i've spent some time in prison myself. political knaves? maybe not. but fascistic structural changes are happening regardless of the left leaning state of the american state. my limited time spent in the us always felt insular. how do you thwart(if that's a word) burgeoning totalitarism when all your concerned about is your county or counties situation. what matt lauer said to reinforce greenspans point is still a non issue and option b is the most likely reality.

Friends:

"Ignorance of Iraqi death toll no longer an option," Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham, September 20, 2007 

According to the editors at Media Lens, the superb British-based media-watchdog group, Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham submitted this brief, 542-word-long commentary to three U.S. papers on September 20.  Through Saturday, September 22, they had not heard about the status of their submission.  But I wouldn't be optimistic: Killing with their eyes wide-shut is as American as apple pie.

For a copy of Burnham - Roberts et al.'s last major study of deaths suffered by Iraqis during the American war against their country, see The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002-06, Gilbert Burnham et al., October, 2006 (as posted by the Center for International Studies, MIT).

And for a copy of the recent survey by the U.K.-based Opinion Research Business firm, see "September 2007 -- More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered," September, 2007.  (And the accompanying Questionnaire.))  

"But Then It Was Too Late," Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933 - 1945 (University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 166 - 173.
"No Past, No Future," Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman's Blues (Blog), September 17, 2007
"At State Dept., Blog Team Joins Muslim Debate," Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, September 22, 2007 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Mike:

Either (a) massive structural changes will come about because a sufficiently large number of people consciously will them, with a certain degree of enlightenment about the true nature of their problems, and a desire to do what's best for all, and these changes will include more net positives than negatives; or (b) massive structural changes will come about as the uncontrollable and indeterminate consequence of massive structural catastrophes that no one understands, no one consciously wills, and virtually no one desires -- other than a few Mad Scientist - types scattered here and there, and Inmate No. 04475-046 at the federal penitentiary located in Florence, Colorado.

Here's the dilemma, which precedes all Prisoner's Dilemmas you can imagine, just as surely as existence precedes essence, and contemporary Americans are knaves: Almost no one will listen to us.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

a friend of mine once equated criticizing the media with beating a dead horse. i think it was rosa luxembourg who said that if voting changed anything they would make it illegal. i agree polling questions are genuinely leading and tend to enforce the object of the question. i've heard people quote polls that are conducive with anarchist thought on this blog and fucking apparently people still believe iraq was involved with 9/11. something like 30 percent. that's nuts. i heavily recommend violence against the state even though the violence rained down upon us will be ten-fold. truly caring about the media's reinforcement of non-issues issued by the senate is a waste of time. i think massive structural changes have to happen in some capacity beyond the ones that are happening in the dominant super power.

Frederic et al.:

My working assumption is always that everyone possesses the same native intelligence.  (With exceptions for the truly gifted prodigy-type musicians and mathematicians and the like, and the individuals for whom things just didn't work out optimally.)  So whatever I am capable of thinking, the average "American" is capable of thinking.  And vice-versa.

The problem is that it's next-to-impossible to find out what the average "American" thinks because, despite the fact that this cybernetic monstrosity of a society -- esp. in the metropolitan centers -- keeps more feedback coming in today than it did just yesterday (and more tomorrow than today), all of the surveys that I've ever found ask leading and therefore intrinsically biased questions. 

Take a look at the huge amount of data archived by the PollingReport.com people.  Still.  There is no single, touchstone question that can't be formulated in a different manner to elicit different results.

I suggest you pick one (if you like), and let's take a look at it.

Nothing escapes this dilemma.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Ms Ingraham appeal to emotions, Pariser made himself rather clear In reply to Christie and mike Evans on In defense of american people: both are right. I was gonna add like evans that congress and senate are being transformed into giant circuses; Patraeus the new guest is just another clown being trown into the ring - greenspan story running at the same time does not look believable; there is nothing worst than having to make speeches to control the damage. Over all , I think many americans are asking questions and in the end will come to the realization that they are being lied to by the obligarchy REGIME that has become an enemy of reason.

Friends: 

The week of September 17 - 21 began with NBC-TV's Today show in the States providing former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan not only with the platform, but with the assistance of the program's host, Matt Lauer, to perform an instant revision of Greenspan's assertion in his new book, Misadventures of the Speculators, that "the Iraq war is largely about oil," and it ended with the same Matt Lauer trying to trap a principal of the MoveOn.org group, Eli Pariser, into a public confession that MoveOn's September 10 statement in the New York Times went too far (in the now perferred formulation for restricting political speech in the States -- and, ultimately, thinkable-thought).

To make matters worse, MoveOn's Pariser wasn't permitted to appear on the Today show all by himself.  (Cf. Greenspan's appearance, whom NBC forced to share the stage with no one.)  Instead, NBC forced Pariser to appear alongside a remote appearance by Laura Ingraham, a committed Republican Party, loud-mouthed, right-wing talk-radio personality. (And former outter of gay students on the campus of Dartmouth University, ca. 1984, when she was the editor of the right-wing Dartmouth Review.)

Lauer's very last remarks sum-up his performance (and career overall): "[Lauer:] All right, let me let Laura--Laura, I'm going to give you the last word on this. [Ingraham speaks.]  [Lauer:] I'm going to make that the last word, but I appreciate your input."

So, in one short week, NBC-TV's Today show shepherd helped to bring the lost sheep Alan Greenspan back into the fold -- and helped to drive the black sheep MoveOn.org out of it.

How narrow is the regnant political culture of the United States of America.

Excerpted from NBC-TV's Today show in the States, September 21, 2007. 

............
MATT LAUER:....Eli Pariser is the executive director of the liberal political action committee moveon.org, and Laura Ingraham is a conservative commentator and author of "Power to the People." Good morning to both of you.
Mr. ELI PARISER (Executive Director, Moveon.org): Good morning.
Ms. LAURA INGRAHAM (Conservative Commentator): Hi, Matt.
LAUER: Eli, let me just say the president, you just heard, he called the ad disgusting. He said that it was an attack not only on General Petraeus but on the US military. Do--in retrospect, do you have any regrets about the ad you put in the paper?
Mr. PARISER: No. You know, we--this was not an attack on the troops. We support the troops. A lot of our members are Iraq veterans and their families. But we're against the lies. We're against the lies that got us into this war and we're against the lies that continue this war. And what General Petraeus said to the American public simply wasn't true. So...
LAUER: According to...?
Mr. PARISER: According to many independent reports and according to the GAO report, according to other governmental reports that said that the violence in Iraq actually has increased in the last several months. And in fact, if you look at the White House's own report, it contradicts what General Petraeus said. It says that ethnic and sectarian violence is up.
LAUER: Laura, how do you feel about this?
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah.
LAUER: First of all, did the ad go too far? Do you agree with Eli that the comments from David Petraeus were inaccurate?
Ms. INGRAHAM: No.
LAUER: Did this kind of cross into some new territory that we haven't crossed into before?
Ms. INGRAHAM: Did you just say, Matt, do I agree with Eli? That's really funny.
LAUER: No, go ahead.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Look, here, we had 72 senators yesterday vote to condemn the moveon.org ad. I personally like more speech not less speech, so I want Eli to be out there as much as possible insulting people like David Petraeus. I want Eli to be putting out those ads. I think it's better for political discourse to hear exactly what the far left in America wants for this country. And I say more is better...
LAUER: In other words...
Ms. INGRAHAM: ...and the fact that President Bush referenced it...
LAUER: ...you're saying they picked the wrong target because this recent Gallup Poll showed...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah.
LAUER: ...that he--David Petraeus is more popular than the president and Congress in general...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah.
LAUER: ...or anybody who's running for president.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah, we have Democrat senators yesterday, a lot of them, voting to move condemn moveon.org. It was a bipartisan condemnation, and so the fact that President Bush mentioned it--I mean, did Hillary Clinton deflect attention away from Monica Lewinsky when she talked about the vast left-wing conspir--right-wing conspiracy here on the TODAY show? Probably. But you can't really--I guess at the time you couldn't really blame her. What else was she going to do?
LAUER: Vast left-wing conspiracy? Dr. Freud. Please call your office...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Right-wing.
LAUER: ...Laura.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Thank you. It's early here.
LAUER: What about--what about this, Eli? Is there a possibility that in putting out this harsh ad that in some ways you'll create a backlash that will come back to hurt Democrats running for president?
Mr. PARISER: No, because the fact is, you know, MoveOn represents the 3.3 million members of our organization, but it also represents the majority of this country that thinks that the president's...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Oh, right.
Mr. PARISER: ...strategy in Iraq has fundamentally failed.
LAUER: What about a Barack Obama, who said, look, he thought the ad was wrong? However, he decided not to vote yesterday in the Senate because he said, `I don't even think we should pay the attention to it--give it more attention by taking a vote on it.' So it's not everybody in your--in the Democratic Party who's fine with this.
Mr. PARISER: Well, but if you look at what Senator Chuck Hagel said, he said that the Petraeus testimony was a dirty trick. He called it dishonest. This is a Republican Iraq war veteran who said this.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Oh, honey, he's not...
Mr. PARISER: And so the fact is that there are a lot of people who believe that President Bush has been using General Petraeus...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Uh-huh.
Mr. PARISER: ...as a political--as a political entity here.
LAUER: In fact, on a conference call yesterday that you held, you went back and you said, "The reason we felt it was so important to go after Petraeus is Bush has a history of hiding behind the military. All you need to do is look back to 2003 when he had Colin Powell make the case to the UN to go to war in Iraq in the first place." But are you saying that the ends justify the means then? If you want to target the president, why are you sullying the reputation of the general?
Mr. PARISER: Well, look, our first priority is the young men and women who are stuck in an unwinnable war in Iraq. And the fact that the president is more interested in talking about an ad than he is in creating a real exit strategy...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Hey, Matt, can I get in here?
LAUER: Go ahead.
Mr. PARISER: ...a real exit strategy for Iraq...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Hey, look, look, look. OK, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mr. PARISER: ...is of great concern.
Ms. INGRAHAM: We've heard it.
LAUER: Laura, go ahead.
Ms. INGRAHAM: We've heard it. Here, look, if moveon.org wants to be really brave and courageous, I suggest that you take this act on the road. I suggest you take this little charade that you're doing with your ads and all your little cute little tricks, go over to Iraq, go over to Afghanistan and try it--try it live. Try to do your ad live in front of our troops and see how they react, if you--if you represent so many of the troops and their best interests.
Mr. PARISER: I received a number of e-mails yesterday from...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Wait, let me finish--let me finish.
Mr. PARISER: ...men and women...
LAUER: Hold on a second.
Mr. PARISER: ...from men and women...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Matt, here's the story. He got--Matt, let's do equal time here.
LAUER: No, no, let me--let me let Eli--let me let Eli comment on what you just said and I'll give you another word, Laura.
Mr. PARISER: I've heard...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah.
LAUER: Go ahead.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah.
Mr. PARISER: A lot of our members are Iraq veterans who came back from that war. And in fact, yesterday I got an e-mail from someone who is Iraq who is saying, `Look...'
Ms. INGRAHAM: Oh, I got an e-mail. Wow.
Mr. PARISER: `...we can't speak up against our generals...'
Ms. INGRAHAM: That's evidence.
Mr. PARISER: `...we can't--but you guys can.' And we understand that there's a difference between...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Yeah, here's the facts...
Mr. PARISER: ...the generals that are carrying the political strategy for this war and the troops on the ground.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Here's what Eli doesn't want anyone to know...
Mr. PARISER: We support the troops, but we do not support the lies.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Eli, your soliloquy's boring.
LAUER: All right, let me let Laura--Laura, I'm going to give you the last word on this.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Look--yeah, thanks, that's nice, Matt. Here's the story. We had--we have progress on the ground in Iraq that has been verified and confirmed even by Democrats who've traveled there. The fact that Eli and his group don't want to recognize it and don't want to build upon it is their prerogative. However, the American people have said they trust our military leaders more than they trust the politicians on Capitol Hill.
LAUER: All right.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Keep...
LAUER: And I'm...
Ms. INGRAHAM: ...keep insulting General Petraeus.
LAUER: Laura...
Ms. INGRAHAM: Keep insulting General Petraeus. Keep insulting him.
LAUER: ...I'm going to make that the last word, but I appreciate your input.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Thanks.
LAUER: Eli, thank you for being here. I appreciate it, as well.
Ms. INGRAHAM: Thank you.
Mr. PARISER: Thank you.
LAUER: It's 12 minutes after the hour....[#####]

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

your defense of american citizens doesn't make any sense you've pointed out their apathy. wow great their so apathetic that it's become a morbid fascination while the death marches on. in regards to the senate ever doing anything worthwhile so what if they voted in favour of this measure. bread and circuses continues unabated.

Unfortunately the "american people" will not be outraged by the bribed senators they think they elected. They never are. "Americans" have been brainwashed morons since 1918 at least, when WWI veterans were treated to "forget" what they had experienced, and the techniques were applied to society in general, beginning with labor unions. "Americans" who know how how to reflect and consider are a tiny minority. At this stage of history, it's foolish to expect Congress or the "american people" to intercept the Bush-Cheney gang's plan for world domination. They'll help these plans along in any way they can, because that's what the corporate media tells them to do. If there is any hope, it's in international disgrace, and that's a long shot. It's unlikely we'll survive that long. (Except for those lucky enough to have a reservation in the bunkers, e.g., the one under the National Observatory, Massachusetts Avenue NW. They'll inherit the world, which is Plan B).

David, I'm not disagreeing with you on our sad joke of an imperial venture in Iraq, nor the MoveOn.org ad itself. What I'm saying is that expecting Congressional Democrats to actually do something about this is futile. They don't give a damn. I am a little surprised at how quickly some dashed to condemn MoveOn.org in light of the considerable sums of money it has raised for them and the meaningless inside baseball aspect of it (the third or so of the public that knows what MoveOn.org is did not change its opinion, yea or nay, on the Iraq war one bit due to it), but that the measure passed ... remember Freedom Fries? Hell, remember the Iraq war vote? They fell over themselves to support it in spite of how obviously horrid and stupid it was.

geeze , I don't know the one with the big nose must be Dobbs, the other I don't know.. ( misinformation look systemic at the washington post)

Cyrano:

     I am unable to tell whether
     either of these two fellows is
     employed by the Washington Post,
     the New York Times, CNN or FOX
     News, or the United States Senate. 
     By any chance, might you be able to
recognize one or even both of them?

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

David it look like moveon.org was well informed; their ad juxtaposed with independant reports and coverage appear truthful. I don't know I think Dobbs must be living in a fanatasy world where he believe that the reasons to go to Iraq was to help Iraqis.. I would be curious to see how big Dobbs nose is...any pic somewhere?

Friends:

Here's another one for you guys to take into consideration:

"The Fact Checker" Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, September 20, 2007

Dobbs takes issue with 12 different points in MoveOn's September 10 statement in the New York Times.  (Which, if I knew how to work the software, I'd re-post here.) 

Aside from the revealing fact that Dobbs at least twice resorted to the tabulations of reported deaths inside Iraq by the Iraq Body Count group to counter MoveOn's statement and, more important, in a backhanded way, to advocate on behalf of the so-called "surge," notice how much of what Dobbs's "fact check" presumes as background knowledge about the entire war betrays nothing more than the U.S. imperial point of view, instead of any ostensible facts.

For example, Points 2 and 3: "Progress."  In real terms, what does "progress" mean?  That sufficiently large numbers of the resistance to the U.S. military occupation have been killed, leading to a more "stable" Iraq?

"Stability" for whom?

As always, the more fundamental question that you and I ought to ask ourselves isn't whether or not the so-called "surge" is "working."

Rather, it is whether or not the "surge," the foreign military occupation, and the March 2003 U.S. aggression over Iraq have any right to "work" in the first place?

By this benchmark, Michael Dobbs's assessment flunks the Pinocchio Test.  And one can't help but wonder whether the Washington Post has ever run a comparable "Pinocchio Tests" on itself? 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA  

David, this shows that moveon.org does a fantastic job reporting the news and providing opinion; I think the condemnation help reduce an already flawed integrity at your congress..hopefully many americans will realized that they have been duped into a war that is killing too many innocent people. I think more focus should be aimed at educating american that there isnt any profit american people would gain from this war but the profits are only canalized for oil and war industry's profiteers. It is not a war to the benefit of Iraqis neither, basically Iraq has been pushed back to the stone age and this alone is a continuing barbaric aim at keeping Iraqi people poor.

I can't summon any outrage over this, since I expect this kind of shit from Congress. The real outrage is that it spent time on petty nonsense like this (and the bill has no actual effect other to make Congress look stupid, as usual) rather than actually do something about the damn war it's funding.