The story began long long ago in a galaxy far way. Now, eons later, even Princess Leia and Darth Vader are friends of sorts. They are sitting at a bar and R2D2 is serving the drinks. Both are drinking Alderaan Ruge a very rare and expensive liqueur. There are however still pockets of villainy and stupidity in the far reaches of the galaxy. George, yes that George is strapped to a gurney in the corner of the room.
George: Where am I?
Darth: The Death Star
Princess Leia: Yes, THE DEATH STAR, you are strapped to a gurney on THE DEATH STAR. I'm Princess Leia and this is Ani, uh I mean Darth Vader. Mister Vader to you. We have some questions for you George.
George: I'm the Comander see, I don't have to answer questions that's one of the neat things about being the president. I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.
A mind probe is summoned, the needles are extended to their full length and the prick is about to get pricked. I'd also like to report that Darth would probably smile and scowl from time to time if he could. It will help if you understand that he experiences the same emotions that prompt others to scowl or to smile. The same emotions that lead others to frown or to giggle. Darth would have scowled upon hearing his childhood name, and he might very well be smiling or perhaps even giggling when he says.
Darth: Oh you'll answer my questions George, that is one of the neat things about being a Sith Lord.George: Why am I here?
Leia and Darth ignore him.
Leia: The probe doesn't seem to be working, it's not registering any content.
Darth: The diagnostics indicate it's functioning normally. Puzzling.
George repeats: Why am I here?
Darth: You're here because, to use the earth's venacular, you're a bad motherfucker, and believe me I know something about bad motherfuckers.
At an unknown location Yoda is practicing his latest moves when suddenly he stops, "There is a disturbance in the force, he says. I fear for the 23rd letter in the alphabet, but that makes no sense. Yoda, somewhat perplexed, returns to his light sabre practice.
Darth: What should we do with him?
Princess Leia: Well we know he's a liar. We know he searches for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. He invades unarmed countries. He doesn't listen to his dad. He says lots of really stupid shit. He's been building weapons of mass destruction himself. He lacks respect for royalty (remember Leia is a Princess and Darth Vader a Lord) can you believe he recently trashed the Queens Garden and refused to eat her food. He also has a thing for Tony Blair, and frankly I just don't like his looks. I'm thinking maybe the trash compacter.
Darth: Leia, your dark side is certainly showing tonight. I suppose we could just give him to Jabba the Hutt as a gift. I've grown quite fond of the Alderaan Ruge and Jabba is the only known source. (for the sake of clarity let me add that's a known known as opposed to an unknown known)
George: I didn't do anything, let me go.
Princess Leia: Give it a rest Chimp.
Darth: Chimp
Princess Leia: Yes a term I picked up listening to an earth news station. I think it is a term of endearment.
George: But
Princess Leia and Darth in unison: Just shut the fuck up George
George: Everyone is starting to use that word when they talk about me John Kerry said I fucked up Iraq.
Darth: I'm not surprised you fuck up damn near everything you touch.
George continues trying to speak but soon begins gasping for breath.
Princess Leia: Stop Darth you're choking him, we don't want him dead, yet.
Darth: Oh alright, but tell him to quit his whining.
Princess Leia: So lets see it's either the compacter or a bribe for Jabba. What did the mind probe reveal?
Darth: Not a damn thing.
Princess Leia: Nothing, hmm.
George: Please I just want to go home I'm the President you know? I have an important meeting with the Republican National Committee they're going to get me reelected.
Leia: I thought I told you to shut up. The RNC is nothing but a wretched hive of scum and villainy. You have enough problems George, I wouldn't be worrying about a meeting with the RNC if I were you.
Leia: Where were we. Oh yes what to do with him.
Darth: We could...
Darth's voice trails off. His breathing is audible. He would be giggling here if he could.
Princess Leia: You mean? He's weak willed, manipulated by neocons, stupid...
Darth: Yes, the mind probe confirmed all that.
Princess Leia: You're thinking of using the power of the force, your fancy Jedi mind tricks.
Darth: Yes
Princess Leia: I don't see why it wouldn't work. I'm sure we could find something constructive for him to do and maybe help the planet earth at the same time. Let's give it a try.
Darth walks over and releases George from the Gurney.
Darth: It's your lucky day.
George: It's my lucky day.
Darth: You don't want to invade unarmed countries and have impure thoughts about Tony Blair.
George: I don't want to invade unarmed countries and have impure thoughts.
Darth: You've been a terrible president.
George: I've been a terrible president.
Darth You don't want to be president anymore.
George: I don't want to be president anymore.
Darth: You'll resign and move back to Texas.
George: I'll resign and move back to Texas.
Darth: Move along.
George takes the next shuttle to earth and promptly resigns the presidency. A grateful nation celebrates, and George moves back to the Crawford ranch. Every once in a while he looks over at Laura and says, "tell me again why I resigned the presidency."
Laura happier than she has been in many years smiles.
Laura: You don't really need to know.
George: I don't really need to know.
Laura: You have some chores to do.
George: I have some chores to do.
Laura: Move along.
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Titties And Asses
A candidate named Arnold said please
I've gropped some it's true I'm a tease
Herr Hitler I admire
It's he lights my fire
Not the titties and asses I squeeze
I've gropped some it's true I'm a tease
Herr Hitler I admire
It's he lights my fire
Not the titties and asses I squeeze
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
The Crime Of The Century:
A Never-Ending "War Against Terrorism"
by Thom Hartmann
During this lull in the fighting between the 2002 election cycle Iraq conflict and the soon-to-come 2004 election cycle conflict, it's a good time to (anonymously) sit in a library or bookstore and browse "The Turner Diaries" and Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace."
The former was the inspiration for Timothy McVeigh; the latter includes his self-written eulogy. Together, they show how terrorist McVeigh choose the wrong administration - and terrorist Osama bin Laden, by luck of the draw, chose the right one - to harm American democracy.
The Turner Diaries is an apocalyptic novel that opens with a convenience store robbery and ends with an Armageddon-style worldwide holocaust leaving only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants standing. The government of the United States responds to a terrorist attack (the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma) by cracking down on dissent, expanding the power of the Executive Branch, and shredding constitutional civil rights protections. White "patriots" respond by declaring war against the government that had once tried to take away their guns. Thus begins the cycle of violence that ends with the ultimate worldwide war, a vision straight out of the Book of Revelation.
But Tim McVeigh's expectation of a repressive federal reaction to his right-wing terrorism ran into a snag: Bill Clinton knew the difference between a rogue nation and a rogue criminal.
Like every President since George Washington, Bill Clinton knew that nations only declare war against nations. While armies deal with rogue states, police deal with criminals, be they domestic or international.
Like Germany's response to the Red Army Faction, Italy's response to The Red Brigades, and Greece's response to the 17 November terrorist group (among others), Clinton brought the full force of the criminal justice system against McVeigh, and even had Interpol and overseas police agencies looking for possible McVeigh affiliates. The result was that the trauma of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing was limited, closure was achieved for its victims, the civil rights of all Americans were largely left intact, and the United States government was able to get back to it's constitutionally-defined job of ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens.
Every President from Washington to Clinton understood the logic expressed by our founders when James Madison, on April 20, 1795, wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
"In war, too," Madison continued, "the discretionary power of the Executive [Branch of Government] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Although numerous recent presidents have declared "wars" on abstractions like poverty, illiteracy, drugs, and a variety of other social ills, all were well aware that these so-called "wars" were, in truth, just politically useful rhetoric. Real war can only be declared by one nation against another: it's not possible to declare a war against an abstraction.
The crime of 911 has been often cited to rationalize the loss of civil liberties and the ongoing traumatizing of the American people with daily "Terror Alerts" and a never-ending "war on terror."
But 911 wasn't an act of war, because it wasn't done against us by a nation. It was, instead, a crime, perpetrated by a criminal and his followers.
It was a horrific crime, certainly. A crime that required strong, swift, and sure response. A crime that other nations, corporations, and individuals may have abetted and must be held accountable for both domestically and in the international venues of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. A crime deserving a thorough investigation (which has yet to begin).
But Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not nations. Bin Laden was a criminal, and his group was a Middle Eastern sort of mafia with terrorist ambitions, initially funded by Poppy bin Laden, who was coincidentally a business partner with Poppy Bush. And, according to most of the world's police and intelligence agencies, Osama is dead (or dying) and his organization is in tatters.
To continue using our military against a criminal organization will only compound the horrific crime of 911, because armies aren't particularly good at police work.
It's time to restore civil liberties to Americans; reign in an Executive Branch intoxicated by warfare; and hand over to American and international police agencies the very real and very big job of dealing with the remnants of al Qaeda around the world, and prevent a recurrence of 911 by investigating who was involved and how they pulled it off in the first place.
Anything less will simply perpetuate this crime of the century.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of "Unequal Protection: The Rise Of Corporate Dominance And The Theft Of Human Rights" and hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show on the i.e. America Radio Network. www.thomhartmann.com and www.ieamericaradio.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
by Thom Hartmann
During this lull in the fighting between the 2002 election cycle Iraq conflict and the soon-to-come 2004 election cycle conflict, it's a good time to (anonymously) sit in a library or bookstore and browse "The Turner Diaries" and Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace."
The former was the inspiration for Timothy McVeigh; the latter includes his self-written eulogy. Together, they show how terrorist McVeigh choose the wrong administration - and terrorist Osama bin Laden, by luck of the draw, chose the right one - to harm American democracy.
The Turner Diaries is an apocalyptic novel that opens with a convenience store robbery and ends with an Armageddon-style worldwide holocaust leaving only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants standing. The government of the United States responds to a terrorist attack (the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma) by cracking down on dissent, expanding the power of the Executive Branch, and shredding constitutional civil rights protections. White "patriots" respond by declaring war against the government that had once tried to take away their guns. Thus begins the cycle of violence that ends with the ultimate worldwide war, a vision straight out of the Book of Revelation.
But Tim McVeigh's expectation of a repressive federal reaction to his right-wing terrorism ran into a snag: Bill Clinton knew the difference between a rogue nation and a rogue criminal.
Like every President since George Washington, Bill Clinton knew that nations only declare war against nations. While armies deal with rogue states, police deal with criminals, be they domestic or international.
Like Germany's response to the Red Army Faction, Italy's response to The Red Brigades, and Greece's response to the 17 November terrorist group (among others), Clinton brought the full force of the criminal justice system against McVeigh, and even had Interpol and overseas police agencies looking for possible McVeigh affiliates. The result was that the trauma of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing was limited, closure was achieved for its victims, the civil rights of all Americans were largely left intact, and the United States government was able to get back to it's constitutionally-defined job of ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens.
Every President from Washington to Clinton understood the logic expressed by our founders when James Madison, on April 20, 1795, wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
"In war, too," Madison continued, "the discretionary power of the Executive [Branch of Government] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Although numerous recent presidents have declared "wars" on abstractions like poverty, illiteracy, drugs, and a variety of other social ills, all were well aware that these so-called "wars" were, in truth, just politically useful rhetoric. Real war can only be declared by one nation against another: it's not possible to declare a war against an abstraction.
The crime of 911 has been often cited to rationalize the loss of civil liberties and the ongoing traumatizing of the American people with daily "Terror Alerts" and a never-ending "war on terror."
But 911 wasn't an act of war, because it wasn't done against us by a nation. It was, instead, a crime, perpetrated by a criminal and his followers.
It was a horrific crime, certainly. A crime that required strong, swift, and sure response. A crime that other nations, corporations, and individuals may have abetted and must be held accountable for both domestically and in the international venues of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. A crime deserving a thorough investigation (which has yet to begin).
But Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not nations. Bin Laden was a criminal, and his group was a Middle Eastern sort of mafia with terrorist ambitions, initially funded by Poppy bin Laden, who was coincidentally a business partner with Poppy Bush. And, according to most of the world's police and intelligence agencies, Osama is dead (or dying) and his organization is in tatters.
To continue using our military against a criminal organization will only compound the horrific crime of 911, because armies aren't particularly good at police work.
It's time to restore civil liberties to Americans; reign in an Executive Branch intoxicated by warfare; and hand over to American and international police agencies the very real and very big job of dealing with the remnants of al Qaeda around the world, and prevent a recurrence of 911 by investigating who was involved and how they pulled it off in the first place.
Anything less will simply perpetuate this crime of the century.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of "Unequal Protection: The Rise Of Corporate Dominance And The Theft Of Human Rights" and hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show on the i.e. America Radio Network. www.thomhartmann.com and www.ieamericaradio.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Emporer Bush
Is Bush taking lessons from Julius Caesar? Apparently so. When Caesar's short but bloody conquest of the Celtic tribes led to the founding of the Roman province of Gaul (modern France) in 52 B.C. he divided the country into three parts. Well-connected sources tell us that Bush plans to divide Iraq into three parts as well: Premium, regular and unleaded.
Editor's cut by Katrina vanden Heuvel at the The Nation
Editor's cut by Katrina vanden Heuvel at the The Nation
Monday, April 21, 2003
Here, Look At This
Is it possible for me to go to a bookstore and leave without a book? I'm starting to think it's not. I enjoy perusing the shelves taking down one book and then another. Reading the flap, holding it, turning a page or two, perhaps taking the book to a comfortable chair and reading a chapter. It is a special moment when a book captures my interest. Sharing the experience with others is like the bloom on a flower a definite plus. Tim, Chris and I descend on the 21st South Barnes and Noble and no sooner through the door than each of us begins gravitating towards his own favorite section, coming together occasionally to discuss our finds and share a moment. This sometimes leads to taking a book off the shelf and handing it to another. Look at this, I think you'll find it interesting. Chris hands me William Gibson's latest Pattern Recognition
"I've heard this is very good," I say.
"Read the flap," he says, I do.
"Damn, I will have to buy this, but not today."
"I think I'll buy it when it comes out in paperback, or perhaps I'll just pick up a copy at the library. It will be a while before I can read it though," he says.
His stack of books to read is nearly as high as mine. Later I return the favor, handing him a book with the exhortation to check it out. Sometimes like today it degenerates into a silly game of picking a book at random and handing it to whoever is nearest. Followed by the take a look at this you'll find it interesting comment, a smile, and walking away. I always find something to buy. I don't always buy something, but I always find something I want to buy. I spot an interesting title The Best American Essays of the Century. I'm fond of the essay form. Hmmm Twain, Hemingway, William James, Vladimir Nabokov, Annie Dillard. Shelley has spoken fondly of Dillard essays, oh and look a favorite of mine John Updike an essay from 1993. Interesting title "The Disposable Rocket" I take a seat and start to read
It's just a feeling. The space in front of me empty moments ago is now occupied. I look up, Tim extends his arm handing me a book. I take it unable to resist. You'll find it interesting he says, smiles and walks away. I set it aside, the moment broken, but a decision made. I will not be leaving the store without this collection of essays. As we walk to the front of the store to complete my purchase I'm tempted to pick up a book at random and hand it to the first stranger I encounter with an admonition; look at this I think you'll find it interesting. The urge passes. I make it through the checkout and home. I finish the Updike piece I'd started. I like it. Is it possible for me to go to a bookstore and leave without a book?
"I've heard this is very good," I say.
"Read the flap," he says, I do.
"Damn, I will have to buy this, but not today."
"I think I'll buy it when it comes out in paperback, or perhaps I'll just pick up a copy at the library. It will be a while before I can read it though," he says.
His stack of books to read is nearly as high as mine. Later I return the favor, handing him a book with the exhortation to check it out. Sometimes like today it degenerates into a silly game of picking a book at random and handing it to whoever is nearest. Followed by the take a look at this you'll find it interesting comment, a smile, and walking away. I always find something to buy. I don't always buy something, but I always find something I want to buy. I spot an interesting title The Best American Essays of the Century. I'm fond of the essay form. Hmmm Twain, Hemingway, William James, Vladimir Nabokov, Annie Dillard. Shelley has spoken fondly of Dillard essays, oh and look a favorite of mine John Updike an essay from 1993. Interesting title "The Disposable Rocket" I take a seat and start to read
Inhabiting a male body is much like having a bank account; as long as it's healthy, you don't think much about it. Compared to the female body, it is a low-maintenance proposition: a shower now and then, trim the fingernails every ten days, a haircut once a month. Oh yes, shaving — scraping or buzzing away at your face every morning. Byron, in Don Juan, thought the repeated nuisance of shaving balanced out the periodic agony, for females, of childbirth. Women are, his lines tell us,Condemn'd to child-bed as men for their sins
Have shaving too entail'd upon their chins, —
A daily plague, which in the aggregate
May average on the whole with parturition.
From the standpoint of reproduction, the male body is a delivery system, as the female is a mazy device for retention. Once the delivery is made, men feel a faint but distinct falling-off of interest. Yet against the superhuman frenzy to deliver his goods: he vaults walls, skips sleep, risks wallet, health, and his political future all to ram home his seed into the gut of the chosen woman. The sense of the chase lives in him as the key to live. His body is, like a delivery rocket that falls way in space, a disposable means. Men put their bodies at risk to experience the release from gravity.
When...
It's just a feeling. The space in front of me empty moments ago is now occupied. I look up, Tim extends his arm handing me a book. I take it unable to resist. You'll find it interesting he says, smiles and walks away. I set it aside, the moment broken, but a decision made. I will not be leaving the store without this collection of essays. As we walk to the front of the store to complete my purchase I'm tempted to pick up a book at random and hand it to the first stranger I encounter with an admonition; look at this I think you'll find it interesting. The urge passes. I make it through the checkout and home. I finish the Updike piece I'd started. I like it. Is it possible for me to go to a bookstore and leave without a book?
anarchism
Liberty without socialism is greed, socialism without liberty is tyrrany.
-Chris
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
I love pot
Cannabis, the third most popular recreational drug after alcohol and tobacco, could win a new role as the aspirin of the 21st century, with growing evidence that its compounds may protect the brain against the damaging effects of ageing.
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Got Ya
Telephone conversation between George Bush and Al Jazeera after the recent unpleasantness in Baghdad.
AJ: George
G: Yes, who is this? How did you get this number?
AJ: Never mind about that. This is Al Jazeera
G: Al who. Is that you Gore?
AJ: No George, this is Al Jazeera the television network
G: You guys still around I uh I mean what do you want?
AJ: George, we just want you to know that we are willing to let bygones be bygones.
G: Yeah, well okay.
AJ: George we have new GPS coordinates.
G: GPS what?
AJ: GPS coordinates of our new location so there will be no more mistakes.
G: You've got my attention.
AJ: Are you ready to write down the coordinates.
G: Ready
AJ: Okay here they are Latitude: 38.898556 degrees Longitude: -77.037852
G: Hey thanks I got ya.
AJ: George
G: Yes, who is this? How did you get this number?
AJ: Never mind about that. This is Al Jazeera
G: Al who. Is that you Gore?
AJ: No George, this is Al Jazeera the television network
G: You guys still around I uh I mean what do you want?
AJ: George, we just want you to know that we are willing to let bygones be bygones.
G: Yeah, well okay.
AJ: George we have new GPS coordinates.
G: GPS what?
AJ: GPS coordinates of our new location so there will be no more mistakes.
G: You've got my attention.
AJ: Are you ready to write down the coordinates.
G: Ready
AJ: Okay here they are Latitude: 38.898556 degrees Longitude: -77.037852
G: Hey thanks I got ya.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Anti-War Songs
All the songs listed below are available for download by following the link. Those with "Download" are the direct links others require additional steps to download.
Last updated: 04/30/03
Joyce Anderson Filled With Love* Download
Beanie The Singing Dog Beanie For Peace Download
Beastie Boys- In A World Gone Mad *Download
James Blundell Back It Up*
Everton Blender Bush and Saddam (reggae)Download
jonatha brooke War* Download
Billy Bragg - The Price of Oil *Download
Chumbawamba - Jacobs Ladder (not in our name) *Download
Paula Cole My Hero, Mr. President * Download
Crucial Crew We Want Peace No More War (original ragga riddim_demo)* Download
Zach de la Rocha and DJ Shadow March of Death *Download
dreas bells of war '03
Pat Flashman No More War DUB Download
Michael Franti Bomb The World & Bomb The World Armegeddon Version * Download
Ani di Franco - Self Evident * Download
Fredwreck Down With U.S. Download Dirty — Download Clean — Download Instrumental
Alan Fletcher Perfectly Comfortable * Download
Sergent Garcia Stop Da War Download Spanish/French Bio Sergent Garcia
Green Day Life During Wartime * Download
CodePINK For Peace by Pat Humphries and Sandy Opatow * Download
Donots & Anti-Flag * Lyrics by Justin SaneDownload
Andrei Hauk Descendent Download
Jynkz We Don't Want Your War * ( video and mp3) Download
John KasperWe're the Enemy *
Lenny Kravitz / Kadim Al Sahir We Want Peace*
LATO under AVOCADO CLUB VETO LIVE from BAGDAD & BAGDAD NOT IN MY NAME!* Download 44kHz
Live What Are We Fighting For* (not an official site)
Little Big Men Mr Bush, You Are Not The President Of This WorldDownload Alternate Download
John Mellencamp - To Washington * Download
OutKast B.O.B* Download
REM The Final Straw *
Stephan Smith, The Bell * Download
Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam Peace Train *
TVSMITH Not In Our Name* Download
John Trudell Bombs Over Baghdad* Download
Saul Williams Freestyle Live in No Man's Land (Not in My Name) Download
Additional Sources for Anti-War Songs
Not In Our Name Music site
Protest Records
Centre for Political Song
Anti-War Songs (comprehensive not just the current war)
Anti-War Songs From Germany
* Lyrics to most of the songs are in this text file.
Here are some popular tunes are with new anti-war lyrics.
Everybody Must Get Bombed Bob Dylan Rainy Day Woman apparently revised and now called
World's Ruler It's Paradise to the tune of Cheeseburger in Paradise by Jimmy Buffett
Dubya Can't Wait to the tune of Friday I'm In Love by The Cure
Last updated: 04/30/03
Joyce Anderson Filled With Love* Download
Beanie The Singing Dog Beanie For Peace Download
Beastie Boys- In A World Gone Mad *Download
James Blundell Back It Up*
Everton Blender Bush and Saddam (reggae)Download
jonatha brooke War* Download
Billy Bragg - The Price of Oil *Download
Chumbawamba - Jacobs Ladder (not in our name) *Download
Paula Cole My Hero, Mr. President * Download
Crucial Crew We Want Peace No More War (original ragga riddim_demo)* Download
Zach de la Rocha and DJ Shadow March of Death *Download
dreas bells of war '03
Pat Flashman No More War DUB Download
Michael Franti Bomb The World & Bomb The World Armegeddon Version * Download
Ani di Franco - Self Evident * Download
Fredwreck Down With U.S. Download Dirty — Download Clean — Download Instrumental
Alan Fletcher Perfectly Comfortable * Download
Sergent Garcia Stop Da War Download Spanish/French Bio Sergent Garcia
Green Day Life During Wartime * Download
CodePINK For Peace by Pat Humphries and Sandy Opatow * Download
Donots & Anti-Flag * Lyrics by Justin SaneDownload
Andrei Hauk Descendent Download
Jynkz We Don't Want Your War * ( video and mp3) Download
John KasperWe're the Enemy *
Lenny Kravitz / Kadim Al Sahir We Want Peace*
LATO under AVOCADO CLUB VETO LIVE from BAGDAD & BAGDAD NOT IN MY NAME!* Download 44kHz
Live What Are We Fighting For* (not an official site)
Little Big Men Mr Bush, You Are Not The President Of This WorldDownload Alternate Download
John Mellencamp - To Washington * Download
OutKast B.O.B* Download
REM The Final Straw *
Stephan Smith, The Bell * Download
Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam Peace Train *
TVSMITH Not In Our Name* Download
John Trudell Bombs Over Baghdad* Download
Saul Williams Freestyle Live in No Man's Land (Not in My Name) Download
Additional Sources for Anti-War Songs
Not In Our Name Music site
Protest Records
Centre for Political Song
Anti-War Songs (comprehensive not just the current war)
Anti-War Songs From Germany
* Lyrics to most of the songs are in this text file.
Here are some popular tunes are with new anti-war lyrics.
Everybody Must Get Bombed Bob Dylan Rainy Day Woman apparently revised and now called
World's Ruler It's Paradise to the tune of Cheeseburger in Paradise by Jimmy Buffett
Dubya Can't Wait to the tune of Friday I'm In Love by The Cure
Friday, April 04, 2003
Everything's Just Ducky
This missive to Mr. Tom Ridge, the fellow with five crayons in his tool kit, has been been making its way through cyberspace. If anyone knows the orignial source I'd like to give credit where credits due.
To: Dept. of Homeland Security
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to you for further instructions to what the next step is for me to take in protecting my family from possible attacks by terrorists.
I have my duck taped....now what?
To: Dept. of Homeland Security
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to you for further instructions to what the next step is for me to take in protecting my family from possible attacks by terrorists.
I have my duck taped....now what?
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
A Fixer-Upper
Fools Post Dispatch, Washington D.C.— Lynne and Dick Cheney held an unusual joint press conference today to announce they are selling their Villa in the South of France. Fuck the French said Dick under his breath. Lynne smiled. Asked where they would now spend their winters they said they had their eyes on a Palace somewhere in Iraq. It's a fixer-upper said Lynne, but it really has potential. Dick said it is "so damn" nice, he then smiled. They left arm-in-arm.
There are other important stores on Dick and Lynne today. Links here
There are other important stores on Dick and Lynne today. Links here
Sunday, March 30, 2003
There Is No End To This
"There's no end to this. What we are dealing with is guerilla warfare. Are we prepared to obliterate the whole country. You can call it 'Search and Destroy' or 'Seize and Destroy'— Either way it's 'Destroy and Destroy'. There is no good way to end it. — John Irving "A Prayer for Owen Meany" p.408
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Whose side is the media on?
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/side.html
By Stephen Gowans
Asking whose side the media are on is like asking whether moustaches are in vogue in Saddam Hussein's inner circle. The answer is obvious, unless your blind. But the question is rarely ever asked that way. Instead, it's often asked this way: Are (or following the everyday convention of treating "media" as singular, Is) the media biased?
Media critic Norman Solomon calls the media an echo chamber -- it echoes what those deemed important have to say: presidents, secretaries of state, prime ministers, CEOs. These are the people conventional wisdom tells us run the affairs of state and run the economy and so are supposed to have views which it is the job of the media to make known. The rest of us aren't supposed to have views, except on such matters as who should be voted off the island, and if we do have views on weightier matters, they're apparently of little moment. The editor of a major British newspaper was asked why his paper had presented Tony Blair's views on war with Iraq repeatedly but not those of prominent antiwar critics, like Noam Chomksy and Scott Ritter. He said the reason was that Blair is in charge and Chomsky and Ritter aren't.
That's one reason why the media is an echo chamber for leaders. Another is that presidents and prime ministers and CEOs have press offices and PR consultants whose job it is to get their views into the press and to keep others out. Ordinary people don't have that. Dissidents don't have that. So the media reports what the president of the US says, what the vice-president says, what the Pentagon says, what Tony Blair says, and every once in a while newspapers run an op-ed by an anti-war critic, or hire a token columnist who can be relied on to present dissenting views, but day after day Bush and Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell know they can get their side of the story across, and people like Chomksy and Scott Ritter and anyone else who question those views isn't going to get the same coverage, if indeed they get any coverage at all.
That's a problem, for people the media gravitates towards have an interest in putting forth views that are often untruthful, but the media hardly ever questions them, and when they do, they do so in circumlocutious ways. In an October 22 Washington Post article, staff writer Dana Milbank pointed to a "presidential tradition of embroidering key assertions," adding "for Bush, facts are malleable," and noting that the administration's statements on Iraq have been "dubious, if not wrong." What's more, Milbank pointed out that Bush is guilty of "distortions and exaggerations," chalking it up to "presidential embroidery [being] a hoary tradition." For the plainspoken--who you won't find writing for the Washington Post--this reduces to a simple sentence: Bush, like all presidents, lies freely, and he's been lying about his reasons for starting a war with Iraq.
Bush's lies rely on repetition--and the media's acting as his echo chamber--to persuade. That's one of the fundamental tenets of propaganda. The Nazis practised it. If I repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it. Hitler even said the bigger the lie, the better. People expect you to tell little lies, but they never expect you to be so audacious as to tell a big lie, because that's something they don't do themselves, so they're more likely to believe a big lie than a little one. That was Hitler's view. John R. MacArthur of Harpers, quoting then Vice-President George H.W. Bush's press secretary, Peter Teeley, put it this way: "PR practitioners say it's easy for politicians to have their way. 'You can say anything you want...and 80 million people hear it.' If it happens to be untrue, 'so what. Maybe 200 people read [the correction] out of 2,000 or 20,000.'"
Right now, most people who have been following coverage of the war will tell you that Iraq fired Scud missiles into Kuwait, proving that Saddam had been hiding banned weapons all along. That's what the media reported. They'll also tell you that a chemical weapons factory was discovered, another instance of Saddam's duplicity. That too the media reported. Now, it turns out, that neither assertion is true. How many know? It's the original claim that sticks.
After wars are fought, we often find out later that the justifications were fabricated. By then it's too late. Clinton and Blair told us 100,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Serb forces, and that Yugoslavia needed to be bombed to stop a genocide. Because the media acts as an echo chamber, reinforcing the views of those in charge, that's what everyone believed. Many still do. The media didn't say, "Hold on, maybe this isn't true. Maybe we should check, or at least think about what's being said. It's not as if we haven't been lied to before about reasons for going to war." Instead, what they said is, "Jamie Shea is holding another press conference in which he's going to reveal some more shocking stories about the depravity of the Serbs. Let's go."
After 78-days of bombing, we found out that all the bodies that were supposed to be there, weren't there. There wasn't a genocide. Moreover, almost all of the deaths that Milosevic was indicted for happened after the bombing. NATO leaders told a lie, and not a small lie, but one of those big lies that Hitler said ordinary people would be more likely to believe. A whole lot of people were killed unnecessarily. But NATO got what it wanted. It got a Quisling government in Belgrade. Investors got to snap up what were once collectively or social-owned assets at fire sale prices. Now, prices are skyrocketing and unemployment is soaring. You don't hear about that. The press doesn't report on how economic "reforms" are making life miserable for ordinary Serbs, and how people are worse off. They don't send anybody to Belgrade to find out why Zoran Djindjic was hated and had little support. Instead, glowing tributes are written about him because he was "pro-Western." One of the provisions of the Rambouillet Accords was that Kosovo would have to adopt free market economics, which is really what "pro-Western" means -- surrendering markets, labor, and resources to Western investors. What has free market economics to do with quelling ethnic conflict? Nor have reporters been sent to Kosovo to find out why the United States has built Camp Bondsteel, a huge military base. (US troops are like cockroaches -- once you've got them, there's no getting rid them.) And they don't report on how Serbs, Jews and Roma have been driven out of Kosovo by ethnic Albanians. That would raise too many questions. Does NATO only care about ethnic cleansing when it provides a pretext to seize control of another country to convert its economy to free-market principles? If not, why is it that now that Serbia has been annexed to the Western economy, NATO doesn't care about ethnic cleansing, and the press doesn't report it?
Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive magazine, says that the White House acts as the media's foreign assignment editor. It's not in the White House's interest for the media to pay attention to Serbia now. So the White House ignores Kosovo, and because it ignores Kosovo, the media does too. If Bush says, Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, the media reports on that. If he says, North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to threaten the United States, the media reports on that. Soon Bush will tell us that Iran--which nobody in the media thinks much about now--is a threat, and the media will report on that, too. The press doesn't decide what to report on. It lets whoever is in the White House tell them.
Another reason the press emphasizes a certain point of view is because its owners have a certain point of view. Media owners are naturally going to promote their own perspective, not necessarily through direct interference in the day to day editorial decisions of their operations (though that sometimes happens), but through the selection of editors who share the same values, or know their jobs depend on expressing those values. Media owners have the point of view of wealthy people who own and control the economy, which is what they are: wealthy people who own and control part of the economy. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric, a major Pentagon supplier, with an interest in war. They share that view with people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Accordingly, they're not on the side of organized labor. They're not on the side of communists in Cuba or leftists in Venezuela or land reform in Zimbabwe. They're not for the redistribution of income or for robustly funded public schools or for free education through university or for socialized medicine. And they're not for foreign regimes that close their doors to US investment. Neither are their newspapers, magazines and networks. Instead, they're on the side of investors and bondholders and CEOs (which is what media owners are) and they're for tax cuts and free trade and open markets abroad, and they're for more defense spending and less social spending. These are the things that benefit the class interests of media owners. A veteran journalist in Canada recently complained that newspapers don't reflect the views of average people. But the people who own newspapers and run them aren't so concerned about reflecting the views of average people, as they are with reflecting their own views.
Still, much as we rail against media bias, expecting the media to be unbiased is unreasonable. No one can be unbiased. Everyone has a point of view or a set of interests or constraints that make them see the world in certain ways, or seek to present the world in certain ways. Even so, there's an expectation that if the media isn't unbiased, it should strive to be.
Some people expect an unbiased press can be created through vigilance. FAIR and Media Lens, two excellent left-wing media analysis groups, work to bring media bias to the attention of editors. They assume media bias is remediable, and that if enough people point out the biases, media coverage will change. That's a Quixotic view.
Others insist on "balance" as the road to the absence of bias. Pro-Israelis like to attack any news story that casts the Israeli army in an unfavorable light as "unbalanced" and therefore "biased" and--in extreme versions of the criticism--as the work of an anti-Semite, if it doesn't at the same time cast Palestinians in dark and menacing tones. Pro-Israelis say I'm biased because my writing on Palestinians and Israel is unbalanced. I don't produce a criticism of Palestinians for every criticism I produce of Israel. By this standard, criticizing the Nazi invasion of Poland would be biased if some equal criticism were not also directed at the Poles. Many critics of war in Iraq have also adopted a kind of balanced approach to their criticism of George Bush's war-making: it must be accompanied by an equally fervent (and often more fervent) denunciation of Saddam Hussein. Cleaving to this standard would have meant that anyone who criticized Mussolini for invading Ethiopia would also have had to condemn the Ethiopian dictator Haille Selassie. What had Selassie being a dictator to do with the reasons Mussolini invaded Ethiopia? What has Saddam Hussein being a dictator to do with the real reasons the US has invaded Iraq?
For pro-Israelis, balance is a way of apologizing for Israeli actions. The reasoning goes like this: What Israel did is undesirable, but Palestinians do undesirable things too, so Israel's actions are justifiable. This is in the same vein as: "I don't know why North Americans criticize Israel for its behavior in historic Palestine. Europeans settled North America by driving the Indians into reservations. Why should Israel be criticized for doing much the same to Palestinians?" A balanced approach would note that while Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in Palestine, European settlers were the original ethnic cleansers. This is silly.
The idea of balance rests on the painfully obvious observation that every story has many sides. The absence of bias, according to this view, means taking a neutral position that acknowledges all, or at least two, of the sides. If 300 legal scholars said that the American attack on Iraq is illegal and two, produced by the White House, said it wasn't, a balanced story would acknowledge both views, without making too much of the fact that 300 are one side and only two on the other. This is hardly unbiased, for it puts the two on an equal footing, when clearly they're not.
It seems more useful to ask not whether this newspaper or that is balanced, but to ask whose side it is on. The answer is almost always that it isn't on your side, unless you're a CEO or make your living from investments or plan wars for the Pentagon. Some newspapers and some networks are more open about whose side they're on. Some make no bones about being robustly conservative; others fly the flag unashamedly. This infuriates those who cling to the view that objectivity is an ideal that should be strived for. But I don't think we should be bothered about newspapers taking a certain point of view. They're only making plain what otherwise would be obscured. Media that make no secret of their point of view can be dealt with. You know what side they're on, and while you might not like it, you know what you're dealing with. More troubling are newspapers, magazines and networks that make a pretence of being balanced and objective.
One of the best of these is Canada's The Globe and Mail. Where the country's more openly reactionary and Pro-Israeli chauvin Asper chain will run headlines about the invasion of Iraq that read "Worse day of the war" (making clear whose side it's on), or "Our cause is just and we will prevail" (doing the same), The Globe and Mail is rarely so openly jingoistic. But the bulk of the newspaper's coverage will come from an American perspective, based on Pentagon briefings and State Department briefings and White House briefings, and the views of Canada's CEO's will be reliably reported (Canada should support Washington unquestioningly, they say -- profits depend on it.) And while it has one or two left wing columnist--a sop to demands to produce the illusion of balance--its stable of columnist is otherwise thoroughly right-wing, pro-war and pro-US. It's only in comparison to its robustly right wing competitors that it appears unbiased.
Railing against the media for being pro-war, pro-business and pro-intervention--while cathartic--is like railing against a leopard for having spots. That's the nature of media owned and controlled by those who have an interest in war and pro-business policies and growing inequality. Railing against the outcome of media owner's pursuing their class interests won't change their class interests -- or the pursuit of them. Of course, the media should be challenged for alleging to be neutral, but demanding that it be neutral is demanding too much. Neutrality and impartiality are unattainable.
A better course is to seek out media that are on our side, which is to say, on the side of people who work for a living, and would benefit from free education and free healthcare and will bear the burden of paying for war, through their taxes and through their own bodies or those of their sons and daughters, while Dick Cheney and the class he represents makes off with the booty. Media on our side aren't impartial, neutral or unbiased either, but so what? What matters is whose side they're on.
By Stephen Gowans
Asking whose side the media are on is like asking whether moustaches are in vogue in Saddam Hussein's inner circle. The answer is obvious, unless your blind. But the question is rarely ever asked that way. Instead, it's often asked this way: Are (or following the everyday convention of treating "media" as singular, Is) the media biased?
Media critic Norman Solomon calls the media an echo chamber -- it echoes what those deemed important have to say: presidents, secretaries of state, prime ministers, CEOs. These are the people conventional wisdom tells us run the affairs of state and run the economy and so are supposed to have views which it is the job of the media to make known. The rest of us aren't supposed to have views, except on such matters as who should be voted off the island, and if we do have views on weightier matters, they're apparently of little moment. The editor of a major British newspaper was asked why his paper had presented Tony Blair's views on war with Iraq repeatedly but not those of prominent antiwar critics, like Noam Chomksy and Scott Ritter. He said the reason was that Blair is in charge and Chomsky and Ritter aren't.
That's one reason why the media is an echo chamber for leaders. Another is that presidents and prime ministers and CEOs have press offices and PR consultants whose job it is to get their views into the press and to keep others out. Ordinary people don't have that. Dissidents don't have that. So the media reports what the president of the US says, what the vice-president says, what the Pentagon says, what Tony Blair says, and every once in a while newspapers run an op-ed by an anti-war critic, or hire a token columnist who can be relied on to present dissenting views, but day after day Bush and Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell know they can get their side of the story across, and people like Chomksy and Scott Ritter and anyone else who question those views isn't going to get the same coverage, if indeed they get any coverage at all.
That's a problem, for people the media gravitates towards have an interest in putting forth views that are often untruthful, but the media hardly ever questions them, and when they do, they do so in circumlocutious ways. In an October 22 Washington Post article, staff writer Dana Milbank pointed to a "presidential tradition of embroidering key assertions," adding "for Bush, facts are malleable," and noting that the administration's statements on Iraq have been "dubious, if not wrong." What's more, Milbank pointed out that Bush is guilty of "distortions and exaggerations," chalking it up to "presidential embroidery [being] a hoary tradition." For the plainspoken--who you won't find writing for the Washington Post--this reduces to a simple sentence: Bush, like all presidents, lies freely, and he's been lying about his reasons for starting a war with Iraq.
Bush's lies rely on repetition--and the media's acting as his echo chamber--to persuade. That's one of the fundamental tenets of propaganda. The Nazis practised it. If I repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it. Hitler even said the bigger the lie, the better. People expect you to tell little lies, but they never expect you to be so audacious as to tell a big lie, because that's something they don't do themselves, so they're more likely to believe a big lie than a little one. That was Hitler's view. John R. MacArthur of Harpers, quoting then Vice-President George H.W. Bush's press secretary, Peter Teeley, put it this way: "PR practitioners say it's easy for politicians to have their way. 'You can say anything you want...and 80 million people hear it.' If it happens to be untrue, 'so what. Maybe 200 people read [the correction] out of 2,000 or 20,000.'"
Right now, most people who have been following coverage of the war will tell you that Iraq fired Scud missiles into Kuwait, proving that Saddam had been hiding banned weapons all along. That's what the media reported. They'll also tell you that a chemical weapons factory was discovered, another instance of Saddam's duplicity. That too the media reported. Now, it turns out, that neither assertion is true. How many know? It's the original claim that sticks.
After wars are fought, we often find out later that the justifications were fabricated. By then it's too late. Clinton and Blair told us 100,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Serb forces, and that Yugoslavia needed to be bombed to stop a genocide. Because the media acts as an echo chamber, reinforcing the views of those in charge, that's what everyone believed. Many still do. The media didn't say, "Hold on, maybe this isn't true. Maybe we should check, or at least think about what's being said. It's not as if we haven't been lied to before about reasons for going to war." Instead, what they said is, "Jamie Shea is holding another press conference in which he's going to reveal some more shocking stories about the depravity of the Serbs. Let's go."
After 78-days of bombing, we found out that all the bodies that were supposed to be there, weren't there. There wasn't a genocide. Moreover, almost all of the deaths that Milosevic was indicted for happened after the bombing. NATO leaders told a lie, and not a small lie, but one of those big lies that Hitler said ordinary people would be more likely to believe. A whole lot of people were killed unnecessarily. But NATO got what it wanted. It got a Quisling government in Belgrade. Investors got to snap up what were once collectively or social-owned assets at fire sale prices. Now, prices are skyrocketing and unemployment is soaring. You don't hear about that. The press doesn't report on how economic "reforms" are making life miserable for ordinary Serbs, and how people are worse off. They don't send anybody to Belgrade to find out why Zoran Djindjic was hated and had little support. Instead, glowing tributes are written about him because he was "pro-Western." One of the provisions of the Rambouillet Accords was that Kosovo would have to adopt free market economics, which is really what "pro-Western" means -- surrendering markets, labor, and resources to Western investors. What has free market economics to do with quelling ethnic conflict? Nor have reporters been sent to Kosovo to find out why the United States has built Camp Bondsteel, a huge military base. (US troops are like cockroaches -- once you've got them, there's no getting rid them.) And they don't report on how Serbs, Jews and Roma have been driven out of Kosovo by ethnic Albanians. That would raise too many questions. Does NATO only care about ethnic cleansing when it provides a pretext to seize control of another country to convert its economy to free-market principles? If not, why is it that now that Serbia has been annexed to the Western economy, NATO doesn't care about ethnic cleansing, and the press doesn't report it?
Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive magazine, says that the White House acts as the media's foreign assignment editor. It's not in the White House's interest for the media to pay attention to Serbia now. So the White House ignores Kosovo, and because it ignores Kosovo, the media does too. If Bush says, Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, the media reports on that. If he says, North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to threaten the United States, the media reports on that. Soon Bush will tell us that Iran--which nobody in the media thinks much about now--is a threat, and the media will report on that, too. The press doesn't decide what to report on. It lets whoever is in the White House tell them.
Another reason the press emphasizes a certain point of view is because its owners have a certain point of view. Media owners are naturally going to promote their own perspective, not necessarily through direct interference in the day to day editorial decisions of their operations (though that sometimes happens), but through the selection of editors who share the same values, or know their jobs depend on expressing those values. Media owners have the point of view of wealthy people who own and control the economy, which is what they are: wealthy people who own and control part of the economy. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric, a major Pentagon supplier, with an interest in war. They share that view with people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Accordingly, they're not on the side of organized labor. They're not on the side of communists in Cuba or leftists in Venezuela or land reform in Zimbabwe. They're not for the redistribution of income or for robustly funded public schools or for free education through university or for socialized medicine. And they're not for foreign regimes that close their doors to US investment. Neither are their newspapers, magazines and networks. Instead, they're on the side of investors and bondholders and CEOs (which is what media owners are) and they're for tax cuts and free trade and open markets abroad, and they're for more defense spending and less social spending. These are the things that benefit the class interests of media owners. A veteran journalist in Canada recently complained that newspapers don't reflect the views of average people. But the people who own newspapers and run them aren't so concerned about reflecting the views of average people, as they are with reflecting their own views.
Still, much as we rail against media bias, expecting the media to be unbiased is unreasonable. No one can be unbiased. Everyone has a point of view or a set of interests or constraints that make them see the world in certain ways, or seek to present the world in certain ways. Even so, there's an expectation that if the media isn't unbiased, it should strive to be.
Some people expect an unbiased press can be created through vigilance. FAIR and Media Lens, two excellent left-wing media analysis groups, work to bring media bias to the attention of editors. They assume media bias is remediable, and that if enough people point out the biases, media coverage will change. That's a Quixotic view.
Others insist on "balance" as the road to the absence of bias. Pro-Israelis like to attack any news story that casts the Israeli army in an unfavorable light as "unbalanced" and therefore "biased" and--in extreme versions of the criticism--as the work of an anti-Semite, if it doesn't at the same time cast Palestinians in dark and menacing tones. Pro-Israelis say I'm biased because my writing on Palestinians and Israel is unbalanced. I don't produce a criticism of Palestinians for every criticism I produce of Israel. By this standard, criticizing the Nazi invasion of Poland would be biased if some equal criticism were not also directed at the Poles. Many critics of war in Iraq have also adopted a kind of balanced approach to their criticism of George Bush's war-making: it must be accompanied by an equally fervent (and often more fervent) denunciation of Saddam Hussein. Cleaving to this standard would have meant that anyone who criticized Mussolini for invading Ethiopia would also have had to condemn the Ethiopian dictator Haille Selassie. What had Selassie being a dictator to do with the reasons Mussolini invaded Ethiopia? What has Saddam Hussein being a dictator to do with the real reasons the US has invaded Iraq?
For pro-Israelis, balance is a way of apologizing for Israeli actions. The reasoning goes like this: What Israel did is undesirable, but Palestinians do undesirable things too, so Israel's actions are justifiable. This is in the same vein as: "I don't know why North Americans criticize Israel for its behavior in historic Palestine. Europeans settled North America by driving the Indians into reservations. Why should Israel be criticized for doing much the same to Palestinians?" A balanced approach would note that while Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in Palestine, European settlers were the original ethnic cleansers. This is silly.
The idea of balance rests on the painfully obvious observation that every story has many sides. The absence of bias, according to this view, means taking a neutral position that acknowledges all, or at least two, of the sides. If 300 legal scholars said that the American attack on Iraq is illegal and two, produced by the White House, said it wasn't, a balanced story would acknowledge both views, without making too much of the fact that 300 are one side and only two on the other. This is hardly unbiased, for it puts the two on an equal footing, when clearly they're not.
It seems more useful to ask not whether this newspaper or that is balanced, but to ask whose side it is on. The answer is almost always that it isn't on your side, unless you're a CEO or make your living from investments or plan wars for the Pentagon. Some newspapers and some networks are more open about whose side they're on. Some make no bones about being robustly conservative; others fly the flag unashamedly. This infuriates those who cling to the view that objectivity is an ideal that should be strived for. But I don't think we should be bothered about newspapers taking a certain point of view. They're only making plain what otherwise would be obscured. Media that make no secret of their point of view can be dealt with. You know what side they're on, and while you might not like it, you know what you're dealing with. More troubling are newspapers, magazines and networks that make a pretence of being balanced and objective.
One of the best of these is Canada's The Globe and Mail. Where the country's more openly reactionary and Pro-Israeli chauvin Asper chain will run headlines about the invasion of Iraq that read "Worse day of the war" (making clear whose side it's on), or "Our cause is just and we will prevail" (doing the same), The Globe and Mail is rarely so openly jingoistic. But the bulk of the newspaper's coverage will come from an American perspective, based on Pentagon briefings and State Department briefings and White House briefings, and the views of Canada's CEO's will be reliably reported (Canada should support Washington unquestioningly, they say -- profits depend on it.) And while it has one or two left wing columnist--a sop to demands to produce the illusion of balance--its stable of columnist is otherwise thoroughly right-wing, pro-war and pro-US. It's only in comparison to its robustly right wing competitors that it appears unbiased.
Railing against the media for being pro-war, pro-business and pro-intervention--while cathartic--is like railing against a leopard for having spots. That's the nature of media owned and controlled by those who have an interest in war and pro-business policies and growing inequality. Railing against the outcome of media owner's pursuing their class interests won't change their class interests -- or the pursuit of them. Of course, the media should be challenged for alleging to be neutral, but demanding that it be neutral is demanding too much. Neutrality and impartiality are unattainable.
A better course is to seek out media that are on our side, which is to say, on the side of people who work for a living, and would benefit from free education and free healthcare and will bear the burden of paying for war, through their taxes and through their own bodies or those of their sons and daughters, while Dick Cheney and the class he represents makes off with the booty. Media on our side aren't impartial, neutral or unbiased either, but so what? What matters is whose side they're on.
Friday, March 28, 2003
An Easy War
Bush administration officials now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise Cakewalk via Salon and my two cents worth
Richard Perle said when we asked
That support for Saddam was long past
We'll shock him
Then awe him
I know that he'll quickly collapse
Christopher Hitchens promised no war.
An intervention is all then we score
Emancipation I say
Will come in just days
I'm right now it's the left I deplore
Dick Cheney said we are not lacking
We'll send Republican Guards packing
They'll just step aside
It'll be a free ride
For Saddam a well deserved whacking
Donald said we never will veer
The course of the war is quite clear
We'll send in the tanks
On that you can bank
Saddam will run when we're near
Dub said Iraq I promise you this
Saddam will be gone I insist
I'll drop some JDams
I will get my man
If you don't survive you'll be missed
Richard Perle said when we asked
That support for Saddam was long past
We'll shock him
Then awe him
I know that he'll quickly collapse
Christopher Hitchens promised no war.
An intervention is all then we score
Emancipation I say
Will come in just days
I'm right now it's the left I deplore
Dick Cheney said we are not lacking
We'll send Republican Guards packing
They'll just step aside
It'll be a free ride
For Saddam a well deserved whacking
Donald said we never will veer
The course of the war is quite clear
We'll send in the tanks
On that you can bank
Saddam will run when we're near
Dub said Iraq I promise you this
Saddam will be gone I insist
I'll drop some JDams
I will get my man
If you don't survive you'll be missed
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Iraqi Supporters in New York
New York (Faux News)&mdash The Pentagon is reporting pockets of Iraqi supporters on the ground in Manhattan. They won't be a big problem Major General McDonald said, it is a case of onesy's and twoseys. Observers on the ground in New York however are reporting nearly 400. There my be some casualties, many were seen lying on their backs. Some are saying they are just protestors a contention being hotly disputed by the military. This is not good. A route that should be taking minutes to negotiate is taking hours, said one official. The chief problem is that our flanks are exposed to irregulars complicating matters. One hundred and forty of the "Iraqi supporters" have been taken into custody. When asked by a reporter on the scene if they would be considered prisoners of war an official scoffed; "they were not even wearing uniforms they are clearly illegal combatants."
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Bay of Basra?
Bay of Basra?
LiberalOasis has a baaaad feeling about Basra.
Rumsfeld briefing yesterday afternoon, a reporter posed an ominous question:
Mr. Secretary, there is reported to be a popular uprising in Basra, but the popular uprising apparently is not only targeting some of the Iraqi forces but also some of the coalition forces Can you comment?
Rumsfeld didn’t answer directly, but the questioner seems to be on to something.
LiberalOasis has a baaaad feeling about Basra.
Rumsfeld briefing yesterday afternoon, a reporter posed an ominous question:
Mr. Secretary, there is reported to be a popular uprising in Basra, but the popular uprising apparently is not only targeting some of the Iraqi forces but also some of the coalition forces Can you comment?
Rumsfeld didn’t answer directly, but the questioner seems to be on to something.
The Final Straw
REM
The Final Straw
As I raise my head to broadcast my objection
As your latest triumph draws the final straw
Who died and lifted you up to perfection?
And what silenced me is written into law.
I can't believe where circumstance has thrown me
And I turn my head away
If I look I'm not sure that I could face you.
Not again. Not today. Not today.
If hatred makes a play on me tomorrow
And forgiveness takes a back seat to revenge
There's a hurt down deep that has not been corrected
There's a voice in me that says you will not win.
And if I ignore the voice inside,
Raise a half glass to my home.
But it's there that I am most afraid,
And forgetting doesn't hold.
It doesn't hold. Now I don't believe and I never did
That two wrongs make a right.
If the world were filled with the likes of you
Then I'm putting up a fight. Putting up a fight.
Putting up a fight. Make it right. Make it right.
Now love cannot be called into question.
Forgiveness is the only hope I hold.
And love-- love will be my strongest weapon.
I do believe that I am not alone.
For this fear will not destroy me.
And the tears that have been shed
It's knowing now where I am weakest
And the voice in my head. In my head.
Then I raise my voice up higher
And I look you in the eye
And I offer love with one condition.
With conviction, tell me why.
Tell me why.
Tell me why.
Look me in the eye.
Tell me why.
more anti-war songs
The Final Straw
As I raise my head to broadcast my objection
As your latest triumph draws the final straw
Who died and lifted you up to perfection?
And what silenced me is written into law.
I can't believe where circumstance has thrown me
And I turn my head away
If I look I'm not sure that I could face you.
Not again. Not today. Not today.
If hatred makes a play on me tomorrow
And forgiveness takes a back seat to revenge
There's a hurt down deep that has not been corrected
There's a voice in me that says you will not win.
And if I ignore the voice inside,
Raise a half glass to my home.
But it's there that I am most afraid,
And forgetting doesn't hold.
It doesn't hold. Now I don't believe and I never did
That two wrongs make a right.
If the world were filled with the likes of you
Then I'm putting up a fight. Putting up a fight.
Putting up a fight. Make it right. Make it right.
Now love cannot be called into question.
Forgiveness is the only hope I hold.
And love-- love will be my strongest weapon.
I do believe that I am not alone.
For this fear will not destroy me.
And the tears that have been shed
It's knowing now where I am weakest
And the voice in my head. In my head.
Then I raise my voice up higher
And I look you in the eye
And I offer love with one condition.
With conviction, tell me why.
Tell me why.
Tell me why.
Look me in the eye.
Tell me why.
more anti-war songs
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Perpetual Check
Politically inspired fiction by Stephen Elliot
At night the world is a sandstorm. Like a light brown gauze over your face blocking the black velvet sky. We call it the edge, Anterim, Jordan, the Angor hotel. Here is where boats cross in the desert. Rusted buses bring troops and Shields to the border of Mesopotamia, heading into Iraq two days after the fighting has already started. These square dark hulls with their Argonauts, their windows cracked, their crazed cargo of idealists and warriors. A month ago the buses were clean, British double-deckers, like the kind you tour London in. We watch them now and shake our heads, our feet heavy on the earth, our clothing soaked in dull clay...
continued here
At night the world is a sandstorm. Like a light brown gauze over your face blocking the black velvet sky. We call it the edge, Anterim, Jordan, the Angor hotel. Here is where boats cross in the desert. Rusted buses bring troops and Shields to the border of Mesopotamia, heading into Iraq two days after the fighting has already started. These square dark hulls with their Argonauts, their windows cracked, their crazed cargo of idealists and warriors. A month ago the buses were clean, British double-deckers, like the kind you tour London in. We watch them now and shake our heads, our feet heavy on the earth, our clothing soaked in dull clay...
continued here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)