Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
In 2006, I witnessed close-up one of the most shameful events in Canadian journalism. The conservative National Post had received a column by Iranian-born writer Amir Taheri stating that Iran’s parliament had passed a law requiring distinctive clothing (possibly colored badges or stripes) for each of the country’s religious minorities. The Post ran the story, along with its own incendiary commentary, atop Page 1. And illustrated it with photos of Jews wearing stars of David in Nazi death camps.
The story went viral; other right-wing rags and blogs elaborated on it. The next day, the Post retracted and apologized, after receiving a point-by-point rebuttal from Iran’s lone Jewish legislator (the community has been guaranteed one constitutionally for more than a century). No such law had been proposed, much less passed. And it turned out one of the sources Taheri cited didn’t exist. He claimed his words had been taken out of context. They hadn’t. Taheri’s credibility was ruined, or so I assumed.
But here’s the kicker. Within two weeks, Taheri was at the White House, “advising” George Bush. A month or so later, he was again on my TV screen, pontificating as an expert on the Middle East and Iran in particular for CNN. No mention of the recent “controversy.” Six years later, Taheri’s stuff still runs in the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/will_iran_answer_km3jXWF5xRBNggF4iLEZvI
Here’s the point of my Taheri anecdote: demonizing Iran in the media is repercussion-free. Hell, it’s the MSM’s job. Remember Obama’s early outreach to the Islamic Republic? Remember how he got snubbed? This is what I wrote at the time on TPM:
Obama had the balls to take the first step, but had to know pretty words weren’t going to be enough. U.S. history with Iran carries some ugly baggage: deposing its elected leaders, installing a brutal puppet, encouraging and assisting Iraq’s decade-long war against it.
But Iran has long sought normalization. After 9/11 Khamenei imposed a weeks-long moratorium on shouts of “Death to America” and backed Bush’s plan to oust the Taliban, even offering escape routes through Iran if any U.S. pilots were shot down. Iran backed Hamid Karzai, the American candidate for Afghan president, at an international conference. So imagine Iranian surprise to find itself lumped into the Axis of Evil. Not exactly a recipe for trusting U.S. intentions.
Still, the key words in Khamenei’s reply were: “Change your behavior, and we will change ours.” Couldn't be clearer, could it?
Obama needed to follow up, and didn’t. He was new at the job and I’m willing to bet he got lots of obstruction from Hillary at State and close advisers like Dennis Ross. A “grand bargain” with Iran was not everyone’s desired outcome. Still it amazed me how quickly the Washington media coalesced around the narrative that Iran had simply rebuffed the offer, rather than that it replied cautiously and with caveats of mistrust. It’s as if the Washington insiders were schooling the rookie president in how far he could freelance.
Obama had to know that any diplomatic rapprochement was going to be tentative, slow and incremental. Yet after the MSM declared the outreach a failure, Obama ostensibly accepted the conventional wisdom, as if realizing not even his own party had his back. He dropped his boldest foreign-policy initiative, and that’s why we are heading toward a disastrous war today.
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
Obama accepted the conventional wisdom that 'tentative, slow and incremental' on Iran doesn't play well on TeeVee, in the right leaning corporate MSM. It leaves anyone who continues to try it without total and immediate capitulation by the Mullahs open to vicious partisan attack. He has no one covering his back, and he faces partisan investigations, hearings or outright stonewalling from Congress.
On the other hand, the MSM and the bellicose war drum pounders of the GOP, the AEI and the US media must also know, selling another war to even the lowest of the low information voter is not going to work this time around. Israel must know that bombing Iran, and in effect temporarily delaying a nuke a year or two, while tossing another lit cigar into the powder magazine of the Middle East, is very likely going to work out badly, for them and for the world economy, with little upside for anybody.
My point may seem a bit obscure. I'm not saying there's any link between these two bits of Iran "reporting" three years apart. It's just: here's how it works on the micro level; here's how it works on the macro. Taheri's case illustrates that as long as what you write reinforces the official narrative -- that Iran's rulers are hate-filled, genocide-prone madmen -- you can get away with telling demonstrable lies. The case of Obama's outreach shows how monolithic and impervious to change that official narrative is -- even if the guy trying to change it is president of the United States.
There are other issues that one must take into consideration when discussing Iran. That being the Bu$h Administrations efforts in the region ... 8 years worth ... that Obama inherited.
The prime caveat would be Pakistan. At the time Bu$h was preparing to declare war on the Taliban in Afghanistan, he had a slight logistic problem ... to wage modern warfare he needed fuel and Afghanistan was not connected to the pipeline.
NOTE - all auto fuel gas is piped to tank farms in local areas. From there, individual gas trucks move fuel to stations. This is a global thingy in all developed nations . It's too dangerous to be hauling millions of gallons of volatile fuel on the public roadways.
So in order to wage war, Bu$h had to create a road conduit thru Pakistan. But Pakistan was on our bad-boy list - the military overthrew a democratically elected leader and they had been a little to free with dispersing nuclear know-how to undesirable nations. So US policy changed to satisfy short-term goals ... make Bu$h a war-time President thingy.
Today, we all know the Pakistani's are playing both sides against the middle for their own benefit and at our expense and on our own dollar.
I shalln't go into details about other Arab gulf states where US military presence is growing robustly ... it's enough to put Iran on its guard - just like the Cuban missile crisis from the 60's did in the US.
So the actions taken by the US since war was declared in the Middle East has all but watered down our ability to take a firm stand on the issue with Iran and their nuclear interest. And when one takes into account the GOP'ers and their saber rattling as well as their determination to do the exact opposite of what the US needs to do just to make Obama look bad for the sake of him being a one-term President, I think I would be safe in saying Iran is holding the trump cards.
The solution to the Iran problem lies in Congress ... they need to stop the ideological partisanship and unite behind a common goal for the US position with Iran that doesn't cater to a particular Party or candidate.
The US position is so multi-faceted no one is able to rely on it. We've lost Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan ... that's the entire north shore of the Persian gulf, Straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman and Arabia Sea. And one of them is already a nuclear power with Iran close on their heels thanks to their support.
The US needs a comprehensive policy with regards to the Arab gulf states concerning oil, commerce, and nuclear resources - one that can't be held hostage within the halls of Congress to be used for barter to satisfy political ideology.
Surely everyone agrees that there are many issue to be considered revolving around Iran and America’s dealings with it. You have described some of the real world situation. Acanuck has described a meme which plays automatically and reflexively in America . Our population is programmed to expect that anyone who opposes us for any reason must be a bad guy. Then we are told who opposes us and just how bad they are.
We are seeing another version of the same old play, this time featuring Iran, and the dialog used to develop the characters in the play is intended to play on the minds of an American audience. It is propaganda aligned with the story we have been told a million times as we have grown up. We are used to seeing unrealistic, unbelievable plot devises needed to tie a poorly scripted story together
The stage for one of the propaganda plays about Iran is not the real world but is a world created with props and in the minds of the audience by the playwrights. This play follows a tired, over used formula, one in which the antagonist is presented as such a dastardly villain that the audience wants to see it get its due. The antagonist is a coward, a sneak, a lier, and a dirty fighter who will take the first chance to knife his enemy in the back. When the reluctant, peace loving, god fearing, upstanding hero is finally pushed one time too many the audience is set up to cheer when he kicks the villains goat-smelling ass. All the dead and injured, the collateral damage, are like the carnage left in the wake of a Hollywood chase scene. They are forgotten as the credits roll.
A lot of adults get tired of this predictable crap, but there are enough others who keep paying to see it and who make the actors and the producers and the investors rich, that they just keep rolling out new versions of the same old shit.
everything in life is predictable simply because life keeps repeating itself over and over again until something evolutionary happens.
the message between my train of thought is we're seeing the same stuff over again, but with a distinct twist ... role reversal. The US is now the bad guy. We're doing all the stuff we claimed the old Soviets use to do in the name of world domination ... in our case it would be crony capitalism.
Iran: War Drums Beating
.Retired Republican House and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren spoke with Truthout in Washington, DC, this fall.
"Whoever they may be, they are playing much of the press - The Washington Post and CBS NEWS are standout examples - like a Stradivarius. In Pentagon-speak, this is known as prepping the psychological battlefield."
http://www.truth-out.org/iran-war-drums-beating/1328560738
Lofgren has it about right, I think.