Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

Nimh

I started a thread (actually more of just an informative article for the Participants here) and it didn't get much play. It"s called "Americans Trigger Happy Warriors, Think Again." Since you are a "fair minded" non American I would value your comments of this article.........it's about to slide off the page for lack of action.

nimh

Oh! And here I thought it was my targeted rudenesses for which I would have to make some accounting, but apparently, it's my world-view you've been protesting all this while.

About a year past, Lola got the notion into her pretty head that, "Goodness, I think Nimh is confusing me with his leftist mother." I thought she was being a silly little Freudian, and by way of response to that 'epiphany', I targeted some fresh insult in her direction. Now, none of this would be much relevant except in light of a spanking which dyslexia gave me recently for my participation in a pissing contest ("Drown in this Niagara of urine, you swine!) and thus, I'm keenly on the lookout for tendencies in self towards arrogance. Both dyslexia and Lola are notably further advanced in years than I, and so perhaps either voice ought to receive more rapt attention than I'm used to giving any voice less melifluous than mine. None of which is to say that I have no record whatsoever of humble posture. For example, I have always held that skiing a steep mountain in conditions where the snow is deep and dry is an experience of a higher quality than sex. But aware that I might be wrong in this opinion, I have always, as a matter of firm policy, dated only women who disagree with me.

So, I remind you of someone, or, my arguments/opinions remind you of them - the them being European leftists, related or not. I didn't realize that. Which isn't surprising as I've never read them (unless you include Isaiah Berlin, frequent dinner guest at Maggie Thatcher's table...stiff-backed Calvinist seating, certainly). But it appears you are stuffed to the gullet with such european neo-hippy theorizing, and Michael Ignatieff, writing in the June 26 NY Times magazine, seems to understand;

You've keyed in on my indictment of the US as sitting at the center of the world's woes. You've keyed in on it in a rather unbalanced manner however. As I said, this is not merely a matter of sins of commission but also (and perhaps most importantly) of its failings to construct or help construct solutions in this unique pivotal point in history. As you acknowledge yourself above, "the US as a force for betterment of the world" is a fundamental characterization of American within America's own sense of self, and certainly that is the prime justification forwarded by this administration for Iraq (and much else). The irony regarding my indictment is, as I think you might understand, that I sincerely believe in this American capacity for good too. America is surely the grandest and most promising experiment in civic governance ever. Or, was.

And that's the other error you make in reading me. I have been pointing to America as she is and does now. I, like yourself, cast back to these earlier instances of American violation of her own credo and mythologies in order to try and convince those Americans who believe that no bad consequence of any significance at all can possibly flow from America's presence in the world. When that is held as a fundamental principle or axiom (and many do hold it in such a manner), then you and I and beth and deb and thomas and joe and a whole host of others recognize how dangerous such blindness can be. Because that blindness will apply to America's actions right now too. And it is right now...this administration...America in 2005 of which I am speaking.

I'm going to draw on a few sources to argue my case here. A primary source will be Tony Judt's recent piece in the NYRB. It's exceptional, and I hope you'll read it.
Another will be Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. Three years ago, before the war began, he wrote a piece in the London Review of Books which I posted on the first of the Iraq threads at that time. It's a rather interesting re-read at this point in time. I'll draw on some other things too and you can request citations anywhere you'd like more data.

The US now spends more on defence than all the rest of the world put together. One ought to take a quiet walk in a park for a bit and reflect on what such a circumstance entails. Consider, if it were to be suddenly true of Canada or Belgium, the societal changes that would have to be in place...the bogglingly vast organization, the money! the potential for corruption, the need to manufacture consent in your or my populations for such militarism and how that might be achieved, the world-view or mythologies necessarily forwarded and believed regarding our innate goodness and the DANGERS of the world out there. I mean, there has to be a LOT of fukking danger out there to justify this. There are now 725 US military bases outside of the US (969 within) plus however many secret bases might be out there.

The estimated dollar figure which lobbyists spent on directing Congress into desired policies and directions last year was 3 billion. How much did Congress earmark for appropriations bills in that same year? $32.7 billion (three times what it had been in 1998). And in the same vein, consider that arms sales in the world have been steadily increasing and that the main producer, salesman and economic beneficiary of this is the US economy. War is no longer a bad thing for the US, it is now a necessary economic factor. (And just for fun, toss in the little sugar plum that over the past decade, two corporations which have shown keen interest in moving social services into the private sector - big dollars of course - were Boeing and Northrup).

At least 240 former members of Congress or federal-agency heads are now lobbyists. The recent case of the Philip Cooney, chief of staff of its Council on Environmental Quality, who had previously worked as a lobbyist for the oil industry and who, while in the government position above, rewrote key findings from the scientific community beneath him to soften up their findings, then two days after his shennanigans were outed, he resigned and immediately was hired on by Exxon...does any of that surprise you? And for more fun, let's tack on here that there are at minimum 31 ExxonMobil-funded groups busy disputing mainstream scientific findings on global warming.

The US consumes 25% of the world's oil supply while owning, in proven reserves of its own, 2%. Andrew Bacevich, graduate of West Point, Vietnam vet, and conservative Catholic (his recent book is reviewed in the Judt piece..."His argument is complex, resting on a close account of changes in the US military since Vietnam, on the militarization of strategic political thinking, and on the role of the military in American culture") summarizes the...
I think you and I would agree that Dick Cheney is to be found here, rather than as regards any humanitarian regard for others. And it brings into focus the very real problem of a growing China who is now beginning to seriously compete for those oil supplies, cutting deals in Venezuela, Canada, and even moving to take over a US company. That dilemma is made absolutely frightening particularly given the following.

The explicit goal of this administration's foreign policy, voiced by Powell and others (you know the sources) is to prevent any other power from achieving a level of success or power which might challenge US dominance in the world. Now, this upcoming China problem wouldn't have to be frightening, IF the modern US wasn't so ceaselessly bent on trashing internationalism as a vehicle for how to get on in the world.
This is modern America, the America as vectored by Bush and company. Tendencies seen previously (eg, Clinton's hesitancy to sign Kyoto) are now in extremity where international institutions become handmaids .

The modern Pentagon has the hots for "full spectrum dominance". Now, there's another one to ponder on your walk in the park. Just what does that entail? How broad is 'full'? In this light, consider 'embedded rreporters' and 'management of media' and 'manufacturing consent' and Fox News. Consider how many here on this site are prepared to send off to jail (or perhaps a Cuban jail) anyone who speaks publicly against this war, the behavior of its troops, or the administration heading up the whole thing.

Now, nimh...that's just on the militarization of modern America, the interface between politics and the war machine, and a hint of the potentials towards deep corruption of democracy from it all. Another equally detailed and compelling argument can be made on the dangers of the religious right's moves into the Republican Party and governance and the uses of such a shift to other traditional rightwing forces...eg, consider the strategy of defunding institutions which have traditionally supported socially progressive policies - schools and government employees, etc., and then overlay that on top of the school vouchers drive and the faith-based inititatives. Billions are now moving away from schools and government programs and going to church groups. That's all new. 2005 stuff.

And there is the modern media picture...far different from the sixties or even the eighties...and in tandem with all the above, not easy to dismiss unless one just wishes a quiet walk in the park.

Hehhehheh ...

Just to get two cheap shots out of my system before I return more seriously to Blatham's posts, if y'all will forgive me my naughtiness ...


Though I have to admit that the cleverness in that observation has me grinning wildly, I am also afraid I'll have to insist that my leftist mother was a lot more sophisticated than that!

(Apart from the whole thing of me being actually to the left of where she stood - on anything except the by now rather historical debate on whether the left was critical enough of communism, at the time, anyway. She never did join the Green Left ... faithful to Labour till the end.)


1980s leftists, that is.

The thing here is that ever since I posted that long thing above, and especially after seeing a fellow-European, Einherjar, chiming in as well, I've been tempted to add a broad-sweep quip about American liberals. A quip about how they do indeed seem to have missed an entire step of development, in terms of critical self-reflection, learning the lessons of the past, that European leftists had to painfully come to grips with in the nineties. American liberals not only seem to have not gotten to terms with it, but not even spent much thought on it, period.

I was going to stop myself from quipping how you seem to be the epitome of this having-missed/skipped-that-step ... but now there is this paragraph here - and it's just too open a door to pass by .

I am now displaying "grin" from ear to ear

nimh

Oh! And here I thought it was my targeted rudenesses for which I would have to make some accounting, but apparently, it's my world-view you've been protesting all this while.


The US now spends more on defence than all the rest of the world put together. One ought to take a quiet walk in a park for a bit and reflect on what such a circumstance entails.


The estimated dollar figure which lobbyists spent on directing Congress into desired policies and directions last year was 3 billion.



At least 240 former members of Congress or federal-agency heads are now lobbyists.

.
The US consumes 25% of the world's oil supply while owning, in proven reserves of its own, 2%.


The modern Pentagon has the hots for "full spectrum dominance". Now, there's another one to ponder on your walk in the park. Just what does that entail? How broad is 'full'?
.

I think it is no much more than self-preservation, though that big idea can get very tentacle-y.

Anyway--following with interest, amusement.

The two things are hardly related. The extent of military superiority Blatham is talking about dates not from the 1940s. It dates from much more recent decades - the last one, in particular. Despite the fact that there is no country remotely up to a comparison anymore. The question what that all is supposed to serve for, then, if not - eh - global domination, is therefore a fair enough one.


Any indication on whether that amount is in any way remotely comparable?


That answer totally overlooks the degree to wich the US consumes proportionally much more than anyone else, too. It's not as simple as everyone using the same, just some can use their own and others can't. It's that oil is a relatively rare resource that is above-proportionally being spent (wasted, if you want) by America, first (then the EU, then, etc - by the richest countries, period).

This is indeed alarming enough with an eye both on environmental consequences and on what lengths people (and states) will be prepared to go to, to secure a lasting continuation of such consumption.

Will come back to Blatham's remarks and what I disagree with in them, later - not today anymore - I'll need more time for those.

<hands up congenially, smile on face>

I am absolutely not wanting to have a snarky disagreement, but I MUST make these tiny, but important statements.

Re: nimh's statement:
The extent of military superiority Blatham is talking about dates not from the 1940s. It dates from much more recent decades - the last one, in particular. Despite the fact that there is no country remotely up to a comparison anymore. The question what that all is supposed to serve for, then, if not - eh - global domination, is therefore a fair enough one.
-----------
This is precisely one of the hardened disagreements between "us" and "them" in the US that the liberals don't seem to get. We National Security First conservatives feel it is exactly that continued high funding of defense that allows you to say "there is no country remotely up to that comparison anymore." If the weight of that doesn't settle on you immediately, you'll never understand this point of contention.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::

If I'm not mistaken, the UK spends more than anyone else on lobbying he US. I'll get the facts, though.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Hey, I dont mind that kind of disagreement in the least. Clear and to the point (if probably irreconcilable ;-))

Just curious Lash (or anyone else) with the vast resources dedicated to the US Military, what level of benefits do you think should be allocated to wounded/disabled vets that return home? And, do you think that the republicans have done more or less in this regard? (Personally I don't think either party has done or intends to do jack.) Seems to me the repubs especially but the dems as well are more than happy to deficit spend for "star wars" but "spent" human beings after coming home are discarded as trash right after the parades featuring whatever politican is running for election. (while wearing his/her yellow ribbon. Fargin' bastiches!

You are talking to someone who may be more pissed off about this than you are.

I have written so many letters, with so much insult and drama that I am sincerely surprised I am not the subject of a security investigation.

I am not overstating.

However, I don't think the Republicans have done much worse than the Dems. Bush renewed spending (because I looked in to this), but because of inflation it appeared thathe had CUT spending, when he'd actually INCREASED spending, but not at a high enough rate to offset the inflation.

Bottom line: The US government sucks when it comes to vet healthcare.

I've spent more time than I want to think about in veteran's hospitals.

I haven't written the new guy yet. I bet Principi couldn't sleep at night if he got many more letters like mine.

Would you all write some letters to the Department of Veterans' Affairs committee and Nicholson, and Bush and anyone else you can think of?

Tell them they're killing veterans.

I have done far far more than write letters. I have sat in VA hosptial waiting rooms more days that you can shake a stick at. Some years ago I literally gave and have never returned seeking my own medical needs med in the private (out of pocket) sector. Yeah I don't think the repubs are worse than the dems excepting in this-they will happily appropriate whatever billions asked for by the Pres or the Pentragon for gadgets costing billions while totally disregarding "human needs" and this (humans are worth far less than gadgets) almost more than anything else, condemns the republican party in my eyes.

well, there you have it Dys......you're a democrat, see?

No conversion here, I'm incapable of moving far enough right to be a democrat.

don't you sass me, mister!

no ma'am!

Dys

Perhaps the difficulty lies in an inability of veterans groups to organize as a voting block such as military retirees have done. As you know health care was promised as a benefit for the sacrifice that military families must endure for at least 20 years (first stage of military retirement-----some people can stay 30 years and get more benefits) For many years if you retired near a military base that had medical facilities retirees coult get free health care on a space available basis ( active duty personnel were served first which is perfectly understandable). Up until recently, when the Bush administration came to office, retirees were forced to purchase supplemental insurance to cover what medicare did not cover. Low and behold when Bush came to office, all retirees were provided full health insurance, which is what we were promised when we first entered the military. I attribute this to a powerful retiree lobby and to an administration that was simpathetic to the active duty and retired military.

It is my understanding that veterans, and even veterans of the current war in Iraq who have been discharged, are treated almost like homeless people and this is indeed a disgrace and a crime. Rumsfeld could, with the snap of a finger, change all that. He would probably say that it is technically not his direct responsiblity but we all know that he sent the current vets into bad situations and I personally don't know how he sleeps knowing that he is ultimately responsible but yet he does nothing. As you say, it appears techno gadgets are more important than people. One would and should believe that our verterans are the most important treasure that we have and they should be cared for. If we could just collect the billions of dollars that ....."fall through the cracks"......they could be.

There is great generosity in this country but it seems none of it flows in the direction of Veterans.......it is very puzzling to me.

I apologize for going off topic but I wanted to answer Dys.

The issue tells me a great deal abou the VALUES of both the dems and the repubs. They stink! Rayban, your suggestion about organizing also stinks, NO vet should have to "organize" to get the benefits he/she was promised by our government, I hope you don't have to wonder why so many people fear the repubs (or the dems) "fixing" social security. The odds of it being "fixed" just like vets benefits is frightening to millions.

Oh.....OK......I'm certain you are correct

Blatham

While we're waiting patiently for Nimh to critique your indictment of America I'd like to throw in a few cents worth.



This is how I would translate the above:

As long as America acted like a rich bumbling adolescent ambling around the world doing good deeds we ( the sophisticated elite of the world) will say good things to her face but snicker behind her back about being naive and a slow learner. As long as America could be forced into combat to fight every war in the 20th century and then as long as they shed their weapons immediately after every war, leaving only a small cadre of permanent soldiers to train the draftees for the next war, they can be tolerated even though they are disgustingly rude and crude. As long as the long line of presidents will continue to regard the world with benign indifference and only play economic games with a few international companies, then she can be tolerated. Whoah.....wait a minute.....suddenly in the 80s, all of that changed. The generals got tired of being forced to fight every war with outdated equipment and then forced to gear up the industrial engine to create huge amounts of equipment that was only on a par with the enemy.........weapons parity it's called. So they got together with members of congress who were also sick and tired of being patsies and low and behold they created the worlds most powerful military just in time for shock and awe of gulf war 1.
Then along came Clinton who hated the military(mainly because the generals could look him in the eye and see the fraud that he was.) and he didn't have the foggyest idea what to do with the military so he banned any military uniform in the White House. This was also because Hillary and his loyal little interns also hated the military.

This is where Blathams story or should I say Tony Judt's story begins. Mr Judt used three different sources to lend a little credence to his story starting with David Rieff who is a disallusioned interventionist, or was. He's not certain what he is now but let's continue......both Judt and Rieff Cheered when Clinton suddenly found some balls, and along with some moral support from some of the members of NATO, interervened in Kosovo(not soon enough for Judt and Rieff but better late than never).
So the American military, actually the Air Force, brought Milosovish and his thugs to their knees.

Now it is evident to the world that the American Military is the most powerful military the world has even seen.but everything is still OK because Clinton is too busy with an intern named Monica to use the military to further US interests and besides he's more like us (the European elite) Corrupt!

Whoa.....things are about to change. Bush is elected (or he stole the election and it will be a short while before he is impearched and replaced by one of our guys).......it didn't happen quite that way. 9/11 burned it's way into the American psyche and war was launched against Afghanistan and of course the world and the US press believed this was a great mistake and would be another Vietnam just as it was for the Soviet Union.
Damn....wrong again. The Taliban were quickly driven into the hills and Usama was last seen bouncing on a donkey over trails in Pakistan. There was this rumbling among the elites of the world and the US press that things were not going as planned. Then Bush started talking about replacing the regime in Iraq. Horrors......he is going in to avenge his Daddy......no....he wants to control all the oil......and on....and on.

Judt and Rieff suddenly say No..No......humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was OK but it's suddenly not OK in Iraq......what? Oh....I see, humanitarian intervention is not the primary reason......WMDs are the primary reason.......we can't take a back seat to WMDs so we say this is the wrong war in the wrong place.

Then Judt reads a book by an ex military guy who was a West Point Graduate which of course gives him all the credentials he needs.....IF.... he is willing to talk about the militarism that has surfaced in the minds of Americans. And what is really terrifying is this guy Bush, who low and behold knows how to use the military......this military that is the most powerful in the world. Suddenly this bumbling giant of a kid, is a crouching tiger bent of World Domination.

It's a geat story folks and it's laughable..... because what Blatham forgets is that this President will no longer be the C in C come Nov 2008. There will be a new President with an entire new lineup of "advisors" and it doesn't matter if he/she is a Democrat or a Republican. His/her foreign policy will be entirely different from George W. Bush. I personally wish it was not true because I like the World Domination bit.......I would like to see Chirac and Schroeder eat **** but it's enough that Both of them have already been silenced by Bush.

But hopefully this country will never again allow our magnificent military to be downsized and saddled with equipment that will guarantee thousands of casualties as in "parity of weapons".

So Blatham, I can guarantee that your hysteria about American Imperialism is an absolute myth designed to strike fear and loathing into the hearts of all liberals so they will mob the voting booths in 2008.

You need to come up with another conspiracy theory.

PS: The only part of Judt's article that is really releveant and pertinent is the bit from the Secretary General's High Leven Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change as in this very significant paragraph:



But the following quote about the REAL weakness of the UN is this



The UN Charter's emphasis upon the inviolability of soverign states presents a conundrum:

In other words, until there is some mechanism in the UN charter that allows for thugs (LIKE MUGABE IN ZIMBABWE) to be punished, the UN will be weak. The best way to do that is to revise the charter so that sovereign status can be withdrawn if certain crimes are committed by it's gov't. If the sovereign status is withdrawn then the thug will be exposed and legal action can be taken to force a change in regimes. Military action might not be required to force a change in regimes. This one change would allow the UN to be legitimate instead of irrelevant.