December 3, 2007 Issue | Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative | The Lobby Strikes Back | A new book riles the AIPAC crowd, but makes it to the bestseller list anyway. |
by Scott McConnell
One prism through which to gauge the impact of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy is a September incident involving Barack Obama. His campaign had placed small ads in various spots around the Internet, designed to drive readers to its website. One turned up on Amazon’s page for the Walt and Mearsheimer book. A vigilant watchdog at the New York Sun spotted it and contacted the campaign: Did Obama support Walt and Mearsheimer?
The answer came within hours. The ad was withdrawn. Its placement was “unintentional.” The senator, his campaign made clear, understood that key arguments of the book were “wrong,” but had definitely not read the work himself. In short, Walt and Mearsheimer had reached a pinnacle of notoriety.
Though The Israel Lobby was on the way to best-sellerdom and has become perhaps the most discussed policy book of the year, the presidential candidate touted as the most fresh-thinking and intellectually curious in the race hastened to make clear he had not been corrupted by the toxic text.
...
In their book’s introduction, Walt and Mearsheimer summarize the consequences of this power. In an election year, American politicians will differ radically on domestic issues, social issues, immigration, China, Darfur, and virtually any other topic. But all will “go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country—Israel—as well as their determination to maintain unyielding support for the Jewish state.” The authors find this remarkable and deserving of analysis, which they provided first in a paper, posted last year on Harvard’s Kennedy School website and published in the London Review of Books, and now expanded into a book.
...
It is obvious that The Israel Lobby, both the article and the book, would be extremely unwelcome to those pleased with the status quo. Under the current arrangement, the United States gives Israel $3-4 billion in aid and grants a year—about $500 per Israeli and several orders of magnitude more than aid to citizens of any other country. Israel is the only American aid recipient not required to account for how the money is spent. Washington uses its Security Council veto to shield Israel from critical UN resolutions and periodically issues bland statements lamenting the continued expansion of Israeli settlements on the Palestinian land the Jewish state has occupied since 1967. When Israel violates U.S. law, as it did in Lebanon by using American-made cluster bombs against civilian targets, a low-level official may issue a mild complaint. These fundamentals of the relationship go unchallenged by 95 percent of American politicians holding or running for national office. ....
...
This last area is easily the most disputed point between Walt and Mearsheimer and those reviewers who sought to answer their book rather than smear it. The Israel lobby, the two assert, helped drive the United States into Baghdad. It couldn’t have done it by itself—that required 9/11 and Bush and Cheney. But, argue Mearsheimer and Walt, “absent the lobby’s influence, there almost certainly would not have been a war. The lobby was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a war that is a strategic disaster for the United States.” ...
... But such facts, intriguing as they are, don’t entirely speak for themselves. And whatever enhanced political clout Christian Zionism brought to the lobby, it did not include access and influence to inner decision-making sanctums of the Pentagon and White House or the ability to start a war.
That required the neoconservatives. ...
...
Neoconservatism is something far more than advocacy of the interests of a foreign country. It is a full-blown ideological system, which shapes the way people interpret events and view their own society and its relation to the world. Yes, its foreign-policy views are strongly pro-Israel. The main shapers of neoconservatism would readily argue that their foreign-policy positions were good for Israel, while those they opposed imperiled the Jewish state. No one who has spent time with major neocons would doubt the centrality of Israel to their worldview or their attachment to the no-compromise-with-Arabs parts of the Israeli political spectrum. ...
...
At least there has been the blogosphere. One wouldn’t know it from the major American newspapers or magazine reviews, but a fresh breeze is beginning to blow. The Israel Lobby did receive more attention on the serious blogs than any other book this year. M.J. Rosenberg, the director of policy analysis for Israel Policy Forum and a prominent “two-state solution” advocate, describes the influence of the book as enormous: “Capitol Hill staffers are talking about the book, everybody is arguing about it, people are intrigued. … it has opened up discussion.” ...
Monday, December 10, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election: questions guided back to candidates of choice, more time to speak ... see "Talk Clock"
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 | Corporate Media Has Decided The 2008 Election For Us
No need to think for yourself, the MSM will continue to narrow the candidacy field until we're left with the next president.
It's already become clear that the corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election; here's how they're doing it:
* "Popular" candidates are placed toward the center of the stage. The few true liberals and true conservatives are positioned on the outskirts.
The majority of questions, though distributed somewhat evenly, are always guided back to the candidates of choice.
The "popular" candidates are given far more time to speak than all other candidates.
The proof is in the minutes, folks. And Senator Dodd's "Talk Clock" says it all:
No need to think for yourself, the MSM will continue to narrow the candidacy field until we're left with the next president.
It's already become clear that the corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election; here's how they're doing it:
* "Popular" candidates are placed toward the center of the stage. The few true liberals and true conservatives are positioned on the outskirts.
The majority of questions, though distributed somewhat evenly, are always guided back to the candidates of choice.
The "popular" candidates are given far more time to speak than all other candidates.
The proof is in the minutes, folks. And Senator Dodd's "Talk Clock" says it all:
Thursday, December 06, 2007
NIE concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program ... sinks CNN 2-hour special: "We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear"
Posted: Wed., Dec. 5, 2007, 8:00pm PT | Intel report sinks CNN Iran special | Two-hour 'Nuclear' was slated for Dec. 12 | By BRIAN LOWRY
HOLLYWOOD -- The latest National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago has claimed one casualty: CNN has postponed speculative documentary "We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear."
The two-hour spec, which was slated for Dec. 12 under the "CNN Presents" banner, was "set partially in the future," featuring a what-if scenario as former government officials -- playing fictional cabinet members -- debate how to deal with the Iranian threat. ...
HOLLYWOOD -- The latest National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago has claimed one casualty: CNN has postponed speculative documentary "We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear."
The two-hour spec, which was slated for Dec. 12 under the "CNN Presents" banner, was "set partially in the future," featuring a what-if scenario as former government officials -- playing fictional cabinet members -- debate how to deal with the Iranian threat. ...
What's Really Wrong With the MSM [Main Stream Media]?
the liberal media | posted December 6, 2007 (December 24, 2007 issue) | What's Really Wrong With the MSM [Main Stream Media]? | Eric Alterman
Of course, far more is wrong with the mainstream media than can be described, or even enumerated, in one column. But let's give it a shot, using only items that have come up since my last column, all of which speak to the issue of why its members have forfeited our collective trust.
1. Its members consistently defer to conservative Republican Presidents with a history of deliberate deception, allowing them to define their terms. "One of the reasons for not [calling chaos in Iraq a civil war] was ...
2. Its members invite Republican Congressmen, known to be not merely unreliable but delusional, to lie about Democratic Congressmen. When challenged, they reply that they cannot be bothered to discern the truth: Time's Joe Klein, a pundit who terms the Democratic Party "a party with absolutely no redeeming social value," ...
3. Its members invite conservative Republican individuals known to be insane, unbalanced and unconcerned with the truth to lie about Democratic presidential candidates on the front page of their newspapers and when confronted respond that it is not their job to determine the truth. The Washington Post's Perry Bacon published a recent front-page article giving voice to right-wing paranoids, racists and assorted hatemongers who insist that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim ...
4. Its corporations fire, and then buy the silence of, their own reporters in order to hide the truth, when it involves the draft records of certain conservative Republican Presidents. ... After the book's publication, CBS paid Mapes an undisclosed sum to settle her lawsuit against the company and required her to sign a confidentiality agreement covering the deal. ...
5. Its members are so in thrall to the powerful conservative Republican figures they cover that they make up excuses for their self-serving behavior. ... the reason Senate minority leader Trent Lott was resigning: "I think that this is a true 'wants to spend more time with his family' case." Halperin was apparently unaware that Lott--whose politically connected brother-in-law was recently indicted on bribery charges--himself failed to offer this lamest of excuses and also that his resignation came just in time to avoid the enactment of a tough new ethics law ...
6. Its members ignore the substance of politics and instead focus obsessively on atmospherics, leaving voters clueless about the politicians for whom they are expected to vote. ... "We should examine a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance," ... [then] published two pieces on the Time website that focused exclusively on the various campaigns, with nary a substance-related syllable ...
Of course, far more is wrong with the mainstream media than can be described, or even enumerated, in one column. But let's give it a shot, using only items that have come up since my last column, all of which speak to the issue of why its members have forfeited our collective trust.
1. Its members consistently defer to conservative Republican Presidents with a history of deliberate deception, allowing them to define their terms. "One of the reasons for not [calling chaos in Iraq a civil war] was ...
2. Its members invite Republican Congressmen, known to be not merely unreliable but delusional, to lie about Democratic Congressmen. When challenged, they reply that they cannot be bothered to discern the truth: Time's Joe Klein, a pundit who terms the Democratic Party "a party with absolutely no redeeming social value," ...
3. Its members invite conservative Republican individuals known to be insane, unbalanced and unconcerned with the truth to lie about Democratic presidential candidates on the front page of their newspapers and when confronted respond that it is not their job to determine the truth. The Washington Post's Perry Bacon published a recent front-page article giving voice to right-wing paranoids, racists and assorted hatemongers who insist that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim ...
4. Its corporations fire, and then buy the silence of, their own reporters in order to hide the truth, when it involves the draft records of certain conservative Republican Presidents. ... After the book's publication, CBS paid Mapes an undisclosed sum to settle her lawsuit against the company and required her to sign a confidentiality agreement covering the deal. ...
5. Its members are so in thrall to the powerful conservative Republican figures they cover that they make up excuses for their self-serving behavior. ... the reason Senate minority leader Trent Lott was resigning: "I think that this is a true 'wants to spend more time with his family' case." Halperin was apparently unaware that Lott--whose politically connected brother-in-law was recently indicted on bribery charges--himself failed to offer this lamest of excuses and also that his resignation came just in time to avoid the enactment of a tough new ethics law ...
6. Its members ignore the substance of politics and instead focus obsessively on atmospherics, leaving voters clueless about the politicians for whom they are expected to vote. ... "We should examine a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance," ... [then] published two pieces on the Time website that focused exclusively on the various campaigns, with nary a substance-related syllable ...
Monday, November 26, 2007
right to speak freely must apply to everyone - even if most sane Britons would disagree vehemently with Holocaust apologists
Context should not affect free speech | Posted by Christopher Hope on 26 Nov 2007 at 19:29
Victor Ward emails to point out that Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, seems to think free speech is OK for some, but not for others. Phillips told the BBC yesterday that asking Nick Griffin and David Irving to debate free speech at the Oxford Union was an “absolute disgrace”.
...
Yet in February last year Phillips took what appeared to be a more reasoned view when he argued that “people should be allowed to offend each other” in Britain.
Mr Phillips - then chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality - told ITV’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme: “One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is."
Context is everything (in February 2006 Phillips was discussing whether Muslims should accept that freedom of speech is central to Britishness).
But as I blogged earlier, the right to speak freely must apply to everyone - even if most sane Britons would disagree vehemently with the arguments put forward by BNP supporters and Holocaust apologists.
Victor Ward emails to point out that Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, seems to think free speech is OK for some, but not for others. Phillips told the BBC yesterday that asking Nick Griffin and David Irving to debate free speech at the Oxford Union was an “absolute disgrace”.
...
Yet in February last year Phillips took what appeared to be a more reasoned view when he argued that “people should be allowed to offend each other” in Britain.
Mr Phillips - then chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality - told ITV’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme: “One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is."
Context is everything (in February 2006 Phillips was discussing whether Muslims should accept that freedom of speech is central to Britishness).
But as I blogged earlier, the right to speak freely must apply to everyone - even if most sane Britons would disagree vehemently with the arguments put forward by BNP supporters and Holocaust apologists.
The fake FEMA October news conference ... was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter ...
Probe finds other DHS fake briefings | EILEEN SULLIVAN | AP News | Nov 26, 2007 12:13 EST
Probe of Fake FEMA News Conference Finds Similar Incident Happened in Another DHS Agency
The fake October news conference held by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter by asking questions during a briefing.
In January 2006, an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked a question during a news conference in San Antonio, Texas, according to an investigation by the Homeland Security Department — the parent agency of both FEMA and ICE.
The ICE public affairs official was standing with about 12 reporters but did not identify herself when she posed the question, Homeland Security's head of public affairs, J. Edward Fox, wrote in a Nov. 19 letter to the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee. The government employee was verbally reprimanded for asking the question after the news conference, Fox told Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. ...
Probe of Fake FEMA News Conference Finds Similar Incident Happened in Another DHS Agency
The fake October news conference held by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter by asking questions during a briefing.
In January 2006, an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked a question during a news conference in San Antonio, Texas, according to an investigation by the Homeland Security Department — the parent agency of both FEMA and ICE.
The ICE public affairs official was standing with about 12 reporters but did not identify herself when she posed the question, Homeland Security's head of public affairs, J. Edward Fox, wrote in a Nov. 19 letter to the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee. The government employee was verbally reprimanded for asking the question after the news conference, Fox told Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. ...
Rather Case ... could uncap the biggest media scandal ever told—or reveal Rather to be the crumpled icon ...
Dan Rather’s Last Big Story Is Himself | By Joe Hagan | Published Nov 25, 2007
...
When Dan Rather sits on a bench in Central Park to tell how his 44-year career at CBS News ended in ignominy and humiliation, he is in fact still waging a war, a bitter and personal one. And the memories of the battles that undid him are still fresh on his mind. “Monday morning, about 8:49—and I think that is the time precisely,” he says. He’s recalling January 10, 2005, when he first received the 224-page report commissioned by CBS that excoriated his infamous 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on President Bush’s National Guard service. Of that report, Rather says, “When I read through it, all I could say to myself, on each page, is, ‘What bullshit. What pure, unadulterated bullshit this whole thing is. What a setup. What a fix.’ ” He nearly spits the word fix.
...
But with much unproved, Rather’s claims have left him standing alone. CBS has already fired back, motioning to dismiss his case and calling his allegations “bizarre” and “far-fetched,” his motives purely ego-driven. In launching his attack, Rather risks what’s left of his credibility: If the case makes it to trial, it could uncap the biggest media scandal ever told—or reveal Rather to be the crumpled icon of a fading era, courting madness in the twilight of public life. ...
...
When Dan Rather sits on a bench in Central Park to tell how his 44-year career at CBS News ended in ignominy and humiliation, he is in fact still waging a war, a bitter and personal one. And the memories of the battles that undid him are still fresh on his mind. “Monday morning, about 8:49—and I think that is the time precisely,” he says. He’s recalling January 10, 2005, when he first received the 224-page report commissioned by CBS that excoriated his infamous 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on President Bush’s National Guard service. Of that report, Rather says, “When I read through it, all I could say to myself, on each page, is, ‘What bullshit. What pure, unadulterated bullshit this whole thing is. What a setup. What a fix.’ ” He nearly spits the word fix.
...
But with much unproved, Rather’s claims have left him standing alone. CBS has already fired back, motioning to dismiss his case and calling his allegations “bizarre” and “far-fetched,” his motives purely ego-driven. In launching his attack, Rather risks what’s left of his credibility: If the case makes it to trial, it could uncap the biggest media scandal ever told—or reveal Rather to be the crumpled icon of a fading era, courting madness in the twilight of public life. ...
Friday, November 23, 2007
"statements that I’ve made concerning the plight of the Palestinians" ... “I don’t think it’s possible for candidates to talk about it.
November 22, 2007 at 12:01:42 | Carter Says U.S. Politicians Can Show No Sympathy For Plight of Palestinians | by Sherwood Ross
Former President Jimmy Carter said in a published interview it is “almost inconceivable” for an American presidential candidate “to make the statements that I’ve made concerning the plight of the Palestinians or Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders with modifications, or things of that kind.”Carter said his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” presented “a point of view that the American media rarely have a chance to cover” as no politician will discuss it. “It would be amazing for me to hear any candidate for President even mention it---even begin to address these issues in a serious way.”Carter made his remarks in an interview published in the December 3rd issue of The Nation, a weekly magazine reflecting liberal opinion.The former president, credited with arranging the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, said he sees “a complete dearth of any sort of substantive debate” in the U.S. about resolution of the troubles involving Israel and its neighbors. Carter added, “For six years, now seven years, there hasn’t been a single day of substantive negotiations between Israel and either Syria or the Palestinians.” “I wanted to precipitate some movement on the peace process and also bring the issue to the forefront. In other countries, by the way---I’ve been to Ireland and England and other countries in Europe lately---there is a pretty intense debate. But over here, zero.”Asked by interviewer John Nichols if there is any way the issue can become part of the 2008 election year debate, Carter replied: “I don’t think it’s possible for candidates to talk about it. But it may be that some of the facts and some of the issues will sink into the consciousness of whoever is going to be in the White House beginning in 2009, and that they will see some responsibility and some way, some path toward a peace process.”
Former President Jimmy Carter said in a published interview it is “almost inconceivable” for an American presidential candidate “to make the statements that I’ve made concerning the plight of the Palestinians or Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders with modifications, or things of that kind.”Carter said his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” presented “a point of view that the American media rarely have a chance to cover” as no politician will discuss it. “It would be amazing for me to hear any candidate for President even mention it---even begin to address these issues in a serious way.”Carter made his remarks in an interview published in the December 3rd issue of The Nation, a weekly magazine reflecting liberal opinion.The former president, credited with arranging the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, said he sees “a complete dearth of any sort of substantive debate” in the U.S. about resolution of the troubles involving Israel and its neighbors. Carter added, “For six years, now seven years, there hasn’t been a single day of substantive negotiations between Israel and either Syria or the Palestinians.” “I wanted to precipitate some movement on the peace process and also bring the issue to the forefront. In other countries, by the way---I’ve been to Ireland and England and other countries in Europe lately---there is a pretty intense debate. But over here, zero.”Asked by interviewer John Nichols if there is any way the issue can become part of the 2008 election year debate, Carter replied: “I don’t think it’s possible for candidates to talk about it. But it may be that some of the facts and some of the issues will sink into the consciousness of whoever is going to be in the White House beginning in 2009, and that they will see some responsibility and some way, some path toward a peace process.”
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 | What is Happening to the NY Times? Not One Single Word About McClellan's Bush Bombshell
...
... And now it's being revealed by McClellan that he was instructed by his bosses--including the president and vice president--to stand before the media and voters and lie about it all as further protection against the erupting scandal.
...
But where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper. This is a huge bombshell with monumental ramifications--criminal behavior on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Card-- which could and should finally take down this corrupt, disgraceful administration. Could be the biggest political scandal since Watergate. And how is it covered by the Times? It's not. I'm starting to think this once relevant newspaper must be secretly owned by Rupert Murdoch. ...
...
... And now it's being revealed by McClellan that he was instructed by his bosses--including the president and vice president--to stand before the media and voters and lie about it all as further protection against the erupting scandal.
...
But where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper. This is a huge bombshell with monumental ramifications--criminal behavior on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Card-- which could and should finally take down this corrupt, disgraceful administration. Could be the biggest political scandal since Watergate. And how is it covered by the Times? It's not. I'm starting to think this once relevant newspaper must be secretly owned by Rupert Murdoch. ...
Monday, November 19, 2007
Haitham of Sabbah’s Blog on the banning and censoring of Pro Palestinian bloggers, including himself, on the Daily Kos ...
The daily censor at the daily kos
A disturbing post by Haitham of Sabbah’s Blog on the banning and censoring of Pro Palestinian bloggers, including himself, on the Daily Kos.
Yesterday, which marked the celebration of the Nakba, Daily Kos blew the last bridge it had with the Palestinian voices. Midday GMT, the news started coming. They first banned Umkahlil, later on they banned me, and last but not least, they banned Anna Baltzer. Why? Nobody knows. No reason is given. No warning or any notice from the ‘busy’ Kos administrators to let any of us know the circumstances under which the decision was taken and what valid reasons they gave for throwing these poisoned donuts at us. All that we heard from unofficial sources: we are associates of Shergald, again!
...
... We don’t have to have any association with anyone, not even with other banned Kos members or other groups that might also talk about the plight of Palestinians. ... The main reason is the same reason I write here in my blog, which all of you know is about presenting the truth about Palestine historically and about the daily catastrophes that result from the criminal occupation of the Zionists of my homeland. I never hid my objectives, which are to bring justice to everyone in this conflict, including Israelis. ...
A disturbing post by Haitham of Sabbah’s Blog on the banning and censoring of Pro Palestinian bloggers, including himself, on the Daily Kos.
Yesterday, which marked the celebration of the Nakba, Daily Kos blew the last bridge it had with the Palestinian voices. Midday GMT, the news started coming. They first banned Umkahlil, later on they banned me, and last but not least, they banned Anna Baltzer. Why? Nobody knows. No reason is given. No warning or any notice from the ‘busy’ Kos administrators to let any of us know the circumstances under which the decision was taken and what valid reasons they gave for throwing these poisoned donuts at us. All that we heard from unofficial sources: we are associates of Shergald, again!
...
... We don’t have to have any association with anyone, not even with other banned Kos members or other groups that might also talk about the plight of Palestinians. ... The main reason is the same reason I write here in my blog, which all of you know is about presenting the truth about Palestine historically and about the daily catastrophes that result from the criminal occupation of the Zionists of my homeland. I never hid my objectives, which are to bring justice to everyone in this conflict, including Israelis. ...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Lawyer sues Bush, state GOP over rally arrest: "politically motivated violation ... of First Amendment right of political expression"
Thu, Nov. 08, 2007 | Lawyer sues Bush, state GOP over rally arrest | Associated Press
TOPEKA - A lawyer arrested last year after holding an anti-war sign at a political rally where President Bush spoke has filed a lawsuit, claiming Bush violated his constitutional rights.
...
The lawsuit alleges that Hawver's arrest Nov. 5, 2006, at the Kansas Expocentre rally was a "politically motivated violation of my civil and constitutional rights, especially regarding my First Amendment right of political expression."
...
In his lawsuit, Hawver claimed that after he was taken outside, two men forced him to the ground and a third struck him the face. He said they told Topeka police to handcuff him and take him to jail, where he was held for 18 hours before being released on $2,500 bond.
"We have certain rights in this country," Hawver told the Topeka Capital-Journal on Tuesday. "I would be remiss and derelict if I didn't do everything I can do to preserve my rights." ...
TOPEKA - A lawyer arrested last year after holding an anti-war sign at a political rally where President Bush spoke has filed a lawsuit, claiming Bush violated his constitutional rights.
...
The lawsuit alleges that Hawver's arrest Nov. 5, 2006, at the Kansas Expocentre rally was a "politically motivated violation of my civil and constitutional rights, especially regarding my First Amendment right of political expression."
...
In his lawsuit, Hawver claimed that after he was taken outside, two men forced him to the ground and a third struck him the face. He said they told Topeka police to handcuff him and take him to jail, where he was held for 18 hours before being released on $2,500 bond.
"We have certain rights in this country," Hawver told the Topeka Capital-Journal on Tuesday. "I would be remiss and derelict if I didn't do everything I can do to preserve my rights." ...
Friday, November 02, 2007
Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it
The war on whistle-blowers | By James Sandler
U.S. officials have long retaliated against employees who speak out, burying the dangers they expose. Now, Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it.
If there is any doubt about how the Bush administration treats government whistle-blowers, consider the case of Teresa Chambers. She was hired in early 2002, with impeccable law enforcement credentials, to become chief of the United States Park Police. But after Chambers raised concerns publicly that crime was up in the nation's parks, she was rebuked by superiors and fired. When Chambers fought to regain her job through the legal system meant to protect whistle-blowers, government lawyers fought back, and associated her with terrorists. Despite a multiyear legal struggle, she is still fighting for her job.
Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton's tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security -- three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.
...
But a six-month investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in collaboration with Salon, has found that federal whistle-blowers almost never receive legal protection after they take action. Instead, they often face agency managers and White House appointees intent upon silencing them rather than addressing the problems they raise. They are left fighting for their jobs in a special administrative court system, little known to the American public, that is mired in bureaucracy and vulnerable to partisan politics. The CIR/Salon investigation reveals that the whistle-blower system -- first created by Congress decades ago and proclaimed as a cornerstone of government transparency and accountability -- has in reality enabled the punishment of employees who speak out. It has had a chilling effect, dissuading others from coming forward. The investigation examined nearly 3,600 whistle-blower cases since 1994, and included dozens of interviews and a review of confidential court documents. Whistle-blowers lose their cases, the investigation shows, nearly 97 percent of the time. Most limp away from the experience with their careers, reputations and finances in tatters.
...
... And legal precedents created by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington -- the sole appeals court that hears and interprets the law for the special whistle-blower system -- have made it virtually impossible in recent years for whistle-blowers to win their cases.
...
Joseph D. Whitson Jr. was a civilian chemist in the Air Force who spoke out about superiors falsifying drug test results. His desk was moved to a room in the basement and his job duties stripped.
Vernie Gee Sr. was an agricultural inspector who sounded the alarm about tainted meat in the U.S. food supply and inspectors taking bribes from slaughterhouses. Gee was beaten up by a plant worker during an inspection -- and then reprimanded by superiors for fighting.
George Randall Taylor, a chief of police at a Navy base in Bermuda, exposed coverups of rapes on the base. He was then forced into a psychiatric hospital.
Before Teresa Chambers was fired from the Park Police, she found used condoms on her car, and someone pepper-sprayed her office door. ...
...
Government managers and attorneys almost always argue that measures taken against whistle-blowers were justified because of bad behavior or poor performance by the employee.
...
Prior to becoming chief of the Park Police, Chambers had a distinguished 28-year career in law enforcement. She was a Republican, was eager to serve the nation in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and would be the first woman to lead the force. But her pedigree apparently would no longer matter once her public comments created political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
...
The two judges had in fact battled for more than three years over the Johns case, the court documents show, clashing over, among other things, how to address Johns' claims of anti-homosexual harassment. Discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation, but Slavet felt Johns' case underscored such a need and drafted a decision that would grant Johns' case a new hearing. But Marshall disagreed, and she used a procedural tactic to stall the case until an incoming Bush-appointed judge arrived to replace Slavet, whose term was almost over.
Slavet wrote a scathing memorandum to Marshall in response: "It is fundamentally unfair to the parties and destructive of the process to hold up these cases pending my departure and Mr. McPhie's confirmation," Slavet wrote in the memo dated Feb. 25, 2003, referring to the incoming Bush appointee, Neil McPhie. Soon after, McPhie joined the court and Slavet's term ended. Marshall and McPhie decided the Johns case that August: "Corrective Action Denied."
...
But the Bush administration has vigorously opposed stronger whistle-blower protections. In a confidential e-mail from 2006, obtained by CIR and Salon, the White House registered strong objections to a congressional committee that was reviewing a similar law to protect whistle-blowers drawn up last year, saying the "excessively overbroad definition of whistleblowing ... forbids using any common sense." And President Bush has said he will veto the new legislation moving through Congress, saying in a two-page Statement of Administration Policy that the new law would "increase the number of frivolous complaints and waste resources" and could "compromise national security." ...
U.S. officials have long retaliated against employees who speak out, burying the dangers they expose. Now, Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it.
If there is any doubt about how the Bush administration treats government whistle-blowers, consider the case of Teresa Chambers. She was hired in early 2002, with impeccable law enforcement credentials, to become chief of the United States Park Police. But after Chambers raised concerns publicly that crime was up in the nation's parks, she was rebuked by superiors and fired. When Chambers fought to regain her job through the legal system meant to protect whistle-blowers, government lawyers fought back, and associated her with terrorists. Despite a multiyear legal struggle, she is still fighting for her job.
Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton's tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security -- three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.
...
But a six-month investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in collaboration with Salon, has found that federal whistle-blowers almost never receive legal protection after they take action. Instead, they often face agency managers and White House appointees intent upon silencing them rather than addressing the problems they raise. They are left fighting for their jobs in a special administrative court system, little known to the American public, that is mired in bureaucracy and vulnerable to partisan politics. The CIR/Salon investigation reveals that the whistle-blower system -- first created by Congress decades ago and proclaimed as a cornerstone of government transparency and accountability -- has in reality enabled the punishment of employees who speak out. It has had a chilling effect, dissuading others from coming forward. The investigation examined nearly 3,600 whistle-blower cases since 1994, and included dozens of interviews and a review of confidential court documents. Whistle-blowers lose their cases, the investigation shows, nearly 97 percent of the time. Most limp away from the experience with their careers, reputations and finances in tatters.
...
... And legal precedents created by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington -- the sole appeals court that hears and interprets the law for the special whistle-blower system -- have made it virtually impossible in recent years for whistle-blowers to win their cases.
...
Joseph D. Whitson Jr. was a civilian chemist in the Air Force who spoke out about superiors falsifying drug test results. His desk was moved to a room in the basement and his job duties stripped.
Vernie Gee Sr. was an agricultural inspector who sounded the alarm about tainted meat in the U.S. food supply and inspectors taking bribes from slaughterhouses. Gee was beaten up by a plant worker during an inspection -- and then reprimanded by superiors for fighting.
George Randall Taylor, a chief of police at a Navy base in Bermuda, exposed coverups of rapes on the base. He was then forced into a psychiatric hospital.
Before Teresa Chambers was fired from the Park Police, she found used condoms on her car, and someone pepper-sprayed her office door. ...
...
Government managers and attorneys almost always argue that measures taken against whistle-blowers were justified because of bad behavior or poor performance by the employee.
...
Prior to becoming chief of the Park Police, Chambers had a distinguished 28-year career in law enforcement. She was a Republican, was eager to serve the nation in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and would be the first woman to lead the force. But her pedigree apparently would no longer matter once her public comments created political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
...
The two judges had in fact battled for more than three years over the Johns case, the court documents show, clashing over, among other things, how to address Johns' claims of anti-homosexual harassment. Discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation, but Slavet felt Johns' case underscored such a need and drafted a decision that would grant Johns' case a new hearing. But Marshall disagreed, and she used a procedural tactic to stall the case until an incoming Bush-appointed judge arrived to replace Slavet, whose term was almost over.
Slavet wrote a scathing memorandum to Marshall in response: "It is fundamentally unfair to the parties and destructive of the process to hold up these cases pending my departure and Mr. McPhie's confirmation," Slavet wrote in the memo dated Feb. 25, 2003, referring to the incoming Bush appointee, Neil McPhie. Soon after, McPhie joined the court and Slavet's term ended. Marshall and McPhie decided the Johns case that August: "Corrective Action Denied."
...
But the Bush administration has vigorously opposed stronger whistle-blower protections. In a confidential e-mail from 2006, obtained by CIR and Salon, the White House registered strong objections to a congressional committee that was reviewing a similar law to protect whistle-blowers drawn up last year, saying the "excessively overbroad definition of whistleblowing ... forbids using any common sense." And President Bush has said he will veto the new legislation moving through Congress, saying in a two-page Statement of Administration Policy that the new law would "increase the number of frivolous complaints and waste resources" and could "compromise national security." ...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ... 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper + TV
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 by Americans Oppose Media Market Concentration: Survey
WASHINGTON– More than half of Americans surveyed said it should be illegal for a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, a coalition of consumer and telecommunications advocacy groups said on Wednesday.
...
The survey found 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper and TV station in the same market. That level of support was roughly the same among the political liberals, moderates and conservatives surveyed.
“The results of this poll should come as no surprise to the FCC, since thousands have vocalized their opposition to weaker media ownership rules at public hearings held recently,” said Beth McConnell, director of the coalition. “The FCC should listen to the public and reject rule changes that would concentrate ownership even further.”
The survey also showed 70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ...
WASHINGTON– More than half of Americans surveyed said it should be illegal for a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, a coalition of consumer and telecommunications advocacy groups said on Wednesday.
...
The survey found 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper and TV station in the same market. That level of support was roughly the same among the political liberals, moderates and conservatives surveyed.
“The results of this poll should come as no surprise to the FCC, since thousands have vocalized their opposition to weaker media ownership rules at public hearings held recently,” said Beth McConnell, director of the coalition. “The FCC should listen to the public and reject rule changes that would concentrate ownership even further.”
The survey also showed 70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ...
Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf
October 31, 2007 | The Lobby, Unmasked | The Israel lobby: "We have an 'unwritten contract' with the American media"
Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):
...
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):
"The fact is, you know, we may be unhappy with the New York Times from time to time, and we at CAMERA have been, but I have to say we are fortunate. The American media is much, much more geared to understanding that there is an unwritten contract between them and us, and that is, that things should be factually accurate, and we get corrections all the time. Those corrections are very meaningful sometimes. We can prevent the repetition of serious errors. … So there is that give and take here in the States."
What is this "unwritten contract"? I'll tell you what it is: it's an agreement to censor anything and everything that offends the Lobby and its glorified, sanitized view of Israel. Here, after all, is a country that practices apartheid, imprisons children, and was founded on ethnic cleansing and bigoted religious obscurantism – and yet they present themselves to the world as a valiant little "democracy," a beleaguered outpost of "the West" in the midst of an Arab sea. It takes a lot of cosmetics to hide the true face of this dog, and that's what CAMERA is all about – prettifying an increasingly ugly reality. The Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf of a foreign power is smeared as an "anti-Semite."
When National Public Radio refused to kowtow to their demands for more favorable coverage of Israel, they mounted a vicious campaign of demonization that led to huge financial losses to the station. NPR, which CAMERA called "National Palestine Radio" – a bit of racist snark ...
...
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of "Overccoming Zionism"
September 22 / 23, 2007 | Pressure Builds on University of Michigan | Pluto Press Under Attack by Israel Lobby | By ROGER van ZWANENBERG
About three weeks ago Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the US. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism.
Since then the Executive Board of the University has considered the matter and issued a public statement. Joel's book has now been reinstated but they plan to review the ongoing relationship between Pluto and UMP in October. ...
About three weeks ago Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the US. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism.
Since then the Executive Board of the University has considered the matter and issued a public statement. Joel's book has now been reinstated but they plan to review the ongoing relationship between Pluto and UMP in October. ...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interes
Conservatism isn’t what it used to be | By Paul Craig Roberts
..
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci14sep14,1,3096423,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true
...
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead.
..
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci14sep14,1,3096423,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true
...
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress.
Despicable: Abe Foxman slams only Muslim Congressman | Posted by Cecilie Surasky Mitchell Plitnick
MN Congressman Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag, Bush to Hitler. You can agree or disagree with the statement. You can think it’s uniquely insightful and courageous or completely idiotic. In the end, the free marketplace of democracy will decide what his supporters think.
But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?
Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable. ...
MN Congressman Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag, Bush to Hitler. You can agree or disagree with the statement. You can think it’s uniquely insightful and courageous or completely idiotic. In the end, the free marketplace of democracy will decide what his supporters think.
But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?
Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable. ...
committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline ... CC'd to Cheney
Sunday, October 28, 2007 | Did GOP Operatives Expose Whistleblowers?
...This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."
...This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."
But in an email sent out today, the committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline. The committee email was sent to tipsters who had used the website form, including presumably whistleblowers themselves, and all of the recipients of the email were accidentally included in the "to:" field -- instead of concealing those addresses with a so-called blind carbon copy or "bcc:".
...
Why would a professional in the Judiciary Committee staff not use Bcc: as automatically as I do? And why would they Cc: Cheney? I don't think so. I think this is a deliberate attempt by a Republican on the Judiciary committee to derail the DOJ investigation by leaking the identities of whistleblowers to Cheney to expose them to intimidation and revenge.
Here is the list of suspects:
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th
Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th
Gallegly (R) California, 24th
Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th ...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
it appears the majority of the population is falling hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being spewed by the White House, Fox News, ...
October 30, 2007 at 15:01:04 | A Zogby Poll Shows Complacency In America Has Been Replaced By Ignorance and Stupidity | by Justanothercoverup
... MUCH MORE
When I read the results of a new Zogby Poll, my heart dropped as I realized that complacency in America has been replaced by ignorance and stupidity - and it appears the majority of the population is falling hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being spewed by the White House, Fox News, and a host of right-wing pundits. They have the most money, so their message of hate is overcoming the voice of logic and reason - and those of who are aware of the truth are obviously in the minority. I am saddened that my fellow countrymen do not have the wherewithal to seek the truth for themselves rather than believing everything they hear on the radio and TV.
Bomb Iran, majority of Americans says in new poll
Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday October 30, 2007
Despite President Bush’s perpetually abysmal approval ratings, it appears his increasingly hostile rhetoric against Iran has drummed up enough fear of a “nuclear holocost” or a World War III that a majority of Americans are in favor of a US strike against the country aimed a curtailing its apparent nuclear ambitions, a new poll shows.
The Zogby International survey shows 52 percent of Americans would support a strike on Iran, while 53 percent expect President Bush to launch such an attack before the end of his second term.... MUCH MORE
Most Gagged Person in U.S. History: "Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason ...
Brad Friedman ON 10/29/2007 5:30AM | EXCLUSIVE: FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All - and Face Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
...
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
...
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
...
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
...
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case." ...
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
...
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
...
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
...
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
...
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case." ...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
US disaster agency apologizes for fake 'reporters' ... No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person
US disaster agency apologizes for fake 'reporters' | Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:23pm | By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The main U.S. disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a news briefing on California's wildfires that no journalists attended.
...
No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person, although some camera crews arrived late to film incidental shots, officials said.
...
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House did not condone FEMA's action and would not engage in such practices.
But in 2004 the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, accused the administration of "covert propaganda" in distributing video packages about federal health programs that looked like independent news reports.
Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams lost a syndication deal for his column in 2005 and apologized after a disclosure that he accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote education legislation in his commentaries.
U.S. defense officials that year also confirmed that U.S. troops wrote articles that were planted in Iraqi newspapers in exchange for money.
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The main U.S. disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a news briefing on California's wildfires that no journalists attended.
...
No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person, although some camera crews arrived late to film incidental shots, officials said.
...
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House did not condone FEMA's action and would not engage in such practices.
But in 2004 the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, accused the administration of "covert propaganda" in distributing video packages about federal health programs that looked like independent news reports.
Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams lost a syndication deal for his column in 2005 and apologized after a disclosure that he accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote education legislation in his commentaries.
U.S. defense officials that year also confirmed that U.S. troops wrote articles that were planted in Iraqi newspapers in exchange for money.
Appeasing bullies like Dershowitz will not stop them ... The question is, do we in this country want a McCarthyite witch hunt?
Intellectual terrorism | For the sake of free speech, British organisations should confront pro-Israel bullies, not appease them. | October 25, 2007 11:00 AM
The newest and least attractive import from America, following on behind Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Friends, is the pro-Israel lobby. The latest target of this US-style campaign is the august Oxford Union.
This week, two Israeli colleagues and I were due to appear at the union to participate in an important debate on the one-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Also invited was the American Jewish scholar and outspoken critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein. At the last minute, however, the union withdrew its invitation to him, apparently intimidated by threats from various pro-Israel groups.
The Harvard Jewish lawyer and indefatigable defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, attacked the topic of the debate as well as the Oxford Union itself. In an article headlined "Oxford Union is dead", he accused it of having become "a propaganda platform for extremist views", and castigated its choice of what he termed anti-Israel and anti-semitic speakers.
Yet Dershowitz could have restored the balance as he saw it; he was the first person invited by the Oxford Union to oppose the motion but he declined due, as he put it, to "the terms of the debate and my proposed teammates". ...
...
Dershowitz and the other pro-Israel activists may rejoice at their success in derailing an important discussion. But it is of little comfort to those of us who care about freedom of speech in this country. Last May, Dershowitz interfered in British academic life when the University and College Union voted overwhelmingly to debate the merits of boycotting Israeli institutions. He teamed up with a British Jewish lawyer, Anthony Julius, and others, threatening to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone acting against Israeli universities.
In another example of these bullying tactics, the Royal Society of Medicine, one of Britain's most venerable medical institutions, came under an attack this month, unprecedented in its 200 year history. It had invited Dr Derek Summerfield, a psychiatrist (who has also documented Israelıs medical abuses against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories), to its conference on Religion, Spirituality and Mental Health. The RSM was immediately bombarded with threats from pro-Israel doctors demanding Dr Summerfield's removal on the grounds that he was Èpoliticalı and biased, and that the RSM's charitable status would be challenged if he remained. Intimidated, the RSM asked Dr Summerfield to withdraw, although they later reinstated him.
...
The power of the Israel lobby in America is legendary. It demonstrates its influence at many levels. Campus Watch is a network that monitors alleged anti-Israel activity in US academic institutions. The difficulties of promotion in the US for scholars deemed anti-Israeli are notorious. The notable Palestinian academic, Edward Said, was subjected to an unrelenting campaign by pro-Israel groups at Columbia University with threats on his life. ...
...
Such activities are familiar in the US. People there are hardened or resigned to having their freedom of expression limited by the pro-Israel lobby, and the threats of Dershowitz would cause no surprise to anyone. But Britain is different, naively innocent in the face of US-style assaults on its scholars and institutions. No wonder that those who have been attacked give in so quickly, nervous of something they do not understand. The UCU leadership, shocked and intimidated by the ferocious reaction to the boycott motion from pro-Israel groups, resorted to legal advice to extricate itself and announced in September that a call to boycott Israeli institutions would be "unlawful". The Oxford Union jettisoned one of its participants rather than stand up to the threats of its critics. The RSM tried to distance the offending speaker from its conference to protect itself from abuse.
The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations.
Truth Matters | By Charles Sullivan
10/27/07 "ICH" -- -- I have been writing political essays for a few years now. I do so as a reluctant enthusiast, not because I wanted to write on these themes; but because, it seemed to me, that professional journalists were not telling the whole story; that significant parts that would allow people to connect the dots and understand what is happening from a historical perspective, was being deliberately omitted from the official version of current events, and from history.
As propaganda, the elements that are deliberately left out of media are as important as those that are retained. It is propaganda by omission, as much as by content. What people are not told shapes their world view and influences their behavior, as surely as what they are told. Imposed ignorance and selective knowledge go hand in hand to forge public opinion and to shape cultural identity. These conditions set the stage for belligerent government and aggressive nationalism.
...
Our recent history would have been impossible without the consolidation of the media that occurred during the Clinton presidency, and has continued ever since. The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations. We no longer have reporting on local issues stemming from diverse perspectives rooted in local communities, but a monoculture of state and corporate propaganda that betrays the public trust in its pursuit of corporate profits.
...
10/27/07 "ICH" -- -- I have been writing political essays for a few years now. I do so as a reluctant enthusiast, not because I wanted to write on these themes; but because, it seemed to me, that professional journalists were not telling the whole story; that significant parts that would allow people to connect the dots and understand what is happening from a historical perspective, was being deliberately omitted from the official version of current events, and from history.
As propaganda, the elements that are deliberately left out of media are as important as those that are retained. It is propaganda by omission, as much as by content. What people are not told shapes their world view and influences their behavior, as surely as what they are told. Imposed ignorance and selective knowledge go hand in hand to forge public opinion and to shape cultural identity. These conditions set the stage for belligerent government and aggressive nationalism.
...
Our recent history would have been impossible without the consolidation of the media that occurred during the Clinton presidency, and has continued ever since. The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations. We no longer have reporting on local issues stemming from diverse perspectives rooted in local communities, but a monoculture of state and corporate propaganda that betrays the public trust in its pursuit of corporate profits.
...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," ...
Pentagon Used Independent Military Newspaper For Pro-Bush PR Campaign | Posted by Amanda Terkel at 1:00 PM on October 23, 2007.
This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress
The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")
As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.
On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:
But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...] ...
This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress
The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")
As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.
On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:
But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...] ...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul ... [covers event] ... without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex)
Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul | Sunday, October 21, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.
The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).
The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.
Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate. ...
Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.
The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).
The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.
Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate. ...
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic ... most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic | Oct 19, 6:32 PM (ET) | By PETER SVENSSON
NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) (CMCSA) actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. ...
NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) (CMCSA) actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. ...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by ... “the pressures brought by Zionist extremist groups such as ADL
10/14/2007 | Zio-Lobby Shuts Down No More Wars For Israel Conference - First Amendment Rights Violated, Boycott of Anti-American Marriott Corporation Urged
On early Saturday morning the long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by the traditional enemies of free speech, luckily thanks to the determination of the organizers of the event the conference did resume later in the day at a different location!
Organizer Mark Glenn reported that conference goers, many of whom had traveled to Southern California from halfway around the World, were shut out of the Irvine Marriott Hotel because of “the pressures brought to bear by Zionist extremist groups such as the ADL and others”.
Human Rights activist Hesham Tillawi reported that approximately fifty of the conference speakers and attendees decided to picket the sidewalks in front of the Marriott Hotel in order to protest the denial of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The protesters shouted “No More Wars For Israel” and carried hastily built signs saying “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “Freedom of Assembly is Null and Void” as passers by gave them the thumbs up and honked their horns in support! ...
On early Saturday morning the long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by the traditional enemies of free speech, luckily thanks to the determination of the organizers of the event the conference did resume later in the day at a different location!
Organizer Mark Glenn reported that conference goers, many of whom had traveled to Southern California from halfway around the World, were shut out of the Irvine Marriott Hotel because of “the pressures brought to bear by Zionist extremist groups such as the ADL and others”.
Human Rights activist Hesham Tillawi reported that approximately fifty of the conference speakers and attendees decided to picket the sidewalks in front of the Marriott Hotel in order to protest the denial of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The protesters shouted “No More Wars For Israel” and carried hastily built signs saying “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “Freedom of Assembly is Null and Void” as passers by gave them the thumbs up and honked their horns in support! ...
Friday, October 12, 2007
arvard Prof Says Google Cancelled His Talk on Israel Lobby ... pressure on management ... "That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the US"
October 08, 2007 | Harvard Prof Says Google Cancelled His Talk on Israel Lobby
At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn't say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn't appear "without someone following us...
"That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn't say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn't appear "without someone following us...
"That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
American debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being stifled by an insidious form of pre-emptive censorship.
Land of the free? | American debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being stifled by an insidious form of pre-emptive censorship. | Richard Silverstein | October 9, 2007 3:00 PM
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
...
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
...
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
...
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
...
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Perception of conservative bias in media 64 percent higher since Sept. 2001 ... [still much lower than perceived liberal bias]
Perception of conservative bias in media 64 percent higher since Sept. 2001 | Nick Juliano | Published: Monday October 8, 2007
...
The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll.
About one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing.
Nearly half of Americans see the media as being too liberal, but that measure in the survey released Monday did not move from the 45 percent who saw liberal bias in 2001. ...
...
The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll.
About one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing.
Nearly half of Americans see the media as being too liberal, but that measure in the survey released Monday did not move from the 45 percent who saw liberal bias in 2001. ...
Saturday, October 06, 2007
In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated.
Milton Viorst on ‘The Israel Lobby’ | Posted on Oct 4, 2007 | By Milton Viorst
About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people’s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was—and remains—to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel’s policies.
In the ensuing years, Foxman and a legion of like-minded leaders, most but not all of them Jewish, have been remarkably successful in suppressing an open and frank debate on Israel’s course. In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated. As a practical matter, the subject has been taboo. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, professors of political science at the University of Chicago and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, respectively, have challenged this taboo in their new book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foxman, in an effort to discredit them, has written a rejoinder in his book “The Deadliest Lies: The Jewish Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.” ...
...
Foxman does not quite accuse Mearsheimer and Walt—though other disapproving critics do—of being anti-Semitic. But he uses intimidating language nonetheless, pointing to a “level of quiet, subtle bigotry—an attitude that may not run to the actual hatred of Jews but that assumes that Jews are somehow different, less respectable, less honorable, more treacherous, more devious than other people. ... [I]t’s only natural that people who exhibit this kind of bias against Jews should look a little askance at the special relationship that exists between American Jews and the nation of Israel.”
...
Yet, even taking money and organization into account, there remains something of a mystery about the influence that AIPAC and its allies wield. In contrast to AIPAC, the gun lobby is routinely called upon to defend itself. But AIPAC’s task, it seems, is easier, because non-Jews, no less than Jews, unquestioningly accept its marching orders. Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe’s anti-Semitism, though—apart from Europe’s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel—there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC’s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.
Perhaps the answer has something to do with America’s being the most religious, the most Christian, the most church-going society in the Western world. Once upon a time, deeply held Christian faith could be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews; that certainly is the case no longer. If anything, American Christianity—led by but not exclusive to evangelicals—seems to take the biblical promise of a homeland for the Jews as a test of its beliefs and a commitment of its own. This commitment goes beyond guaranteeing Israel’s existence. It provides a body of sympathy for Israel’s hard line, and for the economic aid and weaponry that the United States dispatches to support it.
Unfortunately, the pro-peace segment of the American Jewish community does not have a parallel lobby. It has a few organizations, with dedicated adherents. Its members try to persuade the American Jewish community that reaching out to the Arab world, and particularly to the Palestinians, is better for Israel than perpetual war. AIPAC does its best to de-legitimize them, but they hang in stubbornly, though they are barely a whisper in the debate over Israel’s course. Despite the polls suggesting that many Jews agree with them, the influence of the peace groups is no threat to AIPAC’s pre-eminence. ...
About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people’s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was—and remains—to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel’s policies.
In the ensuing years, Foxman and a legion of like-minded leaders, most but not all of them Jewish, have been remarkably successful in suppressing an open and frank debate on Israel’s course. In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated. As a practical matter, the subject has been taboo. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, professors of political science at the University of Chicago and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, respectively, have challenged this taboo in their new book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foxman, in an effort to discredit them, has written a rejoinder in his book “The Deadliest Lies: The Jewish Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.” ...
...
Foxman does not quite accuse Mearsheimer and Walt—though other disapproving critics do—of being anti-Semitic. But he uses intimidating language nonetheless, pointing to a “level of quiet, subtle bigotry—an attitude that may not run to the actual hatred of Jews but that assumes that Jews are somehow different, less respectable, less honorable, more treacherous, more devious than other people. ... [I]t’s only natural that people who exhibit this kind of bias against Jews should look a little askance at the special relationship that exists between American Jews and the nation of Israel.”
...
Yet, even taking money and organization into account, there remains something of a mystery about the influence that AIPAC and its allies wield. In contrast to AIPAC, the gun lobby is routinely called upon to defend itself. But AIPAC’s task, it seems, is easier, because non-Jews, no less than Jews, unquestioningly accept its marching orders. Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe’s anti-Semitism, though—apart from Europe’s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel—there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC’s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.
Perhaps the answer has something to do with America’s being the most religious, the most Christian, the most church-going society in the Western world. Once upon a time, deeply held Christian faith could be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews; that certainly is the case no longer. If anything, American Christianity—led by but not exclusive to evangelicals—seems to take the biblical promise of a homeland for the Jews as a test of its beliefs and a commitment of its own. This commitment goes beyond guaranteeing Israel’s existence. It provides a body of sympathy for Israel’s hard line, and for the economic aid and weaponry that the United States dispatches to support it.
Unfortunately, the pro-peace segment of the American Jewish community does not have a parallel lobby. It has a few organizations, with dedicated adherents. Its members try to persuade the American Jewish community that reaching out to the Arab world, and particularly to the Palestinians, is better for Israel than perpetual war. AIPAC does its best to de-legitimize them, but they hang in stubbornly, though they are barely a whisper in the debate over Israel’s course. Despite the polls suggesting that many Jews agree with them, the influence of the peace groups is no threat to AIPAC’s pre-eminence. ...
Thursday, October 04, 2007
“The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers,”
October 1, 2007 | Craig Aaron, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x25 | Phone Company Censorship Exposed | Free Press calls for Congress to investigate abuses of free speech
WASHINGTON — Free Press, coordinator of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, is calling for congressional hearings to address growing public outrage over phone company censorship policies. Last week, Verizon made headlines with its decision to ban text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“Phone companies are supposed to deliver our messages, not censor them,” said Ben Scott, of Free Press. “If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then they shouldn’t be able to tell you what to say in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else. We can’t trust these corporate gatekeepers. Congress needs to step in immediately to safeguard free speech and the free flow of information.”
Verizon’s claimed its censorship of NARAL’s text messages was a glitch that resulted from a “dusty policy.” But the incident is just the latest in a long list of phone company efforts to block, filter or interfere with their customer’s legal content. In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
Earlier in the year, both Verizon and AT&T were exposed for handing over private customer phone records to the National Security Agency. The phone companies first denied they were spying but have since launched a secret campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.
...
“The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “Verizon’s text message ban is the same as Comcast blocking our email or AT&T preventing us from making phone calls. We need to put in place laws that protect our right to speak out on the Internet, on cell phones — everywhere.”
WASHINGTON — Free Press, coordinator of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, is calling for congressional hearings to address growing public outrage over phone company censorship policies. Last week, Verizon made headlines with its decision to ban text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“Phone companies are supposed to deliver our messages, not censor them,” said Ben Scott, of Free Press. “If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then they shouldn’t be able to tell you what to say in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else. We can’t trust these corporate gatekeepers. Congress needs to step in immediately to safeguard free speech and the free flow of information.”
Verizon’s claimed its censorship of NARAL’s text messages was a glitch that resulted from a “dusty policy.” But the incident is just the latest in a long list of phone company efforts to block, filter or interfere with their customer’s legal content. In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
Earlier in the year, both Verizon and AT&T were exposed for handing over private customer phone records to the National Security Agency. The phone companies first denied they were spying but have since launched a secret campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.
...
“The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “Verizon’s text message ban is the same as Comcast blocking our email or AT&T preventing us from making phone calls. We need to put in place laws that protect our right to speak out on the Internet, on cell phones — everywhere.”
They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
October 4, 2007 | An Unprecedented Campaign of Intimidation and Censorship | Dissenting at Your Own Risk | By CECILIE SURASKY
Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby."
A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk.
Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups.
But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies.
Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible?
In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism.
Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice. ...
Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby."
A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk.
Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups.
But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies.
Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible?
In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism.
Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice. ...
You're saying that the ... Iran resolution passed ... because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?
Thursday, October 4, 2007 | Mike Gravel has balls of steel, blames AIPAC for Iraq/Iran resolution
PBS Newsnight with Jim Lehrer interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Mike Gravel, 17 min
...
RAY SUAREZ (incredulous): You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?
PBS Newsnight with Jim Lehrer interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Mike Gravel, 17 min
...
RAY SUAREZ (incredulous): You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?
MIKE GRAVEL: Wait a second. They'll be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer.
If we touch Iran and they respond, you're talking about, in the minimum, a world depression, because the oil industry will just get shut down at the Straits of Hormuz. That's the minimum.
The worst that will happen will be a nuclear exchange, and I don't think we'll ever be able to contain once they start shooting bombs at each other nuclear devices. This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray. ...
Ron Paul's donations up 114% | Rudy, Mitt, and McCain all DOWN 29-55% each
Ron Paul's donations up 114% | Rudy, Mitt, and McCain all DOWN 29-55% each | October 3, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."
Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."
Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.
Monday, October 01, 2007
New AT&T terms of service: We'll cut off your Internet connection for criticizing us
New AT&T terms of service: We'll cut off your Internet connection for criticizing us | Posted by Cory Doctorow, September 29, 2007 10:23 AM | # | Discuss (69)
AT&T has brought down new Terms of Service for its network customers. From now on, AT&T can terminate your connection for conduct that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." So AT&T customers aren't allowed to write/podcast/vlog critical things about AT&T, its billing-practices, or its cooperation with illegal NSA wiretapping, on pain of having their connections disconnected. Link (via /.)
AT&T has brought down new Terms of Service for its network customers. From now on, AT&T can terminate your connection for conduct that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." So AT&T customers aren't allowed to write/podcast/vlog critical things about AT&T, its billing-practices, or its cooperation with illegal NSA wiretapping, on pain of having their connections disconnected. Link (via /.)
Sunday, September 30, 2007
At the NRA ... protester stood up and began yelling ... 'All these old dudes started shouting, ‘Tase her! Tase her!’'
Report: NRA audience called for female protester to be Tased | RAW STORY | Published: Monday September 24, 2007
...
At the National Rifle Association's "Celebration of American values" conference Friday, as Sen. John Thune (R-SD) delivered his opening remarks, a protester stood up and began yelling, according to a 183-word brief by Ben Pershing in Monday's Roll Call.
The audience responded.
"As she bellowed, a source who was present told [the paper], 'All these old dudes started shouting, ‘Tase her! Tase her!’'
"Alas, security personnel just quietly walked the offender out the door, sans the 50,000 volts of electricity and — as NRA members might appreciate — 'more stopping power than a .357 Magnum' that Taser claims to provide," Pershing wrote. "Maybe next time." ...
...
At the National Rifle Association's "Celebration of American values" conference Friday, as Sen. John Thune (R-SD) delivered his opening remarks, a protester stood up and began yelling, according to a 183-word brief by Ben Pershing in Monday's Roll Call.
The audience responded.
"As she bellowed, a source who was present told [the paper], 'All these old dudes started shouting, ‘Tase her! Tase her!’'
"Alas, security personnel just quietly walked the offender out the door, sans the 50,000 volts of electricity and — as NRA members might appreciate — 'more stopping power than a .357 Magnum' that Taser claims to provide," Pershing wrote. "Maybe next time." ...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Today the US press a serves as propaganda ministry for the government’s wars and police state.
September 17, 2007 | Conservatism Isn't What It Used to Be | By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
When I was in the Reagan administration, America had a lively press that never hesitated to take us to task. Even the “Teflon President” received more brickbats than Bush and Cheney.
The lively press disappeared along with its independence in the media concentration engineered during the Clinton administration. Shortly thereafter all the liberal news anchors disappeared as well. Today the US press a serves as propaganda ministry for the government’s wars and police state. Yet, some conservatives continue to rant on about “the liberal media.”
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics.
...
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. ...
In years past, conservatives were often shouted down on university campuses by left-wing students. But today speakers disapproved by powerful interest groups are simply disinvited in advance. Even Harvard University has fallen to the new censorship. On September 14, 2007, the Harvard Crimson reported that the Israel Lobby was able to force Harvard University to disinvite three speakers, an Oxford University professor, a DePaul professor, and a Rutgers professor, because they had criticized Israeli policy.
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead. ...
When I was in the Reagan administration, America had a lively press that never hesitated to take us to task. Even the “Teflon President” received more brickbats than Bush and Cheney.
The lively press disappeared along with its independence in the media concentration engineered during the Clinton administration. Shortly thereafter all the liberal news anchors disappeared as well. Today the US press a serves as propaganda ministry for the government’s wars and police state. Yet, some conservatives continue to rant on about “the liberal media.”
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics.
...
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. ...
In years past, conservatives were often shouted down on university campuses by left-wing students. But today speakers disapproved by powerful interest groups are simply disinvited in advance. Even Harvard University has fallen to the new censorship. On September 14, 2007, the Harvard Crimson reported that the Israel Lobby was able to force Harvard University to disinvite three speakers, an Oxford University professor, a DePaul professor, and a Rutgers professor, because they had criticized Israeli policy.
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead. ...
[FOX blackout was about] censoring the idea that war, any war and that one in particular, should be questioned.
Fox’s goddamn hypocrisy.
During the Fox network broadcast of the Emmy Awards this week, Actress Sally Field’s acceptance speech was censored because she used the word “goddamn.” “If mothers ruled the world,” Field said, “there would be no god-damned wars in the first place.” Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films catches Fox News cable pundits using the word “goddamn” repeatedly on air. Watch it:
...
#
the blackout was not about the word ‘goddamn’. it was about what she might have said about one particular war and perhaps just censoring the idea that war, any war and that one in particular, should be questioned. These were artists after all. One never knows what will fall out of their mouths.
Comment by po — September 20, 2007 @ 9:51 am
During the Fox network broadcast of the Emmy Awards this week, Actress Sally Field’s acceptance speech was censored because she used the word “goddamn.” “If mothers ruled the world,” Field said, “there would be no god-damned wars in the first place.” Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films catches Fox News cable pundits using the word “goddamn” repeatedly on air. Watch it:
...
#
the blackout was not about the word ‘goddamn’. it was about what she might have said about one particular war and perhaps just censoring the idea that war, any war and that one in particular, should be questioned. These were artists after all. One never knows what will fall out of their mouths.
Comment by po — September 20, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Rather: "democracy cannot survive...with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news,"
Rather: Government Influencing Newsrooms | Sep 21, 12:39 AM (ET) | By SAMANTHA GROSS
NEW YORK (AP) - Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company.
"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."
...
... CBS and Viacom Inc. (VIAB) used him as a "scapegoat" and intentionally botched the aftermath of a discredited story about President Bush's military service to curry favor with the White House. ...
NEW YORK (AP) - Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company.
"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."
...
... CBS and Viacom Inc. (VIAB) used him as a "scapegoat" and intentionally botched the aftermath of a discredited story about President Bush's military service to curry favor with the White House. ...
Friday, September 14, 2007
The President Asserted Progress on Security and Political Issues. Recent Reports Weren't Often So Upbeat. [Rare fact check. ed]
The President Asserted Progress on Security and Political Issues. Recent Reports Weren't Often So Upbeat. | By Glenn Kessler | Washington Post Staff Writer | Friday, September 14, 2007; Page A06
In his speech last night, President Bush made a case for progress in Iraq by citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words.
...
Bush also asserted that Baqubah, the capital of Diyala province, was once an al-Qaeda stronghold but that "today, Baqubah is cleared." But in a meeting with reporters on Aug. 27, the head of the State Department team in Diyala said the security situation was not stable, hampering access to food and energy, though he acknowledged that commerce was returning to Baqubah.
...
Bush also thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." But the State Department's most recent weekly report on Iraq said there are 25 countries supplying 11,685 troops -- about 7 percent of the size of the U.S. forces.
...
In his speech last night, President Bush made a case for progress in Iraq by citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words.
...
Bush also asserted that Baqubah, the capital of Diyala province, was once an al-Qaeda stronghold but that "today, Baqubah is cleared." But in a meeting with reporters on Aug. 27, the head of the State Department team in Diyala said the security situation was not stable, hampering access to food and energy, though he acknowledged that commerce was returning to Baqubah.
...
Bush also thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." But the State Department's most recent weekly report on Iraq said there are 25 countries supplying 11,685 troops -- about 7 percent of the size of the U.S. forces.
...
At one point, the president cited a recent report by a commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, saying that "the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police."
But the report said Iraq's army will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven." It also described the 25,000-member national police force as riddled with sectarianism and corruption, and it recommended that it be disbanded.
...
The president also painted a relatively favorable picture of Baghdad, saying that a year ago much of it "was under siege" but that today "ordinary life is beginning to return." He did not mention that much of the once-heterogeneous city has been divided into Shiite and Sunni enclaves. ...
AP Fact-Checks Bush Iraq Speech
AP Fact-Checks Bush Iraq Speech | Published: September 13, 2007 11"45 PM ET
BUSH SAID:
"Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working," Bush said, noting that just last year U.S. intelligence analysts had written off the Sunni area as "lost to al-Qaida."
FACT CHECK:
Early Thursday, the most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed by a bomb planted near his home.
...
The Sunni revolt against al-Qaida led to a dramatic improvement in security in Anbar cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi. Iraqis who had been sitting on the sidelines - or planting roadside bombs to kill Americans - have now joined with U.S. forces to hunt down al-Qaida in Iraq, whose links to Osama bin Laden's terror network are unclear.
Anbar is not secure, accounting for 18 percent of the U.S. deaths in Iraq so far this year - making it the second deadliest province after Baghdad.
BUSH SAID:
Progress in Iraq, including improvement in the performance of the Iraqi army, led to Petraeus' recommendation that "we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces."
FACT CHECK:
The report largely tracks a comparable poor assessment in July on 18 benchmarks. The earlier White House report said the Iraqi government had made satisfactory gains toward eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory marks on eight and mixed results on two.
BUSH SAID:
"We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy."
FACT CHECK:
There may well be 36 nations contributing to the cause, but the overwhelming majority of troops come from the United States. ...
BUSH SAID:
"Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working," Bush said, noting that just last year U.S. intelligence analysts had written off the Sunni area as "lost to al-Qaida."
FACT CHECK:
Early Thursday, the most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed by a bomb planted near his home.
...
The Sunni revolt against al-Qaida led to a dramatic improvement in security in Anbar cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi. Iraqis who had been sitting on the sidelines - or planting roadside bombs to kill Americans - have now joined with U.S. forces to hunt down al-Qaida in Iraq, whose links to Osama bin Laden's terror network are unclear.
Anbar is not secure, accounting for 18 percent of the U.S. deaths in Iraq so far this year - making it the second deadliest province after Baghdad.
BUSH SAID:
Progress in Iraq, including improvement in the performance of the Iraqi army, led to Petraeus' recommendation that "we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces."
FACT CHECK:
The report largely tracks a comparable poor assessment in July on 18 benchmarks. The earlier White House report said the Iraqi government had made satisfactory gains toward eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory marks on eight and mixed results on two.
BUSH SAID:
"We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy."
FACT CHECK:
There may well be 36 nations contributing to the cause, but the overwhelming majority of troops come from the United States. ...
Fox only broadcast network that did not air Democratic response to Bush speech
Fri, Sep 14, 2007 12:40pm ET | Fox only broadcast network that did not air Democratic response to Bush speech
Summary: Following President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response. Instead, Shepard Smith gave a short description of the response and stated: "Our coverage continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming." ABC, NBC, and CBS all aired the Democratic response.
Summary: Following President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response. Instead, Shepard Smith gave a short description of the response and stated: "Our coverage continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming." ABC, NBC, and CBS all aired the Democratic response.
Monday, September 10, 2007
no such thing as Islamofascism. This is a coined propaganda word used to inflame the ignorant.
Who Are The Fanatics ? | By Paul Craig Roberts | Sep 7, 2007, 11:12
09/06/07 "ICH" --- - President Jimmy Carter was demonized for pointing out in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that there are actually two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Distinguished American scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have suffered the same fate for documenting the excessive influence the Israel Lobby has on US foreign policy.
Americans would be astonished at the criticisms in the Israeli press of the Israeli government’s policies toward the Palestinians and Arabs generally. In Israel facts are still part of the discussion. If the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, could replace Fox “News,” CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, Americans would know the truth about US and Israeli policies in the Middle East and their likely consequences.
On September 1, Haaretz reported that Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents 900 Congregations and 1.5 million Jews, “accused American media, politicians and religious groups of demonizing Islam” and turning Muslims into “satanic figures.”
...
Rabbi Yoffie is certainly correct. In America there is only one side to the issue. An entire industry has been created that is devoted to demonizing Islam. Books abound that misrepresent Islam as the greatest possible threat to Western Civilization and seek to instill fear and hatred of Muslims in Americans. For example, Norman Podhoretz proclaims “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.” Daniel Pipes shrieks that “Militant Islam Reaches America.” Lee Harris warns of “The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.”
Think tanks have well-funded Middle East programs, the purpose of which is to spread Islamophobia. Fear and loathing pour out of the Middle East Forum and the American Enterprise Institute.
...
To the extent that there is any Muslim threat, it is one created by the US and Israel. Israel has no diplomacy toward Muslims and relies on violence and coercion. The US has interfered in the internal affairs of Muslim countries during the entire post World War II period. The US overthrew an elected government in Iran and installed the Shah. The US backed Saddam Hussein in his aggression against Iran. The US has kept in power rulers it could control and has pandered to the desires of Israeli governments. If America is hated, America created the hate by its arrogant and dismissive treatment of the Muslim Middle East.
There is no such thing as Islamofascism. This is a coined propaganda word used to inflame the ignorant. There is no factual basis for the hatred that neoconservative Islamophobes instill in Americans. God did not tell America to destroy the Muslims for the Israelis.
...
Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so reasonable, tolerant, and deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could not care less that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced. The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation. ...
09/06/07 "ICH" --- - President Jimmy Carter was demonized for pointing out in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that there are actually two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Distinguished American scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have suffered the same fate for documenting the excessive influence the Israel Lobby has on US foreign policy.
Americans would be astonished at the criticisms in the Israeli press of the Israeli government’s policies toward the Palestinians and Arabs generally. In Israel facts are still part of the discussion. If the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, could replace Fox “News,” CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, Americans would know the truth about US and Israeli policies in the Middle East and their likely consequences.
On September 1, Haaretz reported that Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents 900 Congregations and 1.5 million Jews, “accused American media, politicians and religious groups of demonizing Islam” and turning Muslims into “satanic figures.”
...
Rabbi Yoffie is certainly correct. In America there is only one side to the issue. An entire industry has been created that is devoted to demonizing Islam. Books abound that misrepresent Islam as the greatest possible threat to Western Civilization and seek to instill fear and hatred of Muslims in Americans. For example, Norman Podhoretz proclaims “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.” Daniel Pipes shrieks that “Militant Islam Reaches America.” Lee Harris warns of “The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.”
Think tanks have well-funded Middle East programs, the purpose of which is to spread Islamophobia. Fear and loathing pour out of the Middle East Forum and the American Enterprise Institute.
...
To the extent that there is any Muslim threat, it is one created by the US and Israel. Israel has no diplomacy toward Muslims and relies on violence and coercion. The US has interfered in the internal affairs of Muslim countries during the entire post World War II period. The US overthrew an elected government in Iran and installed the Shah. The US backed Saddam Hussein in his aggression against Iran. The US has kept in power rulers it could control and has pandered to the desires of Israeli governments. If America is hated, America created the hate by its arrogant and dismissive treatment of the Muslim Middle East.
There is no such thing as Islamofascism. This is a coined propaganda word used to inflame the ignorant. There is no factual basis for the hatred that neoconservative Islamophobes instill in Americans. God did not tell America to destroy the Muslims for the Israelis.
...
Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so reasonable, tolerant, and deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could not care less that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced. The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation. ...
distribute pamphlets on Islamo-Fascism, including “The Islamic Mein Kampf,” “Why Israel is the Victim,” “Jimmy Carter’s War Against the Jews,” ...
David Horowitz “Declares” Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week for October 22-26
“This October 22-26, I am declaring Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” declared David Horowitz Tuesday in a friendly interview on www.FrontpageMag.com, one of Horowitz’s many front groups. “I will hold demonstrations and protests, teach-ins and sit-ins on more than 100 college campuses. Our theme will be the Oppression of Women in Islam and the threat posed by the Islamic crusade [????] against the West.”
Horowitz, who, along with Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and Rick Santorum has played a truly vanguard role in the “Islamo-Fascism” movement, apparently has few doubts about his impact. “During the week of October 22-26, 2007, the nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” The event will confront the two “Big Lies of the political left:” that “George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.” In fact, according to Horowitz, Islamo-fascism constitutes “the greatest danger Americans have ever confronted.”
...
In addition, participants will distribute pamphlets on Islamo-Fascism, including “The Islamic Mein Kampf,” “Why Israel is the Victim,” “Jimmy Carter’s War Against the Jews,” “And What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad.” Films to be shown include “Suicide Killers,” “Obsession” (about which my colleague, Khody Akhavi, wrote earlier this year), or “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.”
“This October 22-26, I am declaring Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” declared David Horowitz Tuesday in a friendly interview on www.FrontpageMag.com, one of Horowitz’s many front groups. “I will hold demonstrations and protests, teach-ins and sit-ins on more than 100 college campuses. Our theme will be the Oppression of Women in Islam and the threat posed by the Islamic crusade [????] against the West.”
Horowitz, who, along with Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and Rick Santorum has played a truly vanguard role in the “Islamo-Fascism” movement, apparently has few doubts about his impact. “During the week of October 22-26, 2007, the nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.” The event will confront the two “Big Lies of the political left:” that “George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.” In fact, according to Horowitz, Islamo-fascism constitutes “the greatest danger Americans have ever confronted.”
...
In addition, participants will distribute pamphlets on Islamo-Fascism, including “The Islamic Mein Kampf,” “Why Israel is the Victim,” “Jimmy Carter’s War Against the Jews,” “And What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad.” Films to be shown include “Suicide Killers,” “Obsession” (about which my colleague, Khody Akhavi, wrote earlier this year), or “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.”
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science,"
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain | September 10, 2007
Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
...
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
...
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
...
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals. ... The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
...
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
...
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
...
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
...
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals. ... The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
[Freedom of Information restrictions] Where were the major national newspapers? The answer was: on bended knee, working as stenographers, ...
Friday, September 7, 2007 by TomDispatch.com | Soft Crimes Against Democracy | What Ever Happened to Freedom of Information? | by Ruth Rosen
...
The administration’s first response to yet another scandal was to scrub the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request section from the White House Office website. One day it was there; the next day it had disappeared. Then, Bush-appointed lawyers from the Justice Department tried to convince a federal judge that the White House Office of Administration was not subject to scrutiny by the Freedom of Information Act because it wasn’t an “agency.” The newly labeled non-agency, in fact, had its own FOIA officer and had responded to 65 FOIA requests during the previous 12 months. Its own website had listed it as subject to FOIA requests.
For those who may have forgotten, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 to hold government officials and agencies accountable to public scrutiny. It became our national sunshine law and has allowed us to know something of what our elected officials actually do, rather than what they say they do. Congress expressly excluded classified information from FOIA requests in order to protect national security.
Scorning accountability, the Bush administration quickly figured out how to circumvent the Act. On October 12, 2001, just one month after the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft took advantage of a traumatized nation to ensure that responses to FOIA requests would be glacially slowed down, if the requests were not simply rejected outright.
...
“When you carefully consider FOIA requests,” Ashcroft wrote, “and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decision unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.”
...
Naively and impatiently, I waited for other newspapers to react to such a flagrant attempt to make the administration unaccountable to the public. Not much happened. A handful of media outlets noted Ashcroft’s memorandum, but where, I wondered, were the major national newspapers? The answer was: on bended knee, working as stenographers, instead of asking the tough questions. ...
...
The administration’s first response to yet another scandal was to scrub the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request section from the White House Office website. One day it was there; the next day it had disappeared. Then, Bush-appointed lawyers from the Justice Department tried to convince a federal judge that the White House Office of Administration was not subject to scrutiny by the Freedom of Information Act because it wasn’t an “agency.” The newly labeled non-agency, in fact, had its own FOIA officer and had responded to 65 FOIA requests during the previous 12 months. Its own website had listed it as subject to FOIA requests.
For those who may have forgotten, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 to hold government officials and agencies accountable to public scrutiny. It became our national sunshine law and has allowed us to know something of what our elected officials actually do, rather than what they say they do. Congress expressly excluded classified information from FOIA requests in order to protect national security.
Scorning accountability, the Bush administration quickly figured out how to circumvent the Act. On October 12, 2001, just one month after the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft took advantage of a traumatized nation to ensure that responses to FOIA requests would be glacially slowed down, if the requests were not simply rejected outright.
...
“When you carefully consider FOIA requests,” Ashcroft wrote, “and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decision unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.”
...
Naively and impatiently, I waited for other newspapers to react to such a flagrant attempt to make the administration unaccountable to the public. Not much happened. A handful of media outlets noted Ashcroft’s memorandum, but where, I wondered, were the major national newspapers? The answer was: on bended knee, working as stenographers, instead of asking the tough questions. ...
"Very few Americans will exercise their right to free speech if criticizing Israel earns them identification as an anti-Semite."
Head Strong | 'Anti-Semitic' label curbs talk about Israel
...
"Yesterday, an Israeli guide was anxious to show me the community called Gilo.
" 'Look,' he said, 'at the sandbags that these people have to place in their windows to shield them from sniper fire from a neighboring village called Beit Jala.'
"Sure enough, there were sandbags in windows and bullet holes in walls. Thinking of my kids, I said, 'That's no place to raise a family.'
"Today, I had a different guide with a different perspective. He wanted me to tour an Arab neighborhood in the West Bank.
" 'Look at where Israeli tank fire has destroyed these homes,' he said to me. I looked. The devastation was terrible. 'This is no place to live,' I said to myself.
" 'Where are we?' I asked.
" 'This is the village called Beit Jala,' he told me, 'and the tank fired from over there, in Gilo' - where I had been the day before."
I ended the commentary by saying: "And so it goes."
My intention was only to present a form of geopolitical glass half empty/half full, not to assert any moral equivalency. But that didn't spare me an onslaught of e-mail from Jewish listeners disappointed in what I had said, or what they thought I was implying. Some told me my "comparison" was anti-Semitic, which stunned me, given that my entire trip had a palpable, pro-Israeli tone.
I was reminded of that experience this week while considering the backlash against the release of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Mearsheimer is a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Walt is a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Their book is an outgrowth of their lengthy online article on the same subject, and of a 40-page essay published last spring in the London Review of Books. Their premise is that the United States has set aside its own security to advance the interests of Israel, owing to the existence of a "lobby," which they define as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.
Among their observations is that anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have a significant influence over U.S. policy stands a good chance of being labeled anti-Semitic.
...
"The most dangerous aspect of the Israel lobby," Scheuer said, "is that it threatens free speech in America. Very few Americans will exercise their right to free speech if criticizing Israel earns them identification as an anti-Semite."
...
"Yesterday, an Israeli guide was anxious to show me the community called Gilo.
" 'Look,' he said, 'at the sandbags that these people have to place in their windows to shield them from sniper fire from a neighboring village called Beit Jala.'
"Sure enough, there were sandbags in windows and bullet holes in walls. Thinking of my kids, I said, 'That's no place to raise a family.'
"Today, I had a different guide with a different perspective. He wanted me to tour an Arab neighborhood in the West Bank.
" 'Look at where Israeli tank fire has destroyed these homes,' he said to me. I looked. The devastation was terrible. 'This is no place to live,' I said to myself.
" 'Where are we?' I asked.
" 'This is the village called Beit Jala,' he told me, 'and the tank fired from over there, in Gilo' - where I had been the day before."
I ended the commentary by saying: "And so it goes."
My intention was only to present a form of geopolitical glass half empty/half full, not to assert any moral equivalency. But that didn't spare me an onslaught of e-mail from Jewish listeners disappointed in what I had said, or what they thought I was implying. Some told me my "comparison" was anti-Semitic, which stunned me, given that my entire trip had a palpable, pro-Israeli tone.
I was reminded of that experience this week while considering the backlash against the release of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Mearsheimer is a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Walt is a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Their book is an outgrowth of their lengthy online article on the same subject, and of a 40-page essay published last spring in the London Review of Books. Their premise is that the United States has set aside its own security to advance the interests of Israel, owing to the existence of a "lobby," which they define as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.
Among their observations is that anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have a significant influence over U.S. policy stands a good chance of being labeled anti-Semitic.
...
"The most dangerous aspect of the Israel lobby," Scheuer said, "is that it threatens free speech in America. Very few Americans will exercise their right to free speech if criticizing Israel earns them identification as an anti-Semite."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)