“Buddy, can you spare some change?”

 

We're on our own. You and I __ the vast majority of Americans __ have no one else to turn to.

Not our leaders, not our pundits, not our spokespersons, not so-called "job creators", not our teachers or ministers. Not the Clintons or Bushes, not the Trumps or Romneys. Certainly not the Kochs or the Murdochs or Bloombergs, Adelsons or Gates. Not the Dimons or the Blankfeins.

Most of them are on the other team, or at very least play for the other team. That other team is one that you and I will never get to join. It is an isolated, insular, impudent, incomprehensibly wealthy club __ a very tiny slice of our 300+ million __ who have so much, want even more, and will never be satisfied until they have it all. We are just more items on their shopping list. Welcome to capitalism run amok! Welcome to a country where everything has a price and there are some who are so possessed by greed, they see human beings as servants, chattel, minions, serfs, and __ if they can get us for free __ slaves.

What's this got to do with us? History has shown that in every society there is always an elite which sees itself as superior to the swarming mob, a cut above the unwashed masses, members of an aristocratic class, living in its own exclusive world of privilege. It's just an unpleasant side of human nature. There's nothing new about snobbery.

Why should we be concerned?

If it's not obvious, it's this . . .

They now own and control our elected representatives, including whoever holds the office of President. You doubt this? Look at Obama's aggressively embracing and promoting the worst, most onerous trade bills in the history of the world, TPP and TPIP. This one master stroke by the ruling oligarchs will enslave nearly half of the world's population. National borders will mean nothing. Corporations and the oligarchs who own them will exercise absolute imperial rule over wealth, resources __ our lives, and those of our children.

This whole TPP/TPIP issue should be a warning! There's a message in this treachery we need to remind ourselves of every waking minute:  Even some of those who claim to be "one of us" or "on our side" are owned by that tiny .1% of America who truly have the power __ the ones who are actually running things.

So . . . it's just us. It's you and me against them.

My strategy for radical electoral reform, as described in my book Candidate Contracts: Taking Back Our Democracy, is not elitist. Nor does it pander to the elite. It does not crawl to the rich and powerful and beg them to show us some mercy.

As a matter of fact, my plan is the essence of populist activism. For it to be successfully implemented requires participation by average citizens, across the political spectrum.

I will admit, I did send the book gratis to hundreds of thinkers in academia, think tanks, pundit pools, a host of well-known and not so well-known spokespersons for the "liberal establishment". While many of these prominent individuals are part of __ often lead __ the national conversation on all things germane to the running of our country, most of them are very much a part of the system. But their endorsement of my ideas might give them credibility, or at least draw some attention to a plan which regular citizens need to know about and actively support.

I'm not sure what to expect of these thinker types.

Frankly, I'm not expecting much.

Most of them are busy, and more inimically, tightly locked into their own methodologies for what they peddle as activism. They often neglect to notice that despite their best and allegedly noble efforts, things continue to deteriorate. The only change is that as each day passes, things deteriorate more quickly.

I must say, there sure are an abundance of people commenting on the problems.

But not many solving the problems.

It's a fundamental distinction, which is often missed.

What if you had a horrible flesh-eating disease?

Medical experts come in and declare: "We have analyzed all of the data and come to the conclusion that you are in big trouble, clearly in horrible pain, the victim of a terrible disease. It is very tragic! Have a nice day."

Do we need to bring in several more teams of experts to tell you the same thing?

I assume this is more what you'd hope for: "We have analyzed the data on your condition. While your situation is serious, we have come up with a detailed plan involving a host of drugs, some surgical procedures, and a program for rehabilitation. We can cure this and once we are done, you should be able to live a long and fulfilling life."

The difference should be apparent.

My book is not more whining. It offers a step-by-step, highly detailed plan for challenging the corruption of our current politicos, and for reversing the destruction of representative democracy in America.

Let me just mention this in closing . . .

There are a few highly visible figures who are on our side, demonstrated by their own writings and activism for our team, by their dedication to making a better life for every American. Once the printed books are out, I will be sending copies to Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Robert Reich, Michael Moore, and several others who are to varying degrees in the national spotlight, and whose support would be valuable.

We'll see what comes of that.

I can't force anyone to pay attention. I can only put my ideas out there.

Change doesn't just magically happen.

People need to believe it's possible.

Then they need to make room in their hearts and time in their day to make it happen.

__________________________________________________________


"Candidate Contracts: Taking Back Our Democracy" is now available . . .

Amazon (Kindle) . . . amzn.to/1QJRiNZ
Apple (iBook) . . . apple.co/1BXnPcy
Amazon (Paperback) . . . [ TBA ]
Barnes & Noble . . . bit.ly/1GpTTLq
Smashwords . . . bit.ly/1B4DQCp
Direct from printer . . . bit.ly/1MGjDnN



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Freedom of the Press

 

My last piece was the longest, most intensively-researched, article I've ever posted here. Called Give Peace A Chance,  it contained a large number of links throughout in support of my various statements of fact.

Beyond some of the very eye-opening information I came across and cited in the piece itself, I had a startling epiphany.

Generally, I see noticeable differences in what is reported "out here" __ as you probably know, I'm an expat living in Japan __ and what I get from the American media.  These are sometimes slight but unmistakable differences in content, but more often of emphasis, as the respective articles understandably are tailored for different audiences.

But this time my realization went far beyond that. I encountered what can only be deemed crude and blatant censorship, a glaring lack of any coverage of specific noteworthy events by any of the standard U.S. news outlets __ the ones most commonly used by Americans.
Let me explain.

Sometimes I am accused of leaning too much on RT, the Russian news site. Personally I find it to be extremely valuable, mostly quite balanced, and a great source for a different take on world events. But since I sometimes get slammed by Russophobes for using that "damn Russkie propaganda rag", I typically try to mix in a lot of different sources when providing support for whatever point I'm trying to make.

Since they have solid __ if often undeserved __ reputations in America, I heavily rely on the Washington Post, New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Huffington Post, Time Magazine, and occasionally USA Today.

For non-U.S. reporting I turn to Britain's Guardian, Telegraph and Independent, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and a few Asian online news sites.

What struck me was the number of articles related to the Ukraine crisis, the confrontation with Russia, the frenzy of military exercises throughout Europe, the escalation of the new Cold War stand-off between Russian and the West, and preparation for a possibly massive military conflict between NATO and Russia, which HAD NO COMPARABLE REPORTING in America's main stream media __ I mean nothing!

In other words, an item would be featured in RT, but Google produced no similar article in the American press.

There were numerous examples. But let me mention a few that stood out.

"Over 100 US armored vehicles roll into Latvia, NATO flexes muscles in Europe" was the headline in RT. No mention in the U.S. of what seems like a rather startling development.

You would expect an announcement like "US National Guard sends 12 F-15 interceptor jets to Europe to guard against Russia" to raise some eyebrows. Of course, since none of the major news programs __ at least none that I can find __ mentioned it, eyebrows got the day off.

A month after the Minsk II agreement struck by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, which specifically bars introduction from outside countries of material support and lethal weapons, we have "Poroshenko: 11 EU states struck deal with Ukraine to deliver weapons, including lethal", an ominous bit of treachery. While there is mention at an Iranian news site of Russian objections to this, and a link back to the RT article at Israel Foreign Affairs, discussion in major media forums is conspicuously lacking in the U.S. and Europe itself.

How about "US troops in Europe request bigger guns amid Russia anxieties", appearing April 25? Do Americans even know there are U.S. soldiers in countries right on Russia's border preparing for battle? They do only if they read the California Telegraph, a news outlet I never heard of before this.

No wonder very few in America seem aware of what's at stake here, the current magnitude of the tension, the potential for this crisis escalating into World War III, or the possibility of an apocalyptic nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S.

This is a frightening and dangerous breech of trust between the American people and its news sources. How are people supposed to make informed judgments about what their government is doing in their name without knowing what's going on?

Then again maybe the point is . . . they're not.

Of course, it's much worse than just sins of omission.

The other half of the story is the deception __ the gross distortions and outright lies that sometimes appear.

Sometimes the distortions are so profound, if you were to lay an article written for U.S. public consumption next to one on the exact same topic written by a correspondent from a non-NATO country, you would think they were about two completely different, unrelated matters. Often you get an entirely opposite rendering of what actually happened.

There is, of course, a pattern here. It's one I've seen unfolding and becoming increasingly obvious over the past few years.

At first it surfaced as journalists just respectfully aligning their perceptions and editorial perspectives to official government positions on any matters pertaining to international relations and formulation of foreign policy. Politeness and pandering discreetly replaced asking probing questions and conducting deep-source investigation.

That morphed into advocating and cheer leading on behalf of the government. We saw an abundance of this leading up to the second Iraq war. Press conferences with George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were like frat parties before a home game.

American media now only mimics the official government line. Rather than actually cover the news, investigate it thoroughly and report it objectively, it merely takes dictation from the official spokespersons for the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, including the NSA and CIA. Doing original research, challenging shoddy reasoning, objecting to spurious claims, demanding proof and corroboration, all have faded into a hazy memory of quaint bygone times.

I can only draw one conclusion.

There is indeed freedom of the press in America.

But it's not quite what I understood it to be.

Now it's the freedom to keep Americans in the dark.
It's the freedom cherry-pick from the vast array of newsworthy items and only publish those consistent with the preferred narrative of our government.

It's the freedom to suppress anything which official spokespersons find inconvenient or untimely in their ongoing effort to enforce their manufactured version world events.

It's the freedom to distort and invent facts which support official government policies.

It's the freedom to shape the national conversation in ways that aligns with the official view of developments and incidents.

It's the freedom to shape public perception by using loaded phrases and unrepresentative images, to editorialize while hiding behind a facade of objectivity.

It's the freedom to malign and demonize both national and international figures who the U.S. government has targeted for character assassination and marginalization.

It's the freedom to do balanced journalism, but with a new, different twist. Individual correspondents will balance their desire for career advancement with the demand they write the right kind of articles given the correct spin about a range of "acceptable" issues. News media organizations will balance their need for access to the White House and other high-level officials with the kind of coverage that meets the approval of those they access.

But I will give credit where it's due. Under this new definition of "freedom of the press", American journalists can now surely be saluted for unfailingly and aggressively exercising this time-honored privilege.

"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will in time produce a people as base as itself." --- Joseph Pulitzer

[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]