety net. And the French health-care system is one of the best in the world (in fact, it was ranked No. 2, after Italy, in a recent World Health Organization ranking).
I mentioned this fact to a few right-wing friends of mine and they disputed it, claiming that the World Health Organization is a "Liberal" group. When I asked them if they had any evidence that contradicts the WHO, one of them said, "I sure do!" We continued debating for a few minutes and then finally he named his source: Rush Limbaugh. I pointed out to this person that even the "Wall Street Journal" recently did an in-depth investigation into the French health-care system and praised it as one of the best in the world. "Well, that must be a Liberal publication, too," my right-wing friend said. Somewhere, Rupert Murdoch's ears must have been burning.
Anyway, during my visit, the French people I saw seemed happy and content with their lives. I visited during August and I found that during that month, virtually the entire nation takes the whole month off. (In France, every worker gets a minimum of 5 weeks paid vacation, as well as loads of holidays and sick days).
The latter was something that really impressed me. After all, I've worked jobs in the past that offered zero sick days. I once tried to call in sick when I had the full-blown flu and was told that I'd be fired if I didn't come into work. I tried to explain that, if I came in, not only would I not be productive, but I'd wind up spreading the virus all over the workplace. "I don't care," my boss said. "You need to come in anyway." (Note that in my five years with this company, I had never even tried to take a single sick day).
I've tried to explain this to my European friends and, without exception, they're stunned that American workers put up with this sort of crap. "People would take to the streets if employers tried to do that here," one French acquaintance told me.
Besides blasting France and making up lies about what its like to live there, I notice a lot of my right-wing acquaintances are constantly mocking and ridiculing the French as "surrender monkeys" and "weaklings."
I recall the "surrender monkey" insults that were flying around before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. But frankly, to continue to mock and insult the French even today, in the aftermath of that disastrous war, is just frankly bizarre. I recall telling one right-winger, "But the French look pretty smart to have not participated in that godawful war---after all, no WMDs were ever found!" My right-wing acquaintance looked at me and then said, "Have you Libs already forgotten 9/11?" I then stopped the debate, realizing it was pointless.
As far as the other charge the wingnuts level against the French---that they're weaklings and cowards---well, who are the real weaklings these days? French workers, after all, don't take any sh*t from the rich and powerful. If workers there see their rights under threat, they'll immediately take to the streets and fight for their rights.
Here, in America, workers are timid and scared to stand up for their rights. Very rarely do workers here take to the streets. Instead we politely bend over and spread our ass cheeks so we can get f*cked by the Rich and Powerful, again and again. This is why we have zero government-mandated vacation days or sick days (which makes America unique in this regard among First World nations). Even the likes of India and China require some vacation days and holidays for workers these days.
So who are the real cowards? It sure as hell ain't the French.
I've really enjoyed following the recent French elections. I must admit, I feel envious of the French in many ways. One thing I greatly admire is their election system. There, voters have a choice of numerous candidates, from the far left to the far right. (I should note that, in France, the "far right" refers to a candidate that is in many ways far to the left of most U.S. Democratic politicians---a fact that is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media). I also like the run-off aspect of the French election system. There, one would never see a debacle like "Bush v. Gore," which made a mockery of democracy in the U.S.
On Sunday, Socialist Francois Hollande won the French presidency. And unlike America's wimpy Dems, Hollande doesn't shy away from his strong Progressive convictions. He has pledged a 75 percent tax on those making over $1 million a year.
I notice that the U.S. and U.K. corporate media have tried to portray this as an extremist stance that will harm France's economy. Strangely enough, the same articles usually go on to claim that this tax policy won't raise much money anyway. But if that's the case, then why the fierce opposition to it by the corporate media?
In any case, claims that Hollande is an "extremist" are wildly off the mark. He is, after all, popular with most of the French people. And, in fact, his popularity really started to soar after he announced the 75 percent tax on the rich. Publications like "The Economist" and "The Wall Street Journal," which have tried to portray Hollande as a dangerous extremist and as bad for French democracy are laughable. The fact is, it's the corporate media itself that is contemptuous of democracy. The People, after all, have spoken. And to ridicule the will of The People is to show how the corporate media really despises democracy.
I see a lot of misinformation and outright lies about France in the U.S. corporate media. Generally, the image portrayed of France is that of a nation that is suffering from a horrible economy, where the people are gloomy and miserable and, if France would only "see the light" and deregulate its economy, U.S.-style, it'd prosper.
This, of course, is all a crock. I know this, because I've been to France and I've seen it first-hand. OK, the economy does have its problems. But in France, I saw none of the extreme, bottom-of-the barrel poverty that is increasingly common in the U.S.
France, of course, is not a utopia. But it is a nation that where the gap between rich and poor is much less extreme than the U.S. In France, even the poor have a substantial social safety net. And the French health-care system is one of the best in the world (in fact, it was ranked No. 2, after Italy, in a recent World Health Organization ranking).
I mentioned this fact to a few right-wing friends of mine and they disputed it, claiming that the World Health Organization is a "Liberal" group. When I asked them if they had any evidence that contradicts the WHO, one of them said, "I sure do!" We continued debating for a few minutes and then finally he named his source: Rush Limbaugh. I pointed out to this person that even the "Wall Street Journal" recently did an in-depth investigation into the French health-care system and praised it as one of the best in the world. "Well, that must be a Liberal publication, too," my right-wing friend said. Somewhere, Rupert Murdoch's ears must have been burning.
Anyway, during my visit, the French people I saw seemed happy and content with their lives. I visited during August and I found that during that month, virtually the entire nation takes the whole month off. (In France, every worker gets a minimum of 5 weeks paid vacation, as well as loads of holidays and sick days).
The latter was something that really impressed me. After all, I've worked jobs in the past that offered zero sick days. I once tried to call in sick when I had the full-blown flu and was told that I'd be fired if I didn't come into work. I tried to explain that, if I came in, not only would I not be productive, but I'd wind up spreading the virus all over the workplace. "I don't care," my boss said. "You need to come in anyway." (Note that in my five years with this company, I had never even tried to take a single sick day).
I've tried to explain this to my European friends and, without exception, they're stunned that American workers put up with this sort of crap. "People would take to the streets if employers tried to do that here," one French acquaintance told me.
Besides blasting France and making up lies about what its like to live there, I notice a lot of my right-wing acquaintances are constantly mocking and ridiculing the French as "surrender monkeys" and "weaklings."
I recall the "surrender monkey" insults that were flying around before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. But frankly, to continue to mock and insult the French even today, in the aftermath of that disastrous war, is just frankly bizarre. I recall telling one right-winger, "But the French look pretty smart to have not participated in that godawful war---after all, no WMDs were ever found!" My right-wing acquaintance looked at me and then said, "Have you Libs already forgotten 9/11?" I then stopped the debate, realizing it was pointless.
As far as the other charge the wingnuts level against the French---that they're weaklings and cowards---well, who are the real weaklings these days? French workers, after all, don't take any sh*t from the rich and powerful. If workers there see their rights under threat, they'll immediately take to the streets and fight for their rights.
Here, in America, workers are timid and scared to stand up for their rights. Very rarely do workers here take to the streets. Instead we politely bend over and spread our ass cheeks so we can get f*cked by the Rich and Powerful, again and again. This is why we have zero government-mandated vacation days or sick days (which makes America unique in this regard among First World nations). Even the likes of India and China require some vacation days and holidays for workers these days.
So who are the real cowards? It sure as hell ain't the French.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
