Disturbing Comments?

In a dramatic speech, Chris Hedges warns that the nation is on the verge of becoming a full-blown corporate state.


Is the US, as the author claims at one point in this though-provoking article 'two or three terrorist attacks away from a totalitarian state?'


Worth 15 minutes of your time to read this: http://www.alternet.org/democracy/86973/

I am indeed Canadian and I would be more than happy to bash the Canadian government should they pursue policies I do not agree with. For instance, if Canada were to invade another country convincing the Canuck population to go along with the invasion by lying to them I will be all over them for that...


As for sources of the news I prefer not to only include the mouthpieces of major media that run content that is in the intersts of the elites of the world and whose editorial is dictated by advertisers.


To provide balance to Forbes, Fortune, Time etc... (all of which I link to every day) i pull content from other just as reputable sources. Alternet and Slate have some good, thought - provoking content...even if you dont agree with what they publish its worth tuning in to get a perspective that is different from what you will see on CNN... not saying i agree with all of what you see on those sites but they do throw ideas out there.



As for the article above - I'd like to know if have you read it? Or did you just read the lead in and automatically dismiss it?


If you havent read it perhaps you could do so then post some specifics that you disagree with so we can have a sensible discussion.


FYI - I dont agree with all of it but there are definitely some insights that are in my opinion accurate and quite disturbing.


Why is America bashing to point out things that are wrong in the country - isn't that whats meant to be so great about America? Would it be better if we all just put up and shut up and never criticize policy?


Look forward to your comments.

Divergent but very relevant... whenever reading an article from a mass-media source, remember who calls the shots when it comes to controversial content - it's not the editorial team - it is ultimately the advertisers. I think that if you speak to any journalist working for a major news corporation will confirm this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

We are not a mass media US media, we do not publish proprietary news and because our influence/audience is relatively limited we have never been pressured by any advertisers with regard to content. (however you will note that on our forum rules we will not publish negative comments about any company or individual both to protect against law suits + if we allow the forums to be littered with complaints its we will have a hard time selling ads - because unlike print comments on this site stay forever... But that is different from influencing editorial content)


Large news media particularly those in the US are definitely under the gun to not publish certain stories - either through self censorship because a story conflicts with the interests of the ownership of the medium or because a sponsor has threatened to pull their ads.


If you read Robert Fisks book below he was involved in a documentary about palestine that was critical of the Israeli policy there - the series was pulled after the first episode because the jewish lobby in the US threatened to kill advertising from companies they had influence over.


http://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400041511


There are a number of other examples in the wiki above including one incident where during last years super bowl the network refused paid advertising for anti war ads...


Do you for a minute think that if the US government disagreed with the editorial slant of a story in a publication that they felt was very influential that they dont make a few calls to companies that benefit from govt contracts telling them to have a word with the offending media?

When an individual, a group, organisation or a country sees something they disapprove, disagree or even dislike, they will try and find ways to correct it, whether by asking to show the other side of the coin, by stating to the author that his "truth" is not really the "real and whole truth" or by forcing him to halt spreading his "false truth". The later is usually done when all the others did not succeed.


Every person when in power will use it to change things. Things that one person will agree with and others will call it "advertisers' control". But still these are all tools.


When dealing with the media, TV, newspapers the only way to stop someone from telling "his" truth is by forcing him by means of financial restraints-advertisers. In the internet it is different but none the less the same where editors of chats, forums etc. simply delete the opinion or ban the users. Still, same reason but different means.


I am certain that statement like "...Jewish lobby in the US threatened to kill advertising from companies they had influence over." will receive criticism being stated on TV or any newspaper where it could be interpreted by some that the meaning is that "Jews control the media".


Just to put things in prospective. A quick search over the web about Robert Fisk brought about his front page researched article in "The Independent", "claiming that Israel used uranium-based weapons in southern Lebanon during the 2006 Lebanon War, a claim later broken by a UN panel of experts, the IAEA and other international agencies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent

Emphasis on "UN panel of experts, the IAEA and other international agencies" and not "advertisers" or "Jewish-Israeli lobby". So maybe his documentary was not a reflection of the truth/whole truth.


Sometimes those affecting using their powers are doing it to avoid spreading lies and sometimes as a corrupt act.

"our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" Dr M.L.King

Well said. I think MLK sums up my agenda quite well... everything we read (including the stuff from non-mass media sources that attempt to present challenge corporate media messages) needs to be questioned.


Case in point, this video was emailed to me recently. It clearly confirms that Iraq was about oil - there can be no different conclusion when you listen to McCain as he indicates 'we will not have to send our young people to war in the middle east to fight for oil - AGAIN'


Should this not be a massive revelation with coverage on the cover of the Economist (who supported the war and as I recall went to great lengths to explain that oil was not a factor) and other media outlets?


Instead its buried on youtube and on our home page... I bet 99.9999% of the world has not seen this.


And I think that because the medium of tv is passive that unless someone (even with something so obvious) clearly points out the significance of a comment, then the real message is missed by most who watch (part of the reason we have named this forum THINK!)


Surely this deserves to be front and centre given the controversy surrounding the iraq war http://hongkong.asiaxpat.com/gallery/videos/1186/mccain-confirms-iraq-war-is-about-oil/

http://hongkong.asiaxpat.com/gallery/videos/1201/the-media-and-the-war-in-iraq/

Yes, its not only bad - its evil.


The US is a democracy with a constitution. If in fact the war was about oil and not WMD then the government lied and subverted the constitution. They sent American soldiers off to fight and die for a lie. They have killed tens of thousands of Iraq's for a lie (Saddam was a bad man but he did not kill anywhere near as many people as have been killed in this war - so who's worse - Saddam or Bush?)


This is an impeachable offence - in fact it would probably be considered a war crime.


So legally it is completely wrong.


On another level (if you could somehow accept that the Bush government has acted like a dictatorship ignoring the constitution) lets say Iraq has oil and the US needs it.


Is it ok to invade the country and murder thousands, destroy and country and steal its oil?


If that's the case lets roll the troops into Saudi Arabia next - who do they think they are charging $130 a barrel anyway? Then lets get Norways oil - heck Canada has a lot of oil, lets make up a story about how Canada has wmd as a pretext for invading Alberta and seizing the oil - and why not get the water at the same time. Might is right afterall so if its an economic necessity the US military should just seize whatever the US govt wants from other countries.



Not...

Rebuttal: the US destroyed Iraq... and they are not rebuilding it.


Rebuttal: if the US didnt want to steal the oil, why didnt they simply buy it at market price?


Rebuttal: Seems to me the US invasion of Iraq has put the supply of oil at critical risk - I dont recall Al Queda having a presence in Iraq before this invasion... occupying a muslim country is (as has been shown) a recipe for disaster rather than a positive influence...


Strange, if the US invasion was meant to secure oil supplies why is oil at $130 a barrel?



These points are all moot. At the end of the day that video of McCain is a smoking gun.


Bush deceived congress and the people of the US - this is an impeachable offence. You cannot claim a war is for WMD when its not - that is ILLEGAL. If he were going in for the oil then that is what they needed to present to congress when they voted on the war (and of course congress would not have voted for this because it is an illegal act of war).


Then you have the UN laws - the very same ones that were used to hang Saddam. Invading a country 'to secure oil supply' is a war crime. You cannot just march into a country and take what you want (under UN laws).


If you are going to claim that it is ok then essentially you are saying that might is right and that powerful countries can do whatever they want so long as they have some sort of pretext for doing it.


Therefore that would mean that it was ok for the Nazis to overrun countries in WW2... and that the Soviet Union's invasions of sovereign countries was ok ..that the Burma Junta murders and tortures are acceptable...


I am sure that all of these regimes would claim that they needed to do this for economic and/or defensive purposes.


How is what the US doing in Iraq any different?

Let's get back to the original issue - the McCain video clearly states that the Iraq war is about oil.


The Bush government went to war claiming it was over WMD.


For those who know so much about the workings of the US system, no need to go into the fact that lying to congress is an impeachable offense.


Further, invading a country for the purpose of securing (lets call it that instead of stealing) is a war crime.


And the smoking gun is ignored...