AmanpourAmerican journalists are very bad at their job, generally, but don’t know it because they are sheltered from feedback. They give each other awards, and if they are really, really sycophantic, government officials take a liking to them and start heaping praise on them, and before you know it you’ve got yourself a Medal of Freedom recipient Tom Brokaw. Or, a Christiane Amanpour.
Amanpour recently had two guests on – Mikhail Kasyanov, a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin (ergo his ease of access to American television audiences), and Anissa Naouai, of RT. Naouai was not proper in her approach to the interview, that is, did not approach Amanpour on bended knee. Rather, she was highly critical of her, CNN in general, and the whole idea that American news is independent of the government while Russian news is state-sponsored.
So Amanpour did what all good American journalists do – censored those parts of the interview critical of her and CNN. Read the whole thing here.
Superhuman journalist LaneThat reminded me of the movie Man of Steel, the Superman franchise reboot. In that movie (which also rebooted the 9/11 franchise) the part of the intrepid reporter Lois Lane is played by Amy Adams. She is confrontational to power, refuses to be quarantined, and demands answers from military officials. She is feisty.
Anyway, the whole thing about a guy from another planet coming here, being able to fly and having superhuman strength … that part was OK. I buy that. The part about the confrontational and feisty journalist – man, that was a reach. In this country it is far more likely that a dude in a red cape flies across the landscape than a journalist confronts power.
The paradox of education is precisely this — that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated. (James Baldwin)
Dangerous psychopath?The above quote came to me via Joseph McBride, and reminded me of something George Carlin use to say in his act. He, like me and McBride, was a product of Catholic schools, but Carlin’s education was progressive. He was not taught to be a Catholic. The assumption was that he would come around on his own by his own internal light as he grew in ability.
…somehow we got lucky, y’know. Got into a school where the pastor was kinda into John Dewey and progressive education and he talked the parish…talked the diocese, rather, into experimenting in our parish with progressive education and whipping the religion on us anyway and see what would happen with the two of them there. And [it] worked out kinda nice; there was a lot of classroom freedom. There was no…for instance, there were no grades or marks, … no report cards to sweat out or any of that. There were no uniforms. …there was no sexual segregation; boy and girls together. And the desks weren’t all nailed down in a row, y’know. There were movable desks and you had new friends every month. It was nice; like I say, a lot of classroom freedom…in fact there was so much freedom that by eighth grade, many of us had lost the faith. ‘Cause they made questioners out of us and … they really didn’t have any answers …
While the world is crawling with ex-Catholics like Carlin, McBride and myself, Catholic education these days does not mess around. They go for the mind, take ownership, and leave no doubt that Catholic is the righteous path.
I am reading McBride’sInto the Nightmare. It is about his growing up and coming of age after the Kennedy assassination. He and I have much in common, being about the same age, taking the same publications in our homes as youths, twelve years of Catholic schooling, and having the assassination as the lever by which were launched into the grown-up world.
JFK was just a man who tripped over real power. I seriously doubt he could have changed very much, as the office of president, while powerful, is not the center of power in this land. But the assassination is a focal point. If we examine it closely, we can come to grips with that power, educate ourselves, and free our minds of the deep indoctrination that is American education. It is a lever by which we learn to view the world with unfiltered eyes. It can help us grow up.
Don Draper: Grew up in whorehouse If was often said over the years that Europeans were not surprised at how JFK was murdered, that such intrigue is common and accepted over there. Americans still cling to childish beliefs about leaders and countries and systems of government. I know I did, so that finally coming to realize that JFK was murdered by Americans, and that the whole of our collective institutional structures formed a circle around the murderers was deeply shocking. I had to throw out my education and beliefs and start over from scratch. I realized that I had grown up in a whore house. (This is, I suspect, the underlying message of the TV series Mad Men, as Don Draper comes to grips with his life and real identity. The TV series is smuggling some truth to to us.)
[I] see the USA as run by a tiny elite which is good at “pretend democracy” but which makes darn sure that the people vote the “correct” way. I consider the primaries, conventions, caucuses, and elections themselves as a mix between a farce, a form of entertainment, a re-legitimization of a system and a secular liturgical act (a form of public self-worship). There is no “democracy” in the US and there probably never was. However, if the regime does not change, the specific clans within the 1% do fight each other and struggle for control of the regime.
Second, there are different clans, interest groups, factions who fight *within* the top 1% and they can, and do, make use of the electoral process not as a means of popular expression, but as a way to impose their agenda and interests. I often speak of the “old Anglo guard” (best represented by the Bush clan before Dubya) and the “Neocons”, but there are many more interest group[s] (oil, banking, military, drug warriors, big pharma, etc.) who all participate in the internal struggle for power.
Thus, there is no real difference between the Republicrats and the Demoblicans, they are all part of the same elite, but there are differences between different political figures who are more, or less, aligned with any specific interest group. Thus Greenwald is correct when he identifies the various groups who would support a Hillary Presidency. This has nothing to do with democracy, the political parties or even her own views and everything to do with which interest groups she sold out to.
The Saker, as a legal alien educated elsewhere, came to this country with a fully formed cerebral cortex. Unlike products of our own education system, he is a grown-up. Later in his short essay he says that given a choice we might be better off “having a generally mentally sane Jeb Bush (and his staff) … than a clearly rabid Hillary (and her staff).” This feeds my own sensibilities, affirms my own judgment to a degree.
My impressions of people that we only know via media and print is flawed, of course. Over the years I have come to view George H.W. Bush as a dangerous psychopath, for example, and Ronald Reagan as a dunce and the mere vehicle by which (the unelectable) Bush was handed the presidency (on March 30,1981). George’s son George W. is a ninny. Richard Nixon was a complex and intelligent man who, like JFK, thought the power of the office of president could be exercised roughshod over the other factions within the 1% who have different objectives. He failed to grasp the nature of the makeup of our oligarchical structure. Fortunately for him, his removal from office was bloodless.
And yes, Hillary, like George H.W. Bush, scares the crap out of me. She’s unprincipled and ruthless, and smart only to the degree that she can see up to, but not around the bend. Having no emotions or concerns about human suffering, she might indeed think war with Russia is a smart move, for example.
Why do only the good ones get taken down? Where are those damned hidden gunmen when we really need them?
Four countries are charged with the investigation of the downing of Flight MH17, the flight that crashed in Eastern Ukraine on July 17 of this year. They are Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine. Since Ukraine is a potential suspect in the matter, it has a bold faced conflict of interest and should not be part of the investigation. But it gets worse:
Part of the agreement between the four countries and the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, ensures that all these parties have the right to secrecy. This means that if any of the countries involved believe that some of the evidence may be damaging to them, they have the right to keep this secret.
This is unheard of. In fact, it is bizarre. It is a strong indication that something is going to be hidden. So ask yourself which of the four countries listed above would want to protect, say, Russian interests, and which would want to protect NATO/US interests.
Kwyjibo first appeared on the Simpsons many years ago in an hilarious scene where the family was playing Scrabble. As I remember the scene, it is Homer’s turn, and we are looking over his shoulder. In his rack he has the word “oxidize.” He does not recognize that word and so plays “do.” Bart’s turn comes around, and he plays “kwyjibo.” It’s not a word and Homer objects. We are looking over Bart’s shoulder now as Homer eats a banana. Bart says “it’s a North American ape with a receding chin, balding head, and short temper.” Homer accepts the definition.
I long wondered about the kwyjibo factor on the blogs, where we debate with the unreachable elements, mostly right wing in origin but not exclusive to any political outlook. Learning is a lifetime experience, never ending, and most smart people I know usually have a book or two going. But there are others who are encased in steel armor, never reading, never exposed to any depth of scholarship, picking up wisdom in the passing clips and paragraphs of a computer screen. It is this armored vehicle that is most frustrating, because it is lack of depth that provides the armor. Nothing penetrates these slow moving creatures as they roll across the landscape. They are the last to know how little they comprehend.
So kwyjibo should be our secret handshake as we deal with these morons, a way of sneaking a private laugh as we connect with each other without unduly insulting the state if stupidity that is incapable of knowing its own state. With due apologies to the writers of the Simpsons who gave us this beautiful word, of course.
We often speak of “mobilization” of public opinion, or a centralized and organized effort to achieve an objective. Public opinion by itself, fragmented and isolated, is worthless. Such a mobilization battle has been going on against the FCC, a body now entirely dominated by Obama appointees, and who seem intent on yielding to industry on the matter of “net neutrality.” Obama the candidate was resolute on the issue. His appointments to FCC have belied his sincerity. If ever there were a case of “regulatory capture“, this is it.
“Net neutrality” is probably not a good battle cry, as most people do not understand it. “Net freedom” or “freedom to browse” or “equal access to the web” would be more informative. But we seem stuck with that phrase.
It’s on now. Industry, it is easy to see, has employed the public relations industry, our clever professional liars, to muddy the waters. Their strategy is becoming apparent: steal the flag, co-opt our noble word “freedom” from the side of actual freedom, for use by the telecoms. Senator Al Frankin had to explain to Senator Ted Cruz what net neutrality means. This is a very bad omen, as it appears that prominent Democrats are taking the lead on this battle. They are very good at losing. Look for a meek response to the intense industry effort to bring the FCC to heel.
In the meantime, our intellectually crippled friend Swede predictably popped up with the image up above over at 4&20:
This image is laden with archetypes, from the word “Nyet” to the image of Stalin (Russians are currently being demonized in our propaganda system). It looks clumsy, even stupid, but is clever, calculated, and a sign of an ugly campaign ahead from the yapping jackals of the advertising industry. (The beating heart, the vital center of every ad agency is a behavioral psychology department.)
Swede’s ad originates at this place, The Peoples Cube, most likely chosen (or created) as a vehicle by the ad agency employed by the telecoms to lead this ugly campaign. The website appears crazy and incoherent. That’s how Our Kwyjibo found it. Don’t be fooled by its rube appearance. It is slick and professional.
The battle for web freedom is now a right-wing talk and scare phenomenon. This poster is a seed. This is where the rest of the battle will be fought. How to fight back? Stay mobilized behind organized groups like Electronic Frontiers, or Free Press.net. Avoid Democrats, who will figure a way to lose. Obama’s recent strong words on net neutrality may be real, but might also be a means of castrating the movement by ceding leadership to Democrats. Given his appointment of Wheeler, he is not to be trusted. (What to trust: Words, or deeds?)
I am reading these dark mornings of the events leading up to World War II, wondering if the Brits, cunning bastards that they are, were not playing the little corporal as he maneuvered to incorporate Czechoslovakia and Poland into his empire. Did the Brits and Germans share a common goal, to bring down the Bolsheviks? (Of course, by that time, Russia was long over its Bolshevik spell and was merely another military dictatorship.) What the Germans wanted was the Asian frontier, defined these days as Ukraine, but an interface of Western and Eastern cultures that today splits that country in two.
As if now Act II of this play, the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, put in place by machinations of NATO and US-backed forces (repetitive phrasing, I know), including a strong Jewish element, is goading the Russians to defend their frontier against repeated provocations. Such atrocities as the burning down of a trade union building in Odessa, incinerating those forced to remain inside, and then the shooting down of MH17*, are designed to bring the Russians into Ukraine. When that finally happens there will be a shrill cry of outrage among the toadies of the Western media about Russian “aggression”, as when Russia “seized” Crimea by an overwhelming plebiscite.
So it is with some trepidation that I learn from the Saker that the provocations are working. Heads of state must be cautious and circumspect in speaking in public, as it is assumed that their words carry the weight of the structure behind them. Here’s Vladimir Putin:
Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don’t. And we won’t let it happen.
Putin, perhaps the most widely respected leader on the planet at this time (despite the howling of US and British state-controlled news and entertainment media), is drawling a line with those words. The Russian military will easily crush Ukraine forces, and that is not the point. Rather, it is the feigned outrage that will follow, that the Russian response will be used as justification for Western attacks … this is the whole point of the Kiev machinations.
________________
*The time to investigate MH17 has long since passed, as evidence by now is presumed corrupted. I assume, but will never know, that it was Western-backed agents that shot it down, and JC offers some insight in a comment below another thread on this matter too. In another piece, Saker reminds us to be cautious regarding evidence that has already surfaced, as Western intelligence agencies are very good at playing both sides of the fence.
One thing leads to another to another … Red Ice Creations is a Swedish source for podcasts that I’ve subscribed to for a couple of years. For 80% of the time Henrik Palmgren, the host, will take us down the path of extraterrestrials and ancient civilizations, none of which interest me – maybe even spooks me a little. I mean Henrik, please.
Bruce VeinotteBut that other 20% of the time makes the subscription worthwhile. He seems to be scouring the landscape looking or interesting people with different outlooks. He introduced me to Bruce Veinotte and the “School Sucks” project. I was a bit leery at first, as I am with so many of Henrik’s guests, but as I listened realized that Veinotte is intelligent, mindful, and counter-cultural. He reminds me of my son.
Judge for yourself. The first hour of the podcast is free to non-subscribers. If you want to hear the second, email me and I’ll see what can be done. Veinotte calls school a “jail with books,” and has very little use for the buildings or the teachers. He thinks that learning is a lifetime challenge, should be self-guided, and that we can dispense with regimentation, permission to go to the bathroom, hall passes, bells, lines, and that godawful focus on testing for temporary retention (before tossing the information aside). (I found the second hour far more intriguing.) His take on “bullying” is utterly sensible: It usually happens in prisons and schools, those places where people are held against their will.
Veinotte mentioned “the” nine-types of intelligence (as if). I am one of those people who always tested well on ACT’s and SAT’s. I happen to have the type of smarts that are valued in our society – pattern recognition, numbers, language skills. But oddly, I’ve noticed over time, I suck at things like chess and checkers and poker – I would call these “gaming” skills. I can see the past very clearly, but cannot anticipate the future (as in why you moved that bishop to that square). Also, I cannot tell you how an internal combustion engine works – way too may things going on there at once. I struggle with our snow thrower, our plumbing, building a simple staircase.
It just demonstrates that people have wide and varied talents, and that we overemphasize some, undervalue others. Anyway, “the” nine types of intelligence are actually a fairly comprehensive description of the many facets of the interaction of the human brain with nature. I found it in many places on the Google. Here they are:
Naturalistic: Living among the elements, plants, rocks, animals, harmonizing … these are our farmers, hunters, chefs, botanists, gardeners with that “green thumb.”
Musical: People sensitive to pitch, timbre, rhythm, harmony and who add so much to our lives.
Logical and mathematical: People who discern relationships and patterns, demonstrate sequential reasoning skills, and generate and use abstract thoughts. That’s me, I guess, or why I scored well on those damned tests.
Existential: These are our philosophers, religious types, who wonder why we are born, exist, what happens at death. I am drawn to this, but am not very good at it.
Interpersonal: People-smart. People who get along easily, size up, enjoy people. Blog behavior aside, this is me in real life. I enjoy meeting people, and look for reasons to like them.
Bodily kinesthetic Dancers, athletes, surgeons … all of those talented people out there who are not me.
Linguistic: To think in words and makes oneself understood. ‘Nuff said.
Intra-personal: Self aware – this, while evident in some people (my late older brother for one) at a very young age, is something we develop as we age … if we are paying attention.
Spatial: Thinking in three dimensions – understanding how a damned snow thrower works. These are the architects, mechanics, many artists, and those amazing people who design the cardboard containers that we use to ship products around the world. Have you ever wondered how they take a piece of cardboard and slice and dice it to the exact shape needed to hold your set of glassware you just ordered? I marvel at those designs. Just sayin’.
So go back to your SAT and ask yourself what were they testing, and how many ways there are that we can develop outside of formal schooling, which Veinotte says (and I agree) is a prison with books, and a waste of our precious time.
I’ll never forget watching Tom Brokaw on Leno or Daily Show or some other outlet talking about the trials and tribulations of his job. He was driving in Manhattan when his phone rang, and he learned that Saddam Hussein had been captured. The poor schmuck had to turn around and go back to the studios and sit down and read prepared copy to us. That was his only job. He was considered very good at it because he seemed believable.
In the Empire of Lies, men of law caliber are elevated to high station. Brokaw is a sycophant and an actor, nothing more. He is to journalism what fine quality paper is for books: Very handy for frontispieces.
The Rosetta landing was an inspirational feat, and may tell us if we are alone in this universe (so very highly unlikely!) But more than that, on seeing what they pulled off there I realized that the impetus for space exploration has exited the United States (if it was ever here to begin with).
The most important missions in American space history were done under the names Voyager and Galileo. Those missions, wholly publicly funded, were stunning successes. The moon landings, if they happened at all, were an impressive feat. But why, pray tell, did we never go back, advance the technology, expand our horizons beyond the moon? Why did we retreat from 248,000 miles to 200? Huh? Huh?
Far more likely, Apollo was a stalking horse for development of ICBM technology and placement of weapons in space.
But we did it American way – with lies, fakery, deceit, all mixed up with excessive patriotism.
Anyway, just as the beacon of democracy has left the United States, now residing in Russia and China, so has the impulse to move forward in space exploration. Rosetta is an impressive technological achievement, and may yield the answer to the question long sought in so many other ways: Are we alone?
We are in Oregon visiting family. This state, like others, had a GMO labeling issue on the ballots. It was instructive.
Labeling is harmless information. But Monsanto, the prime mover behind GMO’s, does not want information out there. So they managed to frame the debate as “GMO’s are evil and cause cancer” versus “we are solving world hunger.” Both are false, no doubt surreptitiously planted by Monsanto PR agents to control the parameters of the debate.
Debate framing is done so that no matter which “side” you are on, you’re not debating the real issue. The grand objective appears to be “out of sight, out of mind.”
We need to discuss GMO’s because they are a means by which Monsanto and others can put a fence around the food system, charging entry to all farmers. That’s the objective of all capitalist monopolists, always everything, never enough.
It’s a very dangerous practice, as we become overeliant on a few food strains, exposing ourselves to potential humanitarian disaster – diversity is our security, not GMO’s.
That’s the conversation Monsanto does not want us to have. They managed the Oregon debate beautifully. And won. Framing works. There’ll be no further discussions here.
Amanpour recently had two guests on – Mikhail Kasyanov, a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin (ergo his ease of access to American television audiences), and Anissa Naouai, of RT. Naouai was not proper in her approach to the interview, that is, did not approach Amanpour on bended knee. Rather, she was highly critical of her, CNN in general, and the whole idea that American news is independent of the government while Russian news is state-sponsored. 
Piece of Mindful 