Feb 092011
 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HGfFyqJMrk[/youtube]

 

A RECORD OF THE DAYS OF RAGE in Egypt, late January, 2011. BELOW: The army, though playing it very “safe” so as not to lose its image of “support” for the people, has been quietly arresting hundreds of demonstrators. 

 

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 092011
 

Endless celebration for one of the greatest criminal phonies in American history

By BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

Created 02/08/2011 – [print_link] 

THE MYTH OF RONALD REAGAN’s vast popularity during his actual terms as president is now all but written in stone, largely thanks to a lying corporate media. Barack Obama is a disciple, embracing Reagan’s doctrines of domestic savagery and global American Manifest Destiny. The real, historical Reagan was an overtly racist politician whose “audience heard him loud and clear and knew that he meant to put and keep white people on top in America.”

President Obama is a fan of Ronald Reagan.”

February 6th was the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. That date is being celebrated with great fanfare by conservatives, who have turned Reagan idol worship into a political cult, an example of their use of political theater and propaganda. When Reagan died in 2004, we were told constantly, ad nauseam, that he was beloved, popular and the subject of unending adulation from every corner of the country. We now have a Reagan International Airport in Washington, and efforts to put his face on Mount Rushmore and the dollar bill.

President Obama is a fan of Ronald Reagan [5]. He said so during his 2008 presidential campaign, proclaiming that his foreign policy would be “somewhat like Ronald Reagan’s.” He called Reagan “transformational” and established the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission so that we might all spend the next year waxing euphoric over the memory of the fortieth president of the United States.

Reagan did win the presidency in 1980 and 1984 overwhelmingly, but the constant tale of unanimous idol worship is a lie. Reagan triumphed when the Democratic Party reached its electoral nadir, but there is no reason to forget the horrors he brought to the United States and to the world.

Ronald Reagan made it clear that the Republican Party was the white people’s party. He campaigned in favor of “states rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place where three voting rights activists were kidnapped and murdered. The message and the location of its delivery were not accidental. His audience heard him loud and clear and knew that he meant to put and keep white people on top in America. Reagan ultimately signed the bill making Martin Luther King’s birthday a federal holiday, but only grudgingly, saying he did so because “they” wanted it.

Conservatives have turned Reagan idol worship into a political cult, an example of their use of political theater and propaganda.”

Conservatives do have good reason to idolize Reagan. The future successes of the Bush family, the Tea Party, and the Gingrich Contract with America were all born in the Reagan revolution which began a dismantling of government services to the public and an unambiguously hegemonic foreign policy. The expanding income inequality, low tax rates for the wealthy and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan all owe their legacy to the Reagan years.

Reagan began the onslaught against union workers when he fired the striking air traffic controllers early in his presidency. It was the beginning of an effort to destroy unions and make them unpopular with easily fooled Americans. Instead of fighting for the rights of those few who have any protections, non-class conscious Americans jumped on the bandwagon of union bashing.

Reagan’s assaults on humanity were not reserved for the people of the United States. His foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster for the world. He was unrelenting in his support of right wing death squads in Central American nations El Salvador and Nicaragua. Miguel D’Escoto was Nicaragua’s foreign minister when the Reagan administration did everything possible to destabilize that government. At the time of Reagan’s death in 2004, D’Escoto did not mince words [6] when talking about Reagan’s awful legacy:

More perhaps than any other U.S. President, Reagan convinced many around the world that the U.S. is a fraud, a big lie. Not only was it not democratic, but in fact the greatest enemy of the right of self-determination of peoples. Reagan, as you mentioned just a few minutes ago, was known as the great communicator, and I believe that that is true only if one believes that to be a great communicator means to be a good liar. That he was for sure. He could proclaim the biggest lies without even as much as blinking an eyelash. Hearing him talk about how we were supposedly persecuting Jews and burning down non-existent synagogues, I was led to believe really, that Reagan was possessed by demons. Frankly, I do believe Reagan at that time as much as Bush today was indeed possessed by the demons of manifest destiny.

Expanding income inequality, low tax rates for the wealthy and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan all owe their legacy to the Reagan years.”

Reagan was indeed unapologetic in his adherence to manifest destiny, the belief that white America’s rule and expansion is inevitable and beneficent. D’Escoto is correct. Manifest destiny is a demonic idea which has caused the deaths of many people, first the American Indians, then the enslaved whose misery was spread across the North American continent, then to the peoples of the rest of the Americas who, in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua and other nations, which have all at one time or another lived under United States occupation.

When Americans engage in thoughtless cheerleading, the result is usually very, very bad. As D’Escoto said, communicating in this country means telling very big lies, and the endless Reagan love marathon is based on the biggest lies of all.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [7] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 [8]

Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-ronald-reagan%E2%80%99s-demons

Links:
[1] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/obama-reagan-fan
[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/reagan-racist
[3] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/white-american-manifest-destiny
[4] http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/reagan_f-u.jpg
[5] http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2044579,00.html
[6] http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/8/reagan_was_the_butcher_of_my
[7] http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/
[8] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Ffreedom-rider-ronald-reagan%25E2%2580%2599s-demons&linkname=Freedom%20Rider%3A%20Ronald%20Reagan%E2%80%99s%20Demons

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 092011
 

(1)

Huffington Uncorks a New Wine

              By Elizabeth DiNovella, February 7, 2011
[print_link] 

Back in 2008 at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City, Arianna Huffington was on a journalism panel entitled, “A New Media System? Or Old Wine in New Bottles?”

Huffington said that the bottles are definitely new, but it’s not entirely new wine. It’s a mixture. “There’s an awful amount of good that we want to keep from the old media: accuracy, fact checking, ferreting out the truth,” she said.

The main problem with old media is fake neutrality, she said. “They’ve given up the pursuit of the truth for the pursuit of fake neutrality, which means that they present every story and every issue as if it has two sides,” said Huffington. She said we’ve wasted years debating global warming this way. The two sides don’t deserve equal weight under the guise of reporters covering both sides of the issue. “The Earth is not flat,” Huffington said. “Evolution is a fact. Sorry Mike Huckabee—there is no other side to this issue.”

And what does the new media bring to out public debate? Transparency, accountability, and community, she said.

So what does the Huffington Post AOL merger mean for progressives?

In her blog post today, Huffington assures us the transformation will be positive.

“Far from changing our editorial approach, our culture, or our mission, this moment will be for HuffPost like stepping off a fast-moving train and onto a supersonic jet,” she wrote. “We’re still traveling toward the same destination, with the same people at the wheel, and with the same goals, but we’re now going to get there much, much faster.”

HuffPo is known for its brash approach to news. Huffington told The Progressive as much in an interview in the May 2009 issue. “I think people are attracted to The Huffington Post’s blend of up-to-the-second news and thoughtful opinion, delivered with an attitude,” she said.

Will HuffPo keep its progressive slant in its new incarnation? The New York Times reports, “AOL, which has been seen as apolitical, risks losing its nonpartisan image. Ms. Huffington said her politics would have no bearing on how she ran the new business.”

We’ll have to wait and see what will come of an AOL and Huffington Post blend. Will it be an intoxicating Beaujolais? Or a boring corporate varietal of Shiraz?

Follow Elizabeth DiNovella @lizdinovella on Twitter

 

(2) Arianna used us to launch her site
and now she sells us out

Crossposted with adbusters, 07 Feb 2011, which is the original site

WITH SELECT COMMENTS
[print_link] 

SOCIALITE Arianna Huffington built a blog-empire on the backs of thousands of citizen journalists. She exploited our idealism and let us labor under the illusion that the Huffington Post was different, independent and leftist. Now she’s cashed in and three thousand indie bloggers find themselves working for a megacorp.

But the Huffington Post is not Arianna’s to sell. It is ours: the lefty writers and readers, environmentalism activists and anti-corporate organizers who flooded the site with 25 million visits a month. So we’re going to take it back.

We’ll stop going to her site. And we’ll stop blogging for her too. Then we’ll give birth to an alternative to AOL’s HuffPo by using the #huffpuff hash tag to tell the world about our favorite counter-culture websites and indie blogs.

We are the ones who built the Huffington Post. And now we will be the ones who will huff and puff it down.

For more info on adbusters counteroffensive, see this page: http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/huff-puff-it-down.html

________

(3) 

Op-Ed

AOL ♥ HuffPo. The loser? Journalism

To grasp the Huffington Post’s business model, picture a galley rowed by slaves and commanded by pirates.

By Tim Rutten  | February 9, 2011 | The L.A. Times

Whatever the ultimate impact of AOL‘s $315-million acquisition of the Huffington Post on the new-media landscape, it’s already clear that the merger will push more journalists more deeply into the tragically expanding low-wage sector of our increasingly brutal economy.

That’s a development that will hurt not only the people who gather and edit the news but also readers and viewers.

To understand why, it’s helpful to step back from the wide-eyed coverage focused on foundering AOL’s last-ditch effort to stave off the oblivion of irrelevance, or Brentwood-based Arianna Huffington‘s astonishing commercial achievement in taking her Web news portal from startup to commercial success in less than six years.

The media-saturated environment in which we live has been called “the information age” when, in fact, it’s the data age. Information is data arranged in an intelligible order. Journalism is information collected and analyzed in ways people actually can use. Though AOL and the Huffington Post claim to have staked their future on giving visitors to their sites online journalism, what they actually provide is “content,” which is what journalism becomes when it’s adulterated into a mere commodity.

Consider first AOL’s pre-merger efforts, which centered on a handful of commentators and a national network of intensely local news sites called Patch. The quality of those efforts varies widely, but the best ones are edited by journalists who lost their jobs in the layoffs and buyouts that have beset traditional news organizations over the last decade. These editor-reporters are given reasonable benefits and salaries that are about what beginning reporters at major newspapers were paid three decades ago. Their contributors, by contrast, are paid a maximum of $50 an article, often less.

The results pretty much conform to the old maxim that you get what you pay for; the best Patch journalism almost invariably is being done by experienced journalists who do the work out of idealism or desperation. What happens when that pool of exploitable surplus labor dries up — as it will with time — is anybody’s guess, but the smart money would bet on something that isn’t pretty.

That’s borne out by a memo from AOL Chief Executive Officer Tim Armstrong on where his company’s journalism is going. It’s fairly chilling reading, ordering the company’s editors to evaluate all future stories on the basis of “traffic potential, revenue potential, edit quality and turnaround time.” All stories, it stressed, are to be evaluated according to their “profitability consideration.” All AOL’s journalistic employees will be required to produce “five to 10 stories per day.”

Note all the things that come before the quality of the work or its contribution to the public interest and you’ve arrived at an essential difference between journalism and content. It may start with exploiting reporters and editors, but it inevitably ends up exploiting its audience.

The other partner to this dubious arrangement is the Huffington Post, which is a new-media marvel of ingenuity, combining a mastery of editing geared to game the search engines that stimulate Web traffic and overhead that would shame an antebellum plantation. The bulk of the site’s content is provided by commentators, who work for nothing other than the opportunity to champion causes or ideas to which they’re devoted. Most of the rest of the content is “aggregated” — which is to say stolen — from the newspapers and television networks that pay journalists to gather and edit the news.

The Huffington Post is a brilliantly packaged product with a particular flair for addressing the cultural and entertainment tastes of its overwhelmingly liberal audience. To grasp its business model, though, you need to picture a galley rowed by slaves and commanded by pirates. Given the fact that its founder, Huffington, reportedly will walk away from this acquisition with a personal profit of as much as $100 million, it makes all the Post’s raging against Wall Street plutocrats, crony capitalism and the Bush and Obama administrations’ insensitivities to the middle class and the unemployed a bit much.

The fact is that AOL and the Huffington Post simply recapitulate in the new media many of the worst abuses of the old economy’s industrial capitalism — the sweatshop, the speedup and piecework; huge profits for the owners; desperation, drudgery and exploitation for the workers. No child labor, yet, but if there were more page views in it…

Tim Rutten’s career as a journalist spans more than 30 years at The Times.
Prior to becoming a columnist for the Calendar section in 2002, he held a number of positions, including city bureau chief, metro reporter, editorial writer, assistant national editor, Opinion editor and assistant editor for the Editorial Page. He started at the paper in 1972 as a copy editor in the View section.  He participated in The Times? Pulitzer Prize-winning team coverage of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. He also won a 1991 award from the Greater Los Angeles Press Club for editorial writing.  
He majored in political science while attending California State University, Los Angeles.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

 

SELECT ORIGINAL COMMENTS

by Anonymous on February 09 2011, @11:37 am

 

 

 

Try this site, for Chrissakes…!

This was to be expected, and, frankly, although the HuffPo carried some serious left voices, most of the writers were bourgeois celebs with mainstream liberal (read Pro Democratic party/ Obama supporting) leanings and analyses. Arianna speaks (at times) like a leftie but she’s just one more rich establishmentarian.
For an independent left, and little known site with extraordinary analyses and posting some of the best political observers on the Web, check out The Greanville Post (http://www.greanvillepost.com/). IMHO it’s places like this that should have been growing, not the celebrity circus of Huffington Post, but then again Arianna had the millions and the fame to put her site on the map at the very start…as usual money and connections count in this rotten capitalist society.

— Scipio Gracchus

What were they thinking…

by Steve K on February 09 2011, @10:32 am

 

 

 

 

What were they thinking… well, we know Arianna was thinking dollar $ign$$$$$, but how stupid can AOL be to pay 300 million for nothing! I was shocked when I saw the Huff Post homepage announcement, I thought, what did she have to sell??? I’m done with Huffington Post, delete their bookmark and stick with Raw Story for now and help whatever site that grows out of the big bail from HP.

by Anonymous on February 09 2011, @10:29 am

its about fucking time someone did something about this fraud of a woman.

She went to Chile.. wined and dined by the elite.. and never made one mention of the Mapuche situation!

She is full of fucking shit.

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 092011
 

KOZY KOZÁ…

Ruminations by John Kozy

A Revolting World

By John Kozy  | Feb 09, 2011

[print_link]

Suggested with intro by Diane G

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

IMAGE: Russian propaganda poster (1905) urging the people to sustain the revolutionary momentum. History shows this is far easier said than done.

YES, the double entendre is intentional.

Any humane, sensitive, and intellectually honest person cannot help but be revolted after taking note of the inhumane condition of the people in most countries and the declining condition of most people in the so-called developed world. It is a world in which a very few prosper spectacularly while most suffer and perish without ever being noticed. And we call ourselves “human”! But is an inhumane person human at all? How does one attempt to answer such a question?

Of course, there are people everywhere who are genuinely revolted by what a few persons have done to the many. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would surely wonder what ever happened to the principle they both advocated-the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Their Utilitarianism has been pulled inside out. Now it seems that the principle is the greatest happiness for the fewest people. They would indeed wonder what have human beings become.

This revulsion is now leading many in many lands into demonstrating against their governments. Some claim that people everywhere are revolting and that a worldwide revolution is imminent. Revolution is everywhere in the air. Even the orthodox and heterodox presses are all atwitter. Is a new world awakening? Is the eternal spring of hope to be actualized? Would that it were so. If history is any guide, not likely!

There are, of course, a few voices urging caution. No, not the president who claims to be advocating peaceful governmental transitions. I mean people such as Mohamed, an Egyptian, living in the United States, who says, “Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak must go,” but he fears that regardless of the promises, Mubarak will figure out a way to keep his henchmen in power and the brutal legacy of cruelty and torture will continue. There is also Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, who has just posted an interesting piece, Revolution: Is 1848 Repeating Itself in the Arab World?, which warns that the forces of reaction might negate current revolutions just as they negated the revolutions of 1848.

In fact, given the revolting condition that most people endure, it should be evident that revolutions, no matter how sincere at there inception, never produce the reforms desired by the revolutionaries. Although everything Mazemroaya says about the aftermath of 1848 is true, he doesn’t go back nearly far enough.

Ever heard of the French revolution? What ever happened to it?

It took place between 1789 and 1799 during which radical social and political changes took place. The absolute monarchy collapsed, and French society underwent an epic transformation. Feudal, aristocratic, and religious privileges were abandoned because of pressure from liberal political groups and the masses on the streets. Old ideas succumbed to Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights. Republican principles were the liberal songs of the day.

Then came the reaction. When the French National Convention sought to export revolution, a military coalition made up of Spain, Naples, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Austria, and Prussia was formed. The republican forces were led by Napoleon Bonaparte and when they prevailed, Napoleon became Emperor. The revolution died in the hands of the general who was entrusted to protect it. When Napoleon’s army was finally defeated at Waterloo, The conservative Congress of Vienna reversed the political changes that had occurred. The monarchy was restored and Louis XVIII became king. France did not abandon monarchy until the late 1800s, a century after the revolution began. Were republican principles restored? Ask any Frenchman. Liberté, égalité, fraternité? Not by a long shot.

But one need not look elsewhere to expose the actions of reaction. Look at the United States of America instead.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was promulgated. It says,

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. – Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Doesn’t this paragraph describe the conditions that cause revolutions even today? Doesn’t it justify overthrowing governments by force? After this declaration was promulgated, didn’t the American colonists fight a long and brutal war with England?

The colonists did, of course, have a regular army of sorts. But they also had what would be now considered terrorists. The Sons of Liberty formed units in many towns and threatened violence. In Boston, they burned the records of the vice-admiralty court, looted the home of the chief justice, and threatened anyone who aided the British. The United States of America was born in violence. So why is the government telling those oppressed in other lands to engage only in “peaceful” transitions? Because the American Revolution was undone as early as the Constitution was adopted. Article III, Section 3 reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only [emphasis mine] levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Violent revolution was fine in 1776, but not after 1789. Revolutionaries themselves become reactionaries! Is Baron Acton right? Does power corrupt? Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Today in America, even political parties that merely advocate violent revolution are illegal. The only political opposition permitted is non-violent opposition, which, of course, has a fat change of ever succeeding. Americans haven’t even been able to organize a third party.

Jefferson writes, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Constitution reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Who in America today would say that all Americans are created equal? Who in America today would say that the Union has been perfected, that Justice has been established, that domestic Tranquility has been established, that the general Welfare is being promoted, and that the Blessings of Liberty have been secured for ourselves and our Posterity? The American Revolution, like all revolutions in history, has been undone. More than peaceful street demonstrations, it appears, is needed to resuscitate it.

It is far easier to bring about a successful revolution than it is to build and preserve a humane, functioning government. The forces of reaction never rest, and they have managed to undo most of history’s people’s revolutions. Revolutionaries must recognize that their first task is to defend their newly formed governments from reactionaries, for once reactionaries get their feet in the door, they will not stop until the revolution is undone. 

A Revolting World | 1 comments

COMMENT SELECT:

John Kozy ROCKS! (6.00 / 1)

I love this guy, he seriously GETS it and is never afraid to say it aloud.

Of course, those who hold the power will NEVER relinquish it by choice, and they have so many ways to regain it. If they lose a revolution, they have the assets to wait it out until they can buy out a person or persons allegiance and slowly influence a counter revolution by stealth, by writ or by amassing the opposition of their counter-part Elites in other Nations to push economic stress. Embargoes anyone?

Revolutions just take critical mass.

Change takes VIGILANCE.

Once minor concessions are gained, people lose that vigilance and go back about trying to survive, if not thrive.

As the Elites have gone global, with loyalty to no country only their status as above the World Citizenry, a “breed apart” so has the revolutions.  Its going whack-a-mole, and surely scares the bejesus out of the Elite class.

It can never be successful unless the People unite, and put set-in-stone safeguards against anyone owning any assets above the average, and enforcing them with utter due diligence.

Is that likely? No. Is it within the realm of remote possibility? Gahd, I hope so.

by: Diane G @ Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:46:11 AM CST

Did you like this? Share it: