Glenn Greenwald: the retired military analysts story continues to be censored by the networks

Glenn Greenwald has posted another excellent report on corruption of the corporate media. Here's the background. In 2008, the NYT's David Barstow broke the story of how retired generals posing as media analysts, "had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended." Barstow's story received extremely limited play by the corporate electronic media. Even though Barstow has now won a Pulitzer Prize, his story about the analysts is still being censored. By whom? By the television networks that made unethical use of the generals' highly biased analyses.

By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs.

As Greenwald reports, these networks are now adding insult to injury. They are not even reporting on the basis for Barstow's Pulitzer.

The outright refusal of any of these "news organizations" even to mention what Barstow uncovered about the Pentagon's propaganda program and the way it infected their coverage is one of the most illuminating events revealing how they operate. So transparently corrupt and journalistically disgraceful is their blackout of this story that even Howard Kurtz and Politico -- that's Howard Kurtz and Politico -- lambasted them for this concealment.

Greenwald provides lots of details in his article, and numerous relevant links.

Continue ReadingGlenn Greenwald: the retired military analysts story continues to be censored by the networks

It’s time to start paying as we go

I would think that the economic collapse of the United States has clearly demonstrated that the "free market" is not benevolent when those holding great power in society are not benevolent. Consequently, the best way to run society is to use government to make sure that powerful interests don't run roughshod over regular folks. But what are the proper functions of government, to the extent that government works with markets to allocate goods and services? This question was addressed by economist Jeffrey Sachs in the May 2009 edition of Scientific American:

The reasons include the protection of the poor through a social safety net; the correction of externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions; the provision of "merit goods" such as healthcare and education that society deems to be essential for all its members; and the financing of scientific and technological research that cannot be efficiently captured by private investors. In all these circumstances, the free market system tends to under-provide the resource in question.

Sachs ends his article by indicating that there is no alternative to raising taxes to pay for the services Americans want and need. In particular, this year's deficit "will reach an astounding 1.7 5 trillion, or 12% of GDP." Further, the government debt held by the public will rise from 40% of GDP in 2008 to 65% of GDP in 2013. According to Sachs, this continued buildup of public debt "will threaten the well-being of our children and our children's children."

Continue ReadingIt’s time to start paying as we go

A medium serving of bollocks

Listening to the radio at work just now, I heard the breakfast DJs Matt & Jo talking to an alleged psychic/medium from New Zealand - the name escapes me for now so for the sake of convenience I'll call him K (for Kiwi). The segment began with K's story of how, in his youth, he started seeing spirits in the form of small bright lights in front of his vision (similar to what happens to me right before I cop a massive debilitating migraine). These spirits would reveal things to K about peoples' still-living relatives. When he talked about it he copped flak from his peers, so he concealed it until relatively recently. It was, more or less, along the lines of most medium origin stories: young child with a gift hides it as a child due to teasing or trouble, then makes a living off it in adulthood. You could also apply that to a lot of X-Men origin stories, but that's another, um, story. The fun began when K started a reading for the DJs Matt & Jo. During the intro, Jo sounded like an agnostic sort-of believer (not really sure, but willing to believe - I guess she watches "Medium" and not "The Mentalist") whilst Matt was a dead-set skeptic (you make the big claim, you provide the big evidence). Knowing this, K "read" Matt first, saying straight off that his mother, who had died of cancer, was "there" with a small girl (or talking about a small girl) and there was also the presence of a dog. Matt stated that his mother hadn't died of cancer, that there was no "small girl", alive or dead, that applied to his life and that all the dogs that could possibly have been relevant were still alive. Immediately, K became defensive and flatly stated that Matt was wrong. "You're wrong, this is what they're revealing to me." Matt defended himself, saying "Sorry, but I'm just being honest - none of what you said applies to me," which attracted the response, "Well, you're just being a skeptic." He spat the word "skeptic" out like was poison. "The spirits are telling me there was a small girl and a dog which mattered in your life, so you should take notice of that and think about those things - that's what the spirits say, but let's move on." Swiftly turning his attention to Jo (I could almost hear Matt derisively raising his eyebrow), K mentioned something about a car accident involving her father (whom he knew to be deceased). Jo, now sounding unconvinced, revealed that her father had actually died in a plane crash. "Ah yes," said K, sounding increasingly desperate (yet still nice and smug), "that's what it might be," then attempted to include the third member of the studio crew (whose name escapes me) in his reading (also to whom nothing applied). This vagueness went on for a couple more uncomfortable minutes (uncomfortable for K anyway, I'm sure, but I was enjoying it) and then they threw to a song. I would love to have been a fly on the wall as K made his (no doubt speedy) exit from the studio.

Continue ReadingA medium serving of bollocks

Anti-gay, or pro-discrimination?

Following on previous comments about gay marriage (1, 2, 3), prop 8, and the increased change of falling skies... I was very pleased to encounter this extremely well argued vid on Ed Brayton's blog. He demonstrates both strong logic, and the ability to construct his argument from facts. Something he demonstrates to be lacking in the christian opposition. If our opponents actually argued like this, the debate might even be interesting! I'm experiencing some issues with WordPress and embedded video - so click here for the video on Youtube

Continue ReadingAnti-gay, or pro-discrimination?