Rupert Murdoch’s racket

Seumas Milne of the U.K. Guardian puts things into perspective:

Murdoch's overweening political influence has long been recognised, from well before Tony Blair flew to Australia in 1995 to pay public homage at his corporate court. What has been less well understood is how close-up and personal the pressure exerted by his organisation has been throughout public life. The fear that those who crossed him would be given the full tabloid treatment over their personal misdemeanours, real or imagined, has proved to be a powerful Mafia-like racket. It was the warning that News International would target their personal lives that cowed members of the Commons culture and media committee over pressing their investigation into phone hacking too vigorously before the last election.

Continue ReadingRupert Murdoch’s racket

Forty-five people were massacred in the United States yesterday

Forty-five people were murdered in the United States yesterday (16,591 homicides for the year 2009). And another forty-five will be murdered tomorrow. And another forty-five every day of the year and next year and next year. What happened in Norway was terrible. A Christian extremist named Anders Breivik killed 91 people.* It was clearly a massacre. Here in the United States, we have a massacre the size of Norway's every other day, but we don't call it a "massacre" because the killings aren't as geographically clustered--but then again, many of them are clustered in the inner cities of America. And if we don't call it a "massacre," we don't feel as compelled to do something to stop the killings.   Something simple like  calling off the "war on drugs." For anyone who objects that I've called the Norwegian killer a "Christian," I'm willing to make a deal. Next time a Muslim inflicts violence in America, will you agree that you won't describe him as a Muslim when you describe his conduct?  That would avoid a double-standard. Deal?

Continue ReadingForty-five people were massacred in the United States yesterday

Double standard

The media is engaged in a stunning double-standard regarding the Norwegian terrorist--except that he's not being called a "terrorist."  As Glenn Greenwald points out, the term "terrorist" is reserved for special kinds of people who wreak destruction:

[N]ow that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism.

As usual, Greenwald has done his homework and offered plenty of links.   When is the word "terrorist" appropriate?

Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target . . . if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence).

Greenwald also gives detailed proof that when there was no evidence that the perpetrator was a Muslim, many media outlets we happy to assume that the perpetrator was Muslim from the Middle East.  This was a total lack of critical thought on behalf of the New York Times and other major outlets, as documented here. None of this is surprising these days, given that the news media so often sees its job as promoting government objectives.   And consider that uttering the phrase Al Qaeda, which was done more than a few times recently, gives the federal government yet more chances to give us nightmares so that we feel that we need the government as our warmongering protector against terrorists, meaning Muslims.

Continue ReadingDouble standard

Advice for Norway

Two weeks ago, my 12-year old daughter and I strolled through downtown Oslo. It was a beautiful city back then, as it will again be someday soon. As my nieces pointed out the various government buildings at the center of downtown, I remember commenting, "They are so very accessible," meaning that there were no imposing walls surrounding them, and I didn't see any heavily armed guards.  I'm attaching a couple photos I took in downtown Oslo during my trip.   As I walked around, the thought keep recurring: This would be a wonderful place to live (I write this based on many conversations I've had with Norwegians, such as this one). And now it deeply saddens me to hear of the recent bombing and shootings. I would only have one bit of advice for the Norwegians:  Don't do what the U.S. did after 9/11. Don't trash your civil liberties.  Don't vilify each other based on "lack of patriotism."    Don't drum up evidence to start an unnecessary war somewhere.   If your conservatives become overt warmongerers as a result of these tragedies, demand that they provide substantial evidence to substantiate whatever claims they make.  Whoever caused this, be very careful to not overgeneralize your anger toward large groups of people who are innocent.   Don't get suckered into draining your treasury to feed new-found paranoia.  Don't become a closed society.  Don't let anyone disparage the importance of your civil rights. Don't let this tragedy define you or obsess you.   Beware that a bomb can, if you are not careful, become a fuse to a much bigger self-imposed tragedy. Don't self-destruct, like the United States is doing. To my Norwegian friends and family, I am so very saddened to hear of this tragedy.   I love your country.

Continue ReadingAdvice for Norway

An obvious way to cut the deficit

Alan Grayson included me in his recent mass-emailing on the topic of the budget deficit. Guess how he would cut the deficit?

Last year, we spent $154 billion in appropriated funds on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is in addition to the $549 billion in appropriated funds for the Pentagon – you know, just to keep the lights on. And the non-appropriated cost of war was even higher – especially when you include the cost of care for the 15% of all the American troops in Iraq who come home with permanent brain abnormalities. According to Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, the war in Iraq alone is costing us $4 trillion and counting. That’s more than $13,000 for every one of us, and roughly 8% of our entire net worth as a nation. The cost of war is enormous. So enormous that, as I pointed out in H.R. 5353, The War is Making You Poor Act, if we simply funded that cost through the Pentagon’s own budget, rather than through supplemental appropriations, we could eliminate taxes on everyone’s first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for married couples), and still reduce the deficit by more than $10 billion a year. And that was last year. Since then, the number of wars has gone up by 50%.

Continue ReadingAn obvious way to cut the deficit