GuidoWorld

Recently I saw the Michael Moore documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story” and was shocked to see footage of FDR outlining a Second Bill of Rights during his State of the Union Address in 1944. How could a president have proposed this and I never heard of it?
Here is Wikipedia’s summary of this proposed legislation.

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second “bill of rights”. Roosevelt’s argument was that the “political rights” guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Roosevelt’s remedy was to declare an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]:““It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

If you go to You Tube you can see the footage and hear the address for yourself. This footage was supposedly lost for a number of years and was only recovered in 2008.

In my last post I discussed the significant role perceptual management has played in the US over the last 100 years. The desire of our government and corporations to persuade us to act and think in ways which preserves and enhances their power and wealth may help explain the fact that though I was born a little more than 11 years after this address, I never once heard of it during all my years of education.  Anyone saying these words today would be labeled a socialist or communist and could easily be labeled a terrorist and an enemy of the state.

Our perceptual managers lead us to believe that the American middle class has been the envy of the world for generations. Yet, the reality of the fact is that the American middle class is (was) a short lived phenomena with the bulk of American economic history having almost all of its wealth hoarded by a privileged few. Our current disparity of wealth and the destruction of the middle class has been the norm and not just a recent occurrence.

Here is an excerpt from, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century” by Andrew Gavin Marshall which I read today @ the Global Research on line at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c….

Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. As Howard Zinn explained:

The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises – 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) – that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.[32]
Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil market, and expanded into banking. Zinn explained:
The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.[33]
In the early 20th century, European and American banking interests achieved what they had desired for over a century within America, the creation of a privately owned central bank. It was created through collaboration of American and European bankers, primarily the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs and Warburgs.[34]

US history shows a marked tendency towards the systematic fleecing of all wealth from its citizenry to the economic elite than towards a spreading of the wealth and standard of living for a growing middle class. The short lived gains in the standard of living enjoyed by a burgeoning middle class can be explained by two factors.

Initially the middle class was formed as a beneficiary of the incredible wealth and power the US acquired as a result of the two World Wars. A temporary rise in wealth, opportunity and education engendered the necessary loyalty and productivity required to build the most powerful empire the planet has ever known. Second, the creation of a consumer class was needed to fuel the continued growth of industry and technology allowing the military/industrial complex to thrive and police the entire globe.

Yet, the actions and decisions of both the government and corporations shows that they never truly planned on honoring their contracts with the American middle class (i.e.: pension funds, social security). The role and need of the consumer age is on the decline. In its current phase the role of the American consumer is being diminished as the role of the global consumer increases. Yet, in a nanotechnological global economy dominated by artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and increasingly abstract financial instruments the need for actual consumption becomes less important to power and wealth.

My read of history is that the American middle class was largely created and exploited for the purposes of empire building. My read is also that the American and European middle class has largely served its purpose and is no longer necessary. No longer needed as consumers we are being prepared to return to our historical role as serfs and slaves.
If my gut is right on this, we should be very close to the next Great Depression which will attempt to ring the middle class out of all societies throughput the globe and consolidate all international wealth and ownership to a frighteningly small number of individuals.

Perceptual management is a science and a fact of modern life. Yet, the gift of perceptual managers is their ability to divert people’s attention from what is really going on. The talents of perceptual managers and propagandists is evident in the fact that most people still believe in the American dream and the integrity and honesty of government and business.
In our perceptually managed society anyone asking questions or making logical conclusions that pose a threat to the heart of their deception will successfully be labeled a conspiracist or an extremists. Yes, I know extremists and conspiracists are real, but so are spin doctors, propagandists and perceptual managers.

Jim Guido

The tricks of a skilled magician take advantage of the natural tendency of the mind and couples that with additional elements of ‘the not seen”. Our minds are gifted at reaching practical conclusions while using the minimum amount of perceptual data, this is not only efficient, but highly necessary in maximizing our ability to survive.

We never truly see the world we functionally see. Most of the objects in the living room we navigate or the road on which we drive are only partially given to our vision. We don’t see the backs, or even a major portion of everything we perceive and know. The bulk of the lamp, couch and even friend we’re talking to are hidden from our view. So, is well over 50% of the car, building, telephone pole, curb and pedestrian which make up my perceptual field while driving. Add on to this the fact that our attention drifts and we execute most of our actions on auto pilot and our ability to live relatively blind is astounding.

Our mind is forever filling in huge gaps of perceptual data allowing us to successfully move about quickly and with little difficulty. We are so accustomed to this way of being in the world that we are generally blind to how little we actually see, and how much our mind fills in giving us the illusion of actually having a perceptual field and immediately seeing the world around us. As our eyes quickly scan our environment we have the illusion of seeing the entire room at once when it truth we are only seeing a fraction of the room (environment) at each focused moment.

Magicians take advantage of our limited vision and focus and trick us into making conclusions which are proven wrong in the end. By distracting our attention, encouraging us to make false conclusions, and doing actions in spaces we only think we see, the magician is able to trick or baffle us. The hand isn’t only quicker than the eye, but the mind is also often more involved in vision than the eye.

Vision isn’t the only aspect of our perception which uses the minimum amount of data to make an on-the-fly functional assessment of a given situation. Just as we can recognize someone by only seeing their hand we name a song after hearing just a few notes, or realize we are touching a couch on an initial bump in a darkened room.

Misleading people, and getting to think, feel and believe in things that they wouldn’t otherwise do is not just a magicians skill. Other long standing professions such as acting and the con man have long exploited the tendency of people to reach conclusions based on minimal evidence.
While magicians and actors have used this talent more to entertain and in some ways enlighten their audiences, con men have exploited our natural tendencies of mind for personal gain and control. Con men are famous for gaining one’s trust, for once you trust them you will accept and not question their tricks and motivations.

Yet, the desire to deceive, manipulate, and con has never been more common and pronounced as in the birth of the capitalistic consumer culture. The entire field of public relations was founded on the idea of how to influence people into seeing things the way you want them to. Good public relations allowed a company to retain a positive public image despite the fact that its success was dependent on your buying things you don’t need. Public relations became the science of propaganda and perceptual management.

In a free democracy funded by a capitalistic industrial consumer culture the role of public relations became increasingly important. In business the trust and loyalty of your client base was essential in ensuring your long term success. In politics the ability to convince voters to trust you and view you in a positive light was essential to your getting elected and staying in office.

Since the early 20th century the science of propaganda and perceptual management has been as important to business and government as any other science or discipline. The growth and importance of psychology in general and social psychology in particular has been powered by its essential role in both politics and business.

In 1917 the US government formed its official initial sanctioned body to assist in the new and important realm of perceptual management called the Committee on Public Information, also known as the CPI or the Creel Committee. As explained in Wikipedia CPI “was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence U.S. public opinion regarding American participation in World War I. Over just 28 months, from April 13, 1917, to August 21, 1919, it used every medium available to create enthusiasm for the war effort and enlist public support against foreign attempts to undercut America’s war aims.”

The techniques spawned by this rather successful venture in perceptual management helped social psychology and Public Relations become entrenched and cherished sciences of all capitalistic and democratic societies. Obviously propaganda techniques of deception and influence work best on people who are unaware of the exact areas their perceptions are being manipulated. This resulted in the avowed termination of the use of political propaganda being used domestically on US citizens and only being used as psychological warfare on foreign agents and governments.

In the political sphere the recognized usage of propaganda became relegated to the realm of psychological warfare and our stated desire to promote freedom and democracy throughout the globe. Wikipedia states that the U.S. Department of Defense (currently)defines psychological warfare as:

“The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”[2]

While this definition states the primary purpose is on foreign groups it is logical that domestic groups and citizens can be the targets and recipients of propaganda if their views are contrary or not in support of our government’s national objectives. In this way it only makes sense that perceptual management techniques are used to raise capitalistic status quo sentiments and quell any ideologies or values which go against the grain.

In the area of commerce we have been able to be a little more honest about the pervasive use of perceptual management in the arena of advertising and corporate Public Relations. The blatant aspects of commercial advertising is admitted and embraced as a form of entertainment by business and the public alike. Every small business owner, tradesman and professional uses and is aware of others use of the art of selling one’s product.

While the more sophisticated and subtle forms of “marketing” and perceptual management are left unarticulated or examined, the general feeling is that most of modern advertising and perceptual influence is above board and benign. This has resulted in many people considering themselves advertising savvy and generally impervious to the techniques and influence of advertising.

It is common knowledge that our intelligence agencies spend a great deal of time, money and effort on improving the techniques of influence and propaganda in the whole spy world. Our ability to create, extinguish and direct insurgency and counterinsurgency movements in foreign nations is considered to be quite sophisticated. Our intelligence agencies have been credited with successfully using propaganda campaigns to incite a foreign coup, overthrowing enemy governments, and creating democratic movements in oppressed societies.

While the focus and ownership of Psychological Operations is on influencing foreign lands and peoples, throughout the years a number of government sponsored domestically targeted propaganda campaigns have come to light. Yet, their existence is quickly put in the past tense and their objective and influence is minimized whereby within a short time an agency of disinformation or brain washing is but a faint memory in the mass consciousness.

To me it doesn’t make any sense that our use of perceptual management is being relegated to the areas of advertising, foreign policy, and political campaigns. Obviously it would be counterproductive for our domestic propaganda and perceptual management programs to be popularized and admitted. Therefore, it is probably safe to assume that we are constantly being subjected to the latest and most sophisticated of social management and influence techniques.

No nation in history has devoted more of its intellectual and monetary resources in its military and related war industries. Our military research and expenditures are not just devoted to arms, bombs, planes and missiles. Modern warfare is not just about hardware and troops, but involves chemical, germ, biological, economic and psychological warfare.

During WWII the US recruited the greatest minds in physics to help build the first nuclear bombs. Likewise our space program of the 60’s also congregated the most advanced rocket scientists in order to insure the US won the “race to space”. Of course, the race to outer space was as much a defense department project as anything else. The push of the satellite boom came from a desire to control and monitor and communications as well as have a strategic advantage in standard warfare with the “eye in the sky”.

Most defense and war project have a tendency to filter down some of its technology for commercial and civilian use the satellite technology gave us huge improvements in meteorological information and prediction, as well as the birth of cable and satellite TV, as well as surveillance and GPS technology. Much of computer technology and the internet were originally defense projects.

During the two official years of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) great strides were made in the field of perceptual management similar to the success of the Manhattan Project. Propagandist’s learned just a few of the ways language and images could be used to elicit specific emotions and how to foster support for government policies and actions.

“The engineering of consent” as the early propagandists and Public Relations described their task has now been the commercial and political focus of the best social psychological minds for near a century. Perceptual management has received as much attention from our defense department as any other aspect of modern warfare. It is not only how we influence the decisions and policies of foreign nations, but it is also how we make sure our own nation stays stable and adapts and accepts the decisions of our leaders.

Though specific forms of subliminal messaging have been banned, we also know that violations of this ban have and do occur. We know about spin, and smear campaigns, and how our government through the media uses words to color and influence our thoughts and feelings. Yet, by and large we trust that our government is generally honest and well intentioned.

The success and effectiveness of propaganda and perceptual management is on its ability for its operation to remain hidden and secret. A popular magician can only let us in on how he did his trick if he no longer plans on doing that specific trick in that manner. His success at creating magic is dependent on our not knowing how he does it. Likewise, good perceptual management and propaganda is effective to the degree that those targeted to be influenced are ignorant of the exact techniques being used. The exception to this is if the audience finds the techniques entertaining and wants to be influences as this is the case with much of modern advertising such as most TV commercials.

We are peripherally aware that a lot of research has been done studying flocks, swarms and herds of birds, insects, and animals. We’ve not only studied the social behavior of living things but also studied the “group” behavior of things and events such as waves, sand piles, meteorological fronts, and various other “collectives” to understand, and predict group reaction. In both living and non-living collectives we are learning not only how to better predict when and what is about to happen, but in many cases are learning how we can influence and alter the actions of collectives.

By understanding the intricacies of a bee or ant colony we can influence and control much of the behavior of the group. The migration pattern of birds as well as the progression of wind patterns can be redirected and altered. The exact way in which this knowledge can be used in its application of human groups and herds is the stuff of modern research and science fiction. Yet, it is obvious that usages do and will exist for the purposed of perceptual management and social psychology.

The successful con man taught us years ago that their most effective psychological tool was to gain a person’s trust. Once a person trusted you they were easy prey to your confidence game. Even after the facts came to light many people were unwilling to believe that the con man wasn’t who he said he was, and that there had to be some mistake because he was such a good guy.

Yet, in the early years of social psychology other emotional tools than gaining trust were found to be just as effective. Two other successful emotional strategies are too create dependency or instigate fear. A fearful or dependent person will gladly hand over all power to someone who can protect them or act on their behalf.
Evidence of this method’s use in the US since the 1930’s is not hard to find. Fear mongering has been a staple of getting public support for most wars and military action. Likewise, fear of communism, socialism and terrorism have been used to blunt social change and well as have people relinquish their rights and privacies to insure their safety.

Our research and use of torture has likewise been used to teach us more on how to influence and control human behavior. The standard Hollywood version of the good cop bad cop strategy was born from the early studies of the psychology of torture. We also learned that a person being tortured often becomes dependent on their abuser. Since their very survival depends on the whims of their abuser they will often become attached to their abuser, and inside of that relationship became oddly loyal to their abuser.

Much of the early research into the science of propaganda was done by the Third Reich under Hitler’s Germany. One of their discoveries was that if you repeated a lie often enough, it would become accepted as truth by the majority of people. Over the last century this technique has still been a favorite of political propagandists around the globe.

While fear mongering and demonizing your opponent is still a pervasive tool of perceptual managers their are less blatant ways to discredit your opponent and thereby gain support for your position or agenda. It is rare that a single political race can be run in the US that does not involve some form of a smear campaign in which one candidates stock rises due to the lowering of credibility of the recipient of the smear campaign.

Discrediting or ruining the popularity of your opponent can be done is far subtler ways such as placing a bumper sticker for your opponent on a car and then having the driver of that car cut people off in traffic, swear at other motorists etc., all to have people associate the opposing candidate and their supporters as being jerks.

When peaceful demonstrators start to shift public favor against the war, the FBI and pro-war groups can infiltrate the demonstrations and try to incite the demonstrations to become violent while posing themselves as being anti-war demonstrators. Or if you’re a corporation whose profit margins are being threatened by ecological group you can turn public opinion against the ecologists by forming an ecological group that is extreme or has illegal practices thereby despoiling the popularity of ecological groups and their causes.

Most of the propaganda strategies I’ve listed in this post are pretty basic and would be taught in any basic course in Public Relations or Social Psychology. Yet, just as our government only sells relatively outdated weapons to our enemies, likewise, the latest generation of perceptual management techniques are not available for public knowledge.

Now, I’m a person with many interests, and trying to identify the ways in which my perceptions and actions are being influenced, managed and altered by professional propagandists does occupy my attention. Yet, people far smarter than myself, and very motivated and financially rewarded for developing methods and techniques to out fox even the savviest citizen, are working full time. Thousands of our best minds in social psychology are working directly and indirectly for our defense department in efforts to win wars fought on all fronts. All wars include not only physical wars, but psychological, chemical, biological, germ and ideological.

The fact is that trillions of dollars (mostly tax payer) are being funneled into defense department research insuring that our empire continues to rule the globe. The monitoring and winning of the hearts, minds and actions of people here and abroad is a practical and not just theoretical goal. We are being handled, monitored, influenced and coerced by the best financed and most intelligent army of perceptual engineers the world has ever known.

A successful corporation gives substantial campaign contributions to both candidates, to insure that whoever wins the election is grateful for, beholding to and dependent on their support. A skilled perceptual manager is ready and prepared for various outcomes. Even when a situation goes in an initially undesirable direction they stand poised to find a way to co-opt, exploit or redirect the matter in a profitable manner.

The current political turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East is a perfect example. The US has created, supported and maintained most of the despots whose future careers are in jeopardy. Yet, while exploiting the economic and political stability gained by dictatorships, we also have been funding and creating “democracy movements” in these very nations. The following is an except from an article I recently read in The Global Researcher on line by Andrew Gavin Marshall who is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

As the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report emphasized, “America’s goal in the Middle East should be to encourage democratic evolution, not revolution.”[26] Engineering, co-opting and controlling revolutionary movements or “democratic regime change”…..In a 2008 article in the New York Times, Brzezinski emphasized a multi-faceted strategy for dealing with this ‘threat’ to elite structures and interests, explaining that, “the monumental task facing the new president is to regain U.S. global legitimacy by spearheading a collective effort for a more inclusive system of global management.” Thus, Brzezinski’s strategy rests on better securing and institutionally expanding the process of ‘globalization’ into the evolution of ‘global governance,’ or as he termed it, “global management.” Brzezinski unveiled a four-point strategy of response: “unify, enlarge, engage and pacify.”[18]

The man alluded to is the article is geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, an intellectual architect of ‘globalization who has been very influential in US foreign policy and strategy. As you can see he advocates that our government needs to “engineer”, “co-opt”, and “control” revolutionary movements.
I invite you to read more of his thoughts. In sum, Mr. Brzezinski goal is to help the US maintain its role as world leader. He feels that without our governments control the US and the world would fall into complete chaos.

Yet, Mr. Brzezinski is a true perceptual manager. He doesn’t want people in the US or abroad to truly have choice or a say in the government. He only wants them to think they have a choice and feel free.

He believes that our government has done a good job of stripping American’s of most of their rights (and wealth) while having them retain the perception of freedom. He feels that with our governments guidance despots can be removed and replaced with pseudo-Democracies keeping the basic power structure in place. This would diffuse anger and discontentment while maintaining fiscal stability and a hoarding of the wealth in its current hands. This is consistent with the idea of the New World Order version of Globalization first publicly trumpeted by George Bush I in the late 80’s.

So, while you read newspapers which have over 70% of their articles written and placed by special interest groups and listen to scripted TV and radio interview dialogue you just hold on to the idea that you are the master of your domain and the author of your viewpoints. While you are busy following the debate between liberals and conservatives and Republicans and Democrats I will try my best to watch the magicians hands while knowing I’m missing more than I’m catching.

Do you believe in magic?

Jim Guido

PS I have some songs which address some of the ideas raised by this post (i.e.: Svengali, Mob Rule, Say Boys, Lies, Demonic Democracy, Making Money, Someone Will Die Tonight)

Just when you think the Wizard will be exposed as a sham the way he was in the Wizard of Oz when he exclaimed, “don’t mind the man behind the curtain”, the Wizard of the US somehow escapes detection once again. Where Dorothy’s dog Toto succeeded it seems that Egypt and the other northern African and Middle Eastern democratic movements will fail.

Less than two weeks ago it seemed like Houdini (the US) would not be able to escape out of his straight jacket in time to avoid drowning in the water tank. Yet, somehow our view was blocked and distracted long enough for Houdini to cheat his way out of the handcuffs and once again hear the applause of his amazed peers and fans.

Before I go on, I just want to say that these guys are good, scary good.

When the mass demonstrations for Democracy and Freedom began I did not see how the US could hide its true policies and priorities from being exposed. At the beginning all I was sure of was the fact that the US and Israel were both highly invested in keeping the status quo in the area, and would find true democracy threatening and unacceptable.

Yet, I must admit that the TV and media coverage was sufficiently disjointed enough to prevent me from understanding what was going on and why. It wasn’t until I read an article entitled “Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?” on Global Researcher.CA that I was able to get some insight and clarity. I strongly urge everyone to read that thoughtful article which had all the earmarks of real journalism.

I was a tad surprised and somewhat shocked when some of the US press began to praise and support the people’s movement. Even the White House and members of the Administration made statements saying that they were behind the people. While part of me felt encouraged by all this, a larger part of me just knew the game was far from being over.

The comments of support for the demonstrators was lukewarm at best, and not really followed up with any concrete action. When Obama claimed that he wasn’t in contact with Mubarak, I had a hard time believing it. Maybe, technically he talked through a third party to avoid a bald face lie, but it would be hard to fathom his totally abandoning such an important and long standing US ally, or the demonstrators he voiced initial support of.

While watching the news unfold I made a short list of predictions, strategies and interventions that would be attempted to diffuse the movement, and sway American citizen support away from the freedom demonstrators.

The first of these prediction came almost minutes later when either Obama or someone of his administration shifted the emphasis from support of the demonstrators and the need for Mubarak to immediately step down, to our support for the demand for reforms. Soon the call for “reforms” became the central issue. Obama and the other wizards began an endless verbal campaign of explaining how Mubarak had become out of touch with the people and had not listened to the US’s demands that he incorporate reforms benefiting the people. Soon we were told that these calls for reforms had been a central message from every president since he was in power.

The message being sent was that the US during Mubarak entire reign stayed true to its primal role as defender of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Yet, sadly Mubarak had not listened to their calls and recommendations. The President and his cabinet implied and sometimes stated that the US was powerless to get Mubarak to implement these reforms.

It is extremely hard to believe that we would classify anyone as an old ally who we were powerless to influence, especially, with the economic and military importance of the Suez canal at stake. Would we and Israel depend on the security of the Middle East on someone who did not listen to and implement their wishes?
If the US were truly desirous of democracy and freedom, they would not have been the only major nation not having live cable and satellite coverage of the day-to-day events. The old 60’s revolution chant of “the whole world is watching” would have to be modified to say everyone but the US is watching.

The attacks on journalists came shortly after US journalists attempted to cover the events to make up for the fact that it’s audience was the only one’s being left out. During this same period US journalists were allowed to investigate and conduct reports which could weaken if not remove support for the demonstrators. Reports of demonstrator violence increased along with reports of vandalism, looting, and destruction of artistic and cultural objects and sites of significance.
All of the above techniques and interventions were on my list as they had been so successful during the Iraqi wars. So, too, was the inevitable fear of the democracy movement resulting in the rise to power of Islamic Fundamentalist Religious Extremists. Also the growing investigative reports outlining how a democratic Egypt would most likely be anti-US.

I must admit the desire to keep Mubarak in power because he is a modern pharaoh was an unexpected and creative touch. In this way we could support a dictator because a democratic government would destroy the dignity and rich history of the entire Egyptian culture.

It does appear to me that the democratic movement has lost its energy, urgency and focus and now seems willing to let the status quo stay with the promise of future elections. Our government learned well from the mistakes in the 60’s when it underestimated the strength and determination of blacks, women and students. Somehow it was able to assist the Egyptian status quo from having to suffer the same level of prolonged chaos and adaptation to the desires of the populace. Through the artful abilities of the swayers of public opinion we now face the likelihood that Mubarak or one of his representatives will be present to insure that the future elections will produce a government the US and Israel can embrace.

The strife and rebellion in Egypt is not over, and another authentic surge of true revolution may still be in the offing. Yet, at this point it appears as if the Wizard of US(A) and Harry Houdini will live another day. Most likely the propagandists will continue to do their usually gifted job of defanging the campaign for democracy by having them win something called democracy which in fact is something far less than free or democratic.

Just as was the case with Obama’s health care reform bill, which in the end is doing little to disturb the status quo. In fact it looks to be so wonderfully crafted as to remove all fiscal hardship from insurers and instead placing all responsibility onto the patient (consumer). Add the fact that its minimal benefits are being overturned by courts around the country and you essentially have written a bill which has not reformed anything, but only empowered the status quo. This all being accomplished while allowing the faithful to believe that the president was a victim rather than an architect of a corporate friendly health care system.

In sum, the US will continue practicing torture while claiming to be the leader in human rights, censoring and controlling the media while talking freedom of the press, leading the world in percentage of the populace imprisoned while claiming to be the land of the free, and starving millions of innocent people through embargoes and the like while being ethically outraged at the pathetic acts of a few desperate terrorists.

Who out there reading this even remembers that a week ago there were reports of our government curtailing monies given to Egypt to support the advancement of democracy? Where is the discussion regarding the absurdity of saying we had no influence over a government whose military and economic stability depended on its receiving yearly funds from our government?

Who out there looks beyond the words of the Wizard of US and instead looks at its actions? Who remembers how many of the dictators we remove from office we placed their in the first place? Just how many democracies have we actually supported, as opposed to how many dictators? Who leads the world in arm sales, in direct or indirect involvement in campaigns of genocide, and in the stripping of nations of their national resources and sovereignty?

We may not be the bad guy, but are definitely not the good guys. Though falling, we still are an empire and have the opportunity to help create a better world with less strife and suffering. Yet, until we expose the Wizard to be the self-serving and greedy monster that the excesses of empire have made him, we will not be that beacon of hope we are told we are. The Wizard is not the President or any past president, but rather an image and ideal created to deceive the populace into not only tolerating actions done against our best interests, but supporting and demanding policies which strip of us our freedoms and cause us to be perpetually embattled with our contemporaries.

It is hard to imagine us becoming the trusting and kind nation that could live up to its stated objectives. A greedy, fearful and controlling nation can not at the same time be a beacon of freedom and a broker for peace and harmony. Our nation could feed the world, yet at this point it seems the thing we most feed it is bullshit.

Jim Guido

It is often noted that the best aspects of human nature come forward during times of emergency, crisis, and disaster. When a land is devastated by flood, hurricane, cyclone, earthquake or a volcanic eruption the entire world sets aside its differences and bands together to provide aid and succor for the victims. In times of need the general populace lends their hands and opens their hearts and wallets to assist those in crisis.

In my personal experience in human services I have often been amazed at how the poorest and most disadvantaged will share any money, food or gift they happen to stumble upon with their family or friends who are also in need. Some of the greatest acts of kindness and charity I have witnessed has come from those with the least resources.

Yet, the fact of the matter is there are many on our planet that are in crisis each and every day. While some events and situations make head lines and touch many hearts inspiring incredible acts of charity, there are many that somehow never rise to a level of getting people to truly make an impact or save lives. Each day thousands if not millions of people are starving, or suffering from some other form of life threatening need which goes unattended.

Let’s look at the following questions.

Do we have enough food to feed the entire planet?
Do we have enough resources to provide shelter and sufficient protection from the elements for all human beings?
Do we have the resources to educate and provide access of information to people allowing them to improve themselves and acquire their needs?
Do we have the resources to provide basic quality health care to all those desiring these services?

The answer to these questions is in most cases a solid yes, and in other cases at worst we can say that we have resources for the great majority of people. Yet, despite having these abilities and resources millions of people each day are doing with out and suffering unnecessarily. It is often said that we have a distribution problem and not a lack of resources.

According to Wikipedia, the fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. I would also say that from a philosophical level the reason for government has often been described as a means to protect the people through the enforcement of law. These definitions of government would be in contrast to anarchy where the lack of law could result in mob rule, and a relatively primitive form of survival of the fittest.

The fact of the matter is that governments are failing miserably at their basic function. We have the ability and resources and governments rather than being the vehicle for providing citizens with basic needs and securities have become the major obstacle of these basic needs being established and provided.

Providing people with food, shelter, clothing and health care is by definition the least we can do for people. We as individuals need to help make sure that governments fulfill their basic function, rather than their being agents of war and division which through fear and hatred keep our hearts and hands from providing others with the basic needs for human survival.

When millions of people are in crisis, providing for their basic needs is job one. No government is deserving of praise, respect or the support of their citizens until they are devoted to ending the suffering of all our contemporaries. In times of crisis individuals are able to put aside differences in ideology, belief and politics to focus on the matter at hand, We now need our governments to have a heart at least as big as the majority of its citizens.

It truly is the least we can do. And until we do it, it really is hard to say we have accomplished anything.

Jim Guido

I find it a little odd when I hear someone express doubt of the authenticity of the facts of a report because it was written on the web and not by a major media outlet. While I agree that one should always be on the lookout for biased, agendized or even false journalism, I find it odd when people consider main stream journalism legitimate and discount alternative journalists out of hand.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of mainstream corporate media is inherently biased, spun, and written for a specific purpose. I’ve seen some statistics which state that over 70% of news stories are written by corporations and businesses themselves and placed in the news media.

The vast majority of the media itself is owned by a handful of families and to think that these families are not protecting or promoting their own interests and those of their friends is foolish at best. Yet, even if one does not have the time to fact check or research a topic, the very style and format of most of modern main stream journalism demonstrates its lack of integrity and authenticity.

The media, like most enterprises, has become increasingly dominated by economic processes. It is all about economic success and increasing market share. Smaller outlets are bought out or merge with other outlets in order to compete and survive the economic realities of a capitalistic society. Merger after merger ends up with a shrinking field of huge media entities.

These huge entities depend on access to newsmakers, advertiser revenues and increased market share for their survival. Such huge conglomerates have many divisions in varied fields of interest. It is important to note that every major news outlet has strong ties to military, financial, and industrial corporations which they almost daily have to report on. Conflicts of interest are inherent in this megastructure.

A reporter who is relatively harsh or critical of a political figure will not get exclusives or easy access to that political figure. Such a reporter will seldom be called on during press conferences and therefore endangers his position with his employer whose focus on the bottom line needs the story even if its soft.

The reality of reporters needing access to the people they report on isn’t the only factor making it difficult for reporters to be unflinching in their reporting the facts. Advertisers have a big say in how a story is written and reported. Even when they don’t censor or directly influence a potentially damaging story to their financial interests, they can always remove their financial support of the offending media outlet by dropping their ads from the radio, TV or print medium involved.
Just as politicians have become more products than leaders whose primary goal seems to be getting elected rather than an agent for designing a healthy society, likewise, the media’s need for market share makes their entire business a popularity contest and not so much about information, education and the unbiased reporting of hard facts.

On a national level it is almost impossible to write an expose or an honest portrayal of events without insulting or harming one of a news medias own subsidiaries. The huge media conglomerates are integral parts of mega multinational corporations which depend on consumer confidence and goodwill in order to continue to flourish.

This is not to imply that our news is always positive and business friendly. Everyone loves a good story and controversy sells more newspapers and magazines than anything else. The important thing is that in the long run business booms and short term dramas seldom lead to long term fiscal damage.

The advertisers themselves try to make their product look good, by making their competitors look bad. Yet, in the world of politics we thrive on the two party system. Our media loves to foster controversy between supposedly opposite poles such as conservative/liberal, democratic/republican, industrial/environmental, individual versus social rights and so on. In many of these battles the sides are really just two sides of the same coin and this easy controversy is used to distract people from real issues and choices.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has been shrinking for decades now. Since both parties are dependent on the financial support of the wealthiest Americans neither can afford to truly represent the interests of the common man (unless you can convince the common man to support the interests of the wealthiest Americans). Both parties now support big business, war, Wall Street, etc., the only debate is in how they support these entities.

The days of classic journalism have been gone for decades. News reports no longer strive to be objective and neutral, they no longer just report the facts answering the basic questions of who, what, where and when. Yes, even in the old days specific perspectives were given, but when one perspective was given so were many others. Now, there are only two black and white perspectives given, these two viewpoints are usually labeled as democratic and republican or conservative and liberal.

I can hardly think of a single issue in which my viewpoint falls inside either of the two camps. I can’t recall the last time I read a report by the mainstream media or heard a speech by a politician which I felt articulated or even came close to a perspective I have.

I know many people who still consider outlets such as PBS and NPR as objective and even humanistic. Though I’m not a regular consumer of these outlets I have noticed a dramatic shift away from objective investigative reporting, or even a humanistic perspective to one which is noticeably status quo and supportive of current power structures and their policies.

Often times the opposing perspectives I hear regarding domestic and international policy on NPR radio are very narrowly defined. It’s like hearing if the choice is whether to watch an NFC or AFC football game and totally ignoring the possibility of the hundreds of viewing choices one has while those games are on TV. No one questions wars or the ethics of political policies, but only the two narrow and almost identical strategies of republicans and democrats.

Television and radio programs are well rehearsed in which the execution of the newscast must be planned out to almost the exact second. Even the bulk of interviews conducted on radio and TV though attempting to sound impromptu and natural are for the most part totally rehearsed. Questions and responses of supposed candid interviews are preplanned and prepared for, thus allowing interviewers a smooth interview with no dead and uncomfortable air space and no surprises for the person being interviewed. Despite the fact that most interviews progress in this seamless manner and fit perfectly into an exact time frame for the newscast, most people seem to buy into the authenticity and spontaneity of the interview.

Reporting the facts and being objective has been replaced by news anchors who explain the news to us and engage in highly emotional and judgmental language. In a story or report it is often obvious which “side” we are supposed to believe or support. The bad people’s quotes, organizations or nations are littered with words such as “so called”, “alleged” and their actions framed as “terrorists” or “insurgents”. While the good guys are often the victims of a given situation and their quotes are certain and contain no doubt. When the need for description is called for they will be referred to do as defenders of justice or freedom fighters.

One of my favorite phrases used so often in modern news reporting is “some people feel”, or “some people believe”. In reality this is a total non-statement, but used artfully it can steer public opinion in the direction you want it to go. The authority and voice tone of the speaker is the only thing giving the phrase “some people think” any validity or influence. Yet, these phrases are uttered by news reporters more often than almost any other.

Obviously in any debate some people think one way and others think the opposite, the newscaster is taking sides by only stating one side. Comments such as “some economists think concerns regarding the economy are over blown”, “some experts feel that entitlement programs reduce productivity”, or “some scientists feel that global warming is more myth than fact”, all are misleading and prejudicial. Any statement of fact should have ample data supporting it, resorting to “some people” opinion statements is not good journalism nor a good sign of the objectivity of the report.

Early on in this post I pointed out some of the factors which have greatly contributed to the death of ethical and responsible journalism. These factors included the increased role of advertisers, the world of wealth the owners of mass media belong to, and the financial realities of media including market share and keeping friendly relations with news makers to insure constant access. Let’s expand on these ideas a moment to further articulate the growing sham that is portrayed as objective journalism.

So often our journalists are asked to stay mute or avoid reporting important news for the sake of “national security’ or if their reports could put “honest Americans in danger”. When reporting on the Iraq war journalists were banned from reports which could provide “aid and comfort to the enemy”, or divulge “sensitive information”. Instead they were required to just cover the press conferences held by the military to update the public on the war, or become “embedded” with the troops in chosen activities. The danger of not following these conditions was obvious in the fact that the Red Cross and foreign and alternative press incurred bomb and artillery attacks on a number of occasions even when they were clearly marked or had recently communicated their position and purpose.

No photos were allowed of military action or of injured or killed servicemen. Any report at all critical of the war or the actions of our military was attacked as anti-American and a danger to our troops. Without balanced and objective coverage of the war American’s weren’t able to monitor and question the policies and actions of its military. A case could be made that freedom of the press could alert the public when a military campaign is unnecessary of ill advised and thereby save the lives of our troops and our national security by removing us from battles unfitting to the goals and ideals of a world power.

One has to wonder about our government’s concern about national security and its relation to what is reported on the news. If filming our troops and military actions in a war zone is a threat to national security then why is not a danger to frequently encourage our press to insult and antagonize our enemies and their leaders?

The list of foreign leaders and nations which our leaders through the media label as evil and crazy is quite extensive. If it were true that these leaders and these nations were truly a threat to our national security why would we publicly call them crazy and ruthless? If we really were vulnerable to their actions and military attacks why would we acknowledge and admit this? If our media retained a shred of journalistic integrity don’t you think that be asking our leaders these questions?

The asking of questions in America which does not serve the interests of the military/industrial complex, or fit into the conservative/liberal debate is all but disallowed. Asking a question when facts don’t match the official story is considered paranoid or conspiracy thinking.

It is easy to view the national media as a lap dog for both the government and the wealthiest of Americans. A short list of what appears to me to be obvious examples of either utter stupidity or complicity should suffice to make my point.

When the towers came down they sure looked like a planned demolition and they came down at near speed of free fall totally inconsistent with the plane impact and resulting fire official story. This doesn’t even speak to the tower that came down which did not suffer any plane impact or direct fire caused by jet fuel. Of course, right away people defending the official story will accuse me of being a conspiracist or assume that I believe it was an inside job. Yet, strip the name calling and labeling away and the questions still remain. I have no idea what happened but why weren’t the logical questions asked?

Soon after the towers came down there were concerns regarding the air quality in the area. The EPA and other “experts” claimed that the air was fine despite the fact that workers and residents were complaining about symptoms which would typically signal a severe reaction to toxic air quality. Yet, despite this obvious contradiction of the official story I did not see any news report where they researched, investigated or questioned the official story in any substantial manner, or interview someone who felt the air was not safe.

The recent Gulf oil spill quickly went from ecological disaster to past history in an amazingly short period of time. The media once again was forbidden to film the spill or the clean up efforts. Then whole procedure was handled like a war situation where the media was forced to limit their reporting to information conveyed at the daily press conferences held by BP and the government.

Once the well was in the process of being capped the story went away. I saw some follow up stories in outlets such as the Christian Science Monitor in which the headlines proclaimed that the Gulf though injured was safe and quickly recovering. Most of the articles I read were artfully written to give the impression that the major harm was done and the long term prospects for the Gulf were promising.

All the articles talked of how effective the clean up efforts were progressing and that though the clean-up may take years, the general health of the waters and the sea life was better than anticipated. The articles that went into some detail do so in the following manner.

First they would state a range of gallons of oil that had been sucked up. These estimates were vague and never expressed in terms of the percentage of total oil spilled. Second they would state that some oil was sinking to the bottom of the gulf and described this oil as being relatively inert and only a harm to the sea life it was covering at the bottom. Each article hinted that the sinking oil was being caused by the chemical dispersants being amply used in the cleanup. No word of explanation was offered as to how something used to disperse the oil was somehow responsible for its coagulating and sinking.

In fact not one single article I read (of over two dozen) mentioned the fact that the oil that was successfully dispersed wasn’t gone, but only dispersed into the water. They would say the noun dispersant but avoided all verb forms which could imply that oil was being dispersed and not removed. Not only did the reports and journalist not ask any questions regarding this conflict, or report the actual mechanics of chemical dispersants, but they also underplayed the toxicity of the chemical dispersants. In sentence after sentence they would say that the dispersants have not been “proved” to be more harmful than the oil, and that in fact they are “considered” to be less toxic than oil.

The following parts of the articles truly show the death of journalism. They went on to say that since the chemical dispersants were less toxic than oil, a combination of the two was actually less toxic than oil alone. They stated that a gallon of oil was far more toxic than a half gallon of oil and a half gallon of dispersant. What they led a reader to believe was that the dispersant was replacing the oil it was dispersing and therefore making the gulf less toxic the more it was used. What was missing was any information regarding the amount of dispersant used compared to the amount of oil in the gulf.

Yet, since by its name a dispersant doesn’t remove but only disperses the most logical conclusion would be that we now have the toxicity of the oil spill plus the toxicity of the dispersant. I was horrified when these logical assumptions weren’t even posed as questions for the professionals to answer. So while the headlines of most of the articles proclaimed the Gulf as being safe, these claims were neither supported or questioned by the content of the articles.

A logical person is only able to conclude that the dispersants were not used to clean up the Gulf or reduce the toxicity of the water, but only to disperse the oil diluting its toxicity by spreading it over a greater area while at the same time making any further attempt at collecting or removing the toxic oil less possible if not impossible. Instead of collecting and cleaning up the massive oil spill, we decided to disperse it into the water system by adding additional toxicity to the water through massive use of chemical dispersants. Though our government showed a moment of backbone and humanity by ordering BP to stop using the dispersant they were and find a less toxic alternative, they did nothing when BP refused to comply and continued the use unabated.

There are literally hundreds of examples I could give in which it appears our national media has at worst lied to or deceived the public and at best did not ask the basic questions inherent in being a journalist.

Many of the world’s tragedies could be reduced and in some cases prevented by media outlets with integrity and ethics. Events and situations such as famine, torture, genocide, epidemics, slavery, abuse, crime and mass exploitation could be reduced or rectified by a free and ethical media. Yet, currently one has to wonder if the media is exacerbating these events and situations by being propagandists and apologists for those who stand to suffer financially by an open and thorough reporting of events and its related discussion.

Jim Guido

I must admit I don’t get all the excitement surrounding the supposed “overhaul” of the US health care system. Other alternative titles for this post were Much Ado About Nothing and Barack’s Big Adventure.

The following excerpts are taken from an article posted on physorg.com and apparently originally written by www.HealthyMagination.com . My points and questions will be written in italics following each excerpt.

-The United States is the only major industrialized nation which does not offer some form of universal health care. The government does provide coverage to the elderly and disabled under Medicare, some of the very poor under Medicaid, government workers and military veterans.

Even after the passage of this controversial bill, the US will remain the only industrialized nation without some form of universal health care.

President Barack Obama’s health care bill, which passed Sunday in the House of Representatives, aims to bring the United States closer to universal coverage than ever before.

Listen to the carefully crafted wording. The bill aims to bring the US closer to universal coverage. This is essentially a non binding promise to one day have a humane health care system.

-Some 15.4 percent of the US population – or 46.3 million people – did not have health insurance in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Since about 10 million of those are not US citizens, the most commonly cited number is 36 million people.
The plan is intended to usher in the most sweeping overhaul of its kind in four decades and extend coverage to some 32 million Americans out of the 36 million who lack it now, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Again the plan is intended to extend coverage, but appears to contain many corporate friendly loopholes to avoid any financial hardship for the health care industry. These non statements are a defense attorneys dream, and allow the health care providers and insurance companies to avoid responsibility while increasing the responsibility of people using their services.

The United States drastically outspends other countries on health care, yet has worse overall outcomes and leaves millions at risk of losing their homes or even lives for lack of insurance.
-Per capita spending in the United States also ranks far ahead of other industrialized nations at 7,290 dollars in 2007. That’s more than 2,500 dollars more per person than Norway, which ranks second, and about 2.5 times the OECD average of 2,984 dollars per person.
-Total health care spending accounted for 2.2 trillion dollars in 2007, or 16.2 percent of US GDP. That’s five percentage points more than second-ranking France and nearly twice the proportion spent by the United Kingdom and Japan.

Pay more get less. Nothing in this bill seems to force this condition to change.

-Nearly 45,000 people die every year in the United States because they don’t have health insurance, a recent study by Harvard University researchers found.
-Premiums for health insurance provided by employers have doubled since 2000 and most workers are spending more out of pocket even as the services covered shrink.
-Medical bills contribute to more than half of personal bankruptcies and homes lost to foreclosure.

The problem obviously is that health insurance is too expensive for many people, So the solution should be to cut down insurance costs so that more people can afford insurance. Yet, there is much in this bill which implies that costs will come down for insurers and health care providers, but actually go up for those needing health care services and insurance.

For the first time in US history, most Americans would be required to buy insurance or face fines, and larger firms could face penalties for not offering coverage.

Care to read that a few times. Not only are we not going to provide health care for all citizens, but were going to penalize them for not having enough money to afford insurance.
This is kind of like credit card companies raising interest rates for those incapable of paying off their debt.

-Until now, insurance companies have been able to deny or even revoke coverage for pre-existing conditions like heart disease, cancer or – in nine states – injuries sustained from domestic violence.
The bill would ban insurance company practices like denying coverage for preexisting illnesses, dropping people from coverage when they get sick, or capping lifetime coverage, and restrict new plans’ use of annual limits.

Sounds good at first, but it doesn’t say anything about capping the amount of money an insurer could charge you for their policy. Hence, instead of dropping your coverage for preexisting conditions or sickness they can just raise their rates beyond your capacity to pay, and then you get slapped with additional fines by the government for not having health insurance.

- No “public option”
After a year-long fight, Obama’s Democratic allies opted not to include a government-backed program to compete with private insurers, which supporters and many analysts described as the best way to rein in costs.

Plainly stated there will be no national health care product which could have been used to keep the profit based companies from gouging the public.

The legislation carries an initial 10-year price tag of 940 billion dollars, but would reduce the ballooning US deficit by 138 billion dollars through 2019 and 1.2 trillion over the following decade, the CBO said.
Democrats have highlighted the independent Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the bill would cost 940 billion dollars over the next 10 years, while cutting 143 billion dollars from the bloated US deficit through 2019 and 1.2 trillion over the following decade.
-Health care spending is expected to eat up 25 percent of the US economy by 2025, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Any doubt that this long term cost savings estimate will be revised down between now and then, and replaced with more ballooning deficits.

The plan creates new state-based marketplaces called exchanges where Americans without employer-provided coverage could buy insurance.
But the bill would also offer subsidies to help individuals who earn too much to get coverage under an expansion of the government’s Medicaid program but under 400 percent of the US federal poverty level, which in 2009 stood at earnings of 22,000 dollars per year for a family of four.

Some nice double talk and a few crumbs for the poor before they get those nasty penalties and fines for being poor.

-While the United States excels in areas such as cancer care, it lags behind other industrialized nations in avoidable hospital admissions for treatable conditions like asthma and diabetes, the OECD found. Disparities also lead to high infant mortality rates and a shortened life expectancy.

Not much in this bill which offers a promise of better health care, but rather lower costs and higher profits for health care related industries.

Republicans also vowed to keep up the fight in the Senate — the next battleground — and repeal the broadly unpopular bill if they win back majorities in November.

There you go, now comes the real reason for the health care bill passage. Obama put his political future on the line by promising a new health care system, and Republican’s now can spin the hell out of this non-issue to win back the House and Senate. Obama can say he lived up to his word and complain bitterly when his bill is compromised or revoked by the House and Senate, and the Republican’s are able to politically exploit a bill which will not improve US health care.

After a year of often bitter debate, Obama cleared the way to his victory with an 11th-hour deal to sign an executive order reaffirming a longstanding US ban on government funding for abortions, winning support for the bill from a group of conservative Democratic holdouts.

It just gets better and better doesn’t it.

Just a final note on the who truly benefits by the passage of this bill you only have to look at the stock market. Since the passage of the bill stock’s related to the health care industries have done well, with many skyrocketing.

The financial press attributes this to the fact that “uncertainty” has been removed from the market. If they certainly were going to lose money, I doubt the stocks would have exploded upward.

Jim Guido

In the last couple of posts I’ve outlined possible reasons why the US appears to lead the world in depression. I would like to talk a little on how the war on terror fits into this equation.

We’ve covered in depth how fear, uncertainty and being lied to contribute towards a person developing feelings of helplessness and hopelessness which often lead to depression. The war on terror is definitely filled with fear and uncertainty and appears to be filled with a lot of deception and inaccurate information.

One of the consequences on the war on terror is a sense of perpetually being vigilant and on alert. Our need to develop elaborate means of establishing security has only added to the irony of how our vaulted freedom is supposedly preserved.

Despite having the highest prison population per capita in the world we are told we are the land of the free. We are also told that we are free only because we fight for our freedom, yet if we are perpetually at war, how can we be free? In the war on terror we are told we must sacrifice some of our freedoms and rights in exchange for our safety and freedom. Hardly a month goes by in which some security measure invading our privacy is introduced or revealed.

In the last post we talked of how sophisticated and prevalent it has become for our government to sell the public on a war or the need for a military intervention. Ever since the early 1900’s with the advent of the Council on Public Opinion (CPI) our government has spent much time and money in the development of public relations and propaganda techniques to influence and manage public opinion. The bulk of these efforts have been to find ways to convince democratic voters to tolerate and support the aggressive military policies of our government.

Most military actions we have taken in the last century have involved public relations campaigns to foster public support. Creating feeling of fear and hatred have been found to be the most effective means of swaying mothers to encourage their sons to go to war. Public support for war has usually been fostered by focusing on a single horrific event. As mentioned before the more years that pass after the event, the more likely we are to find out the event was not only exploited but often staged or even fabricated.

With this in mind, the underpinning of the war on terror become increasingly doubtful. Much of the fuel and sustenance for the war on terror was created by the events of 9/11. We are told that on that day we were attacked by terrorists. Since that day and its many horrific images burnt into our brains we have been told that we are at war, with terrorists all around the globe.

We are told that terrorists are everywhere and that our security and safety is threatened until the vast majority of terrorist leaders are ferreted out and destroyed. Though anyone could be a terrorist the standard profile involves someone who believes that we are evil and is willing to do anything to accomplish their goal of destroying us and our society. As proof of this we’re offered daily news items and testimonials of suicide bombers and religious fanatics that believe violent martyrdom is the most certain means of acquiring everlasting life or entry into heaven.

This dire and constant threat has been used to justify our need to move unilaterally and violate international law, invade sovereign nations, threaten and impose embargoes on nations which may harbor terrorists, torture, use banned weapons and strip individuals of their right to trial. The result of which is the killing and starvation of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people around the globe, the escalation of ill will towards the US for its policies and practices, and the introduction of homeland security measures which increased fear levels while decreasing personal privacy for many law abiding citizens.

Due to the fact that terrorists would gladly sacrifice their lives to injure or terrorize even one American we have stepped up measures to protect our shores and insure that no US citizen has to endure another terrorist attack within our borders. Air travel in particular has been the focus of homeland security. The invasive searches and high tech checks of our air travelers have apparently been successful since no terrorists attacks have occurred since 9/11.

Yet, when we take into account the long history of US exaggeration and fabrication of information to acquire public support of its military ventures we have to question the very existence of an actual war with terrorists. Just as was the case in the great red scare of the 50’s is the current great terrorist scare mainly a PR fiction?

Let’s think for a moment about the fact that no terrorist attack has occurred since the lone attack almost a decade ago. So in the last nine years not one person or group has successfully staged an attack on US soil. This amazing accomplishment despite the fact that legions of angry terrorists and fundamentalist muslims would literally do anything to harm and scare us.

How can the US which on a daily basis has hundreds of illegal immigrants cross its borders along with tons of illegal weapons be so perfect in preventing terrorist attacks? If millions of people, who supposedly hate us and our freedom, are being promised entry into heaven by attacking us, then how are they not getting the job done? Couldn’t they cross our border’s by land or water? Couldn’t they hire someone who does regularly cross our borders to do their work?

How is this a war? Our actions are consistent with a war? We’re bombing, torturing, threatening and invading foreign lands. But where are the counter attacks? How can we say we are at war with a people who haven’t taken the offensive and attacked our land in over nine years?

I have no idea what happened on 9/11 other than the towers were hit by two planes and they crashed killing a few thousand innocent people. I also know that a third sky scraper fell that day despite not being hit by a plane.

I do have difficulty accepting the explanations of how the towers fell because they defy the basic laws of physics. I have no belief that I know the real story, I only know that skyscrapers do not fall due to fires in such an manner in a few hours. Neither the planes nor fires pass logical muster as a cause, nor the small fires in the third building to merit its full collapse. Skyscrapers throughout the globe that have caught fire have raged for days sometimes leaving a hollow shell, but have never collapsed. Why were these the first?

The buildings themselves collapsed in near perfect demolition fashion, and almost at the speed of gravity (free fall). The pancake collapse we’re led to believe occurred would have taken longer to happen and the impacts over a number of floors would have been visually noticeable.

The towers were brought down by other methods. I can’t say how or why, or who did it, but it concerns me that we are not being told a reasonable explanation. Why we are being lied to is what is most alarming? Yet, the explanations for events which have been used to garner public opinion to go to war have always been distorted and inaccurate.

We live in a culture where we are being taught to fear and hate others and not to trust any other nation on the planet. We always have to be on guard and vigilant. We are seldom told the truth. Sometimes we are deceived to protect us, get our vote, or just to get us to buy one product over another. Yet, in most cases we are not privy to the truth, but rather given a healthy helping of spin and propaganda.

All of this helps explain why depression is rising in an epidemic fashion in the US.

I apologize to anyone offended by anything I said in this post. The purpose was to postulate some of the reasons why our nation is becoming a depressed one. I’m neither a republican nor a democrat, and the latter part of the post was not intended to be political, but rather an attempt to explore some of the habits and practices in our culture which could help promote depression as a social phenomenon.

Jim Guido

If I were an elected official I would conduct my administration in the following manner.

I would try as much as possible to live up to the term public servant. I would incorporate practices which maximize transparency, engender actual democracy and keep the public up to date.

The first thing I would do is to have my working hours documented for all to see and hear. This could be accomplished by having my meetings, and business telephone conversations and the like taped and played on the internet and cable TV.  Hopefully this would limit the number of people such as special interest groups from attempting to influence my actions by behind the scene influence, as well as keep people informed of what I’m doing in their name.

I also would disseminate the various views on a number of important issues so the public could educate themselves on the issues. When making a decision, I would publish why I chose the solution I did and compare and contrast its merits with the other options that were available. As often as possible I would track the relative success of the decisions I’ve made and let the public know when and why a chosen policy was amended or altered due to its actual efficacy in improving the community.

In a direct democracy people would vote on issues themselves. Therefore, at times I would like to place many issues up for public vote. Citizens could vote by telephone, internet, or by voting booth.

Yet, no one wants uninformed individuals to vote on any issue. Hence, people would have to prove their knowledge before being allowed to vote on an issue.  Sufficient familiarity of the issue could be proven by answering a few questions derived from the issue papers I would have posted on the internet, cable TV, and at voting facilities.

In some cases the actual votes would decide the course of action to be taken, in other cases the vote would be taken just to get an accurate read of public opinion. In a situation whereby a number of possible courses of action were proposed we would list the percentage of vote for each proposed solution or action. This would allow us to try the second most popular plan if the initial plan wasn’t proving to be as successful as hoped.

I previously worked for a non-profit organization which attempted to help the public form and institute actions which would have a positive impact on the quality of life of those living in our community. This process involved choosing a topic that would be discussed throughout the year. The potential topics were arrived at by asking the public which areas they were most concerned about. Our community over several years chose education, housing, health care, transportation and air and water quality to name a few.

Groups of citizens would meet to discuss the chosen issue and be led by trained facilitators to come up with possible solutions. These potential solutions would be presented to the chamber of commerce, city council and all vested parties. If a solution were popular, but not immediately adopted, we would help citizens form task forces and action groups to help them keep their vision alive.

In the initial discussion circles all citizens were listened to and their feelings and concerns hopefully validated and articulated. I found that when people felt hear and understood they were more willing to try a solution which wasn’t their first choice, knowing that their solution would be back on the table if the chosen solution proved to be unsuccessful. All chosen solutions were published and their success or lack of success was followed and documented by agreed upon benchmarks and outcomes. As an example the solutions for improving local education would be evaluated by test scores, student performance, attendance and many other concrete statistics.

There is no perfect governmental structure, and there would be many flaws and complications with an open form of government which I am proposing. Yet, I do feel it is the right direction to go towards.

I would not try to win an election. If people liked my ideas and methods than they should vote for me, if they didn’t like my ideas then they shouldn’t vote for me.

Winning an election should not just be a popularity contest, but rather a decision of how we want to be governed and what type of person fits the attitude of the time. If people didn’t agree with my basic stance and my general principles, why would I want their vote, and what good can I do for people who are fundamentally opposed to my way of being in the world?

Our current format of having politicians being handled and packaged and altering how they express their ideas by the latest poll results is not working very well, and is a very insincere and dishonest means of governing.

Yet, if that’s what people want, then by all means they should continue to support the current system. Yet, if people do not want salesmanship, spin and dishonesty that they need to demand change.

The following lyrics express some of my concerns with modern politics. The songs can be heard in the music section, Mob Rule is on the Edge of Eden CD. Political Guys and Demonic Democracy are on Opportunity Lost and Demonic Democracy can be found on the Surviving Sophistry CD.

Jim Guido

Mob Rule

My life keeps reaching away from storm
But who’s that teaching a hateful scorn?
Wisdom’s flame will blow out one day
When fools keep talking their winds of decay
I wonder if they know?
What is believing if not adorned
With wreaths of feeling one’s love restored?
We need a leader today
Who leads the herd not held in its sway
I sit here waiting for you

The people’s man keeps shaking hands
Plays the crowd like a slick magician
His words of hope there is no antidote
He speaks our words so we believe him
Makes me angry, makes me sad
Makes we proud to live in this land
What we want over what we need
Seduces us into feeling free

Feeling ecstasy, popular people telling popular stories
Of comfortable change, popular people telling popular stories

In limousines and dairy queens
The cameras focus on smiling faces
What is shown is all that’s known
Along with words meant to please everybody
Seeking pleasure, needing change
The crowd’s excited just the same
The torch’s ablaze, the mob’s enraged
Self-righteous truth fuels the flame

Mob rule ain’t that true? mob rule it’s what we groom
Mob rule it’s who you know, mob rule to get control
Mob rule just step in line, mob rule and let the anger fly
Mob rule it’s how you act, mob rule now that’s a fact

What’s right is right if you got the votes
In a democratic land that called control
Mob rule we’ve been had, mob rule it’s so sad
Mob rule just one big bang, mob rule let’s wave the flag
Where have all the heroes gone like the sheriff at the courthouse
Speaking words of justice to calm an angry lynch mob?

Public Serpent

You lost my trust, I feel disgust
When I think of how you must live
Your words are feeble, you speak of evil
I feel my lunch coming

You so depend that we’ll suspend
Deny all we know to be true
You smile on screen, I shout and scream
Aigh-aigh-aigh

Say what you want your time draws near
The hate that you wrought is about to come back at you
Your pampered life of strong-armed fear
The friends that you bought are about to find friends elsewhere

You herd the sheep, you bah they bleat
Starting wars with indignation
Self-righteous toad, you seek control
For you have no talents

I seek no harm, just sound the alarm
And hope that our plight’s over
I like to care, be kind and fair
But your venom has poisoned our place in the world

Say what you want your time draws near
The hate that you wrought is about to come back at you
Your pampered life of strong-armed fear
The friends that you bought are about to find friends elsewhere

Though you talk of noble causes there are hisses in your words
When you speak of love and justice, I never feel your heart
Cheaters often prosper that’s a fact of life
But their victories are so shallow for they must forever be on guard

Cryptic reasons to go to war the demons got the bomb
Sordid visions of mass destruction gives us all a shove
Our sovereign goodness we defend, all threats we’ll overcome
When public serpent bares his fangs the masses will succumb

Say what you want your time is going to come
Do what you want, you’re doomed from the start

Political Guys

Lost in the fire of yesterdays is the passion which powers reason
Now we smile at everything, treading lightly avoiding tension
Saying nothing silence is but a tool
Making friendships with bonds that have no clue

How long can we live a lie?
Shaking hands and hugging bodies
Acting like we’re close
Not knowing anything about anybody
Incorrigible lies, lie behind those eyes not blinking
Despicable smiles, convicting you while they’re gleaming

Searching long to find someone willing to drop their mask
That’s all I ask

Locked on the screen I see a smile
Quite like the others I see around me
Every word a lithograph
Every pause so well acted
No one’s thinking reporters explain it to you
The smile keeps talking never missing a cue

It’s hard to swim across the river of contradictions
It’s hard to find a smile which speaks with some distinction

Political guys, decisive roads to indecision
Political guise, leave no trails of comprehension

Searching long to find someone willing to drop their mask
That’s all I ask
Political guys, buy our freedom through corruption
Political guise, use our boys for more extortion

When innocent lives are shattered to pieces

Oh, I don’t love anyone any more
Oh, I don’t hate anyone any more

Demonic Democracy

I partied quite a lot it’s true
My wife killed a boyfriend from school
My dad tortured evil men so cruel
Thru failed businesses my wealth grew

I’ve lived a shallow life well connected well advised
Almost everything goes my way
I will sacrifice a few thousand lives
To gain your support and your praise

I’ve faith in god and so should you
We’ll kill off evil at its roots
If you question me you’re a fool
For god is right and I’m his tool

You will have to sacrifice a few basic rights
To make this land totally free
I may have to hide from you many important clues
To insure our national security

I’ve got you traumatized so afraid you’ll buy all my lies
I’ve got you running scared passing laws that give me power
There’s no limit to what I can do give to friends what I take from you
Pumping up our national pride cutting deals that give me power

I’ve got you mesmerized making war and making prisons
I’ve got you mesmerized making war and making money
Making money for me and my buddies
Making money lots and lots and lots of money

The response to the tragedy in Haiti has truly been heartwarming. It is so nice to hear of people in the US and around the globe reach out their hands to those in need.When people respond the way they have, especially during these hard economic times, it truly makes me proud to be a member of the human race.

Yet, I would like everyone to take a moment to make sure that the government and all those working on our behalf in this crisis are doing so according to our good intentions. I think it is important to understand what our government is doing in our name and with our money.

I ask you all to take a minute to learn of the political and economic history of Haiti and our (the US) relationship to Haiti.

I recently read some excellent articles about Haiti at counterpunch.com. The writers at this site have some pretty impressive educational, governmental and journalistic resumes. I encourage you to look over their recent articles on Haiti.

I also invite you to Google Haitian history and the US to learn more of our role and function in Haitian life. A good starting point may be to Google Noam Chomsky as he has been one of the most thorough historians of the US’s role in Western Hemisphere politics.

Yet, for the moment let me just say a few things which may explain why I’d like you to do some research. Again what I know is minimal and that’s why you should do your own research.

Haiti has long been a poor nation dependent on fishing and farming to survive. It would make sense that its wealthy neighbor (the US) would lend a helping hand.

Yet, after over half a century of political interventions (interference and control?) and economic programs (exploitation?) the country is worse off than it ever was. Haiti is now the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

The farmers of the past have long ago lost their land and jobs to large foreign farming conglomerates which have grown exportable cash crops instead of basic food stuffs.  Neither the profits nor the foods have benefited the average Haitian resulting in the abject poverty and starvation of millions of people. This has resulted in out of work farmers flooding into the urban regions seeking work.

The response to this need has been to set up very low paying jobs in the clothing manufacturing trade often referred to as sweat shops. These jobs have not ended poverty but increased it as the workers still make less than $2 a day. It is hard to imagine $2 a day even covering food expenses for a person living on an island dependent on importing its basic food stuffs.

Politically our involvement in Haiti has even been more controversial and just as damaging.

I will use the following article I found on line this morning to help illustrate some of my concerns about how the US government is responding to the Haitian crisis.

About 5,000 U.S. military personnel were already assisting on the ground and from ships nearby, and four Navy ships and an additional 7,500 personnel were scheduled to arrive today, according to U.S. Southern Command.

The Navy hospital ship USS Comfort got underway this weekend; it is to arrive Wednesday. The ship, which received move orders Thursday, has 250 beds and a 550-person medical team. It was the ship’s fastest launch ever, said Steve Lucas, spokesman for Southern Command.

The military was worried that crime and looting would harm efforts.

“We are going to have to address the situation of security,” said Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, head of the U.S. task force in Haiti.

Haitian police struggled to scatter hundreds of stone-throwing looters in the city’s Vieux Marche, or Old Market. Elsewhere, amid the smoke from bonfires burning uncollected bodies, gunfire could be heard and bands of machete-wielding young men roamed the streets.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Okay here go the red flags I see here. Last night I watched the Haitian piece on 60 Minutes. In this piece they mentioned that US military personnel plans on staying in Haiti for months.  Do we really need to have our military lead rescue and recovery efforts? After Katrina we had trouble even freeing a few national guardsmen to help with the devastation in New Orleans. Now, with even more troops being stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to spare Marines and thousands of troops to lead and or monitor rebuilding efforts in Haiti, something just doesn’t add up.

Why not just beef up support for professional rescue operations such as the Red Cross rather than a military presence which did such a poor job in its humanitarian role in Iraq? Crisis assistance is a profession and dealing with people engulfed in so much medical, psychological and emotional trauma as the Haitians have, needs expert care not military intervention. If you think some military people are needed to help quell the looting and crime and emotional outbursts of people on the verge of death and starvation, well 12,000 land troops is definitely overkill.

If you look on YouTube you can find ample footage showing a number of local Haitian police patrolling the public toting machine guns over the last number of years. Poverty, starvation and police control aren’t new to these parts, the earthquake is the new element.

The USA today article is vague about how the current 5000 troops on the ground got there. In the quote “About 5,000 U.S. military personnel were already assisting on the ground and from ships nearby”, seems to imply our military presence was either already on land or in nearby ships before the earthquake. Doesn’t 5000 seem like an awful lot of troops just to have milling about Haiti? It seems to imply to me that we’ve been militarily interested in Haiti for quite awhile (again read the history).

Second, sending 7500 additional troops six or seven days after the quake seems like a missed opportunity from a crisis point. Having crisis response people arrive a week after the event seems odd in this day and age. That would be like sending snail mail correspondences instead of telephone and emails. In modern day transportation the military ship has got to be one of the slowest mediums available.

To justify the military role as being truly humanitarian and not a excuse for military aspirations the sentence regarding the hospital ship is more telling, “The Navy hospital ship USS Comfort got underway this weekend; it is to arrive Wednesday. The ship, which received move orders Thursday, has 250 beds and a 550-person medical team. It was the ship’s fastest launch ever, said Steve Lucas, spokesman for Southern Command.”

Considering the size of the tragedy 250 beds seems rather small, especially 250 beds which are arriving almost two weeks after the event. When every minute that passes could result in another preventable death, why would you send medical personnel by boat?

Think about it 12,500 military on hand while 550 medical personnel are still out at sea, as lives are hanging in the balance.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to fly in 12,500 medical personnel and boat in about 550 military personnel. In an emergency situation where time is of the essence who would dream of having designing a plan inn which your expert medical personnel arrives some 20,000 minutes after the beginning of the emergency. And this despite the fact that this was done, according to the article, in record time!

In the meantime we will have over 12,000 military personnel on the ground who instead of fighting which they are trained for, are providing medical and trauma care for one of the largest and severest tragedies of our life time.  The military might be minimizing but not denying its military purpose. The article says,”We are going to have to address the situation of security,” said Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, head of the U.S. task force in Haiti, and begins to lay the groundwork for later escalation of troop police action by the following.

“Haitian police struggled to scatter hundreds of stone-throwing looters in the city’s Vieux Marche, or Old Market. Elsewhere, amid the smoke from bonfires burning uncollected bodies, gunfire could be heard and bands of machete-wielding young men roamed the streets.”

Whether intentionally or not, this is a very artfully constructed sentence setting the stage for future escalation of police action. Hundreds of stone throwing people does not support the image of utter chaos deserving 12,500 US troops. Yet, the reference to distant gun fire does get our foot in the door. The fact is that most Haitians no matter how angry they are do not have the monetary resources for a lot of arms and firepower. The guns are either being fired by a few wealthier dissidents or by the police themselves to control rioting. Yet, in this abject poverty there isn’t a whole lot to steal. The term “bands” will probably soon became gangs and slowly morph into terrorists and resistance groups if we amp up our military role in once again “maintaining the peace” as we are doing in so many other nations around the globe.

The hate the Haitians mentality has long been part of our political ideology. The remarks by Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh are not isolated but in fact representative of much of US policy over the last half century of so. But,  don’t take my word for it, look it up.

Jim Guido

I’m always amazed and fascinated at how efficient US propagandists are in creating a debate which draws people away from the real issue.  At other times they simply find a way to change the focus of a movement which suits their purposes.

The women’s movement which started out as a quality of life issue, got morphed into a rather narrow personal rights and monetary issue. This subtle shift in the national discussion allowed our government and corporate structure to capitalize on the women’s movement and slowly have two pay checks equal the purchasing power and standard of living of one pay check a few decades back.

The women’s movement quickly dropped its emphasis on intimacy and personal development and traded it in for consumption and jobs which men were finding oppressive and unrewarding. Instead of freeing men and woman from oppressive roles and serfdom the women’s movement was seduced into joining men in their prison with such deceptive slogans as “you’ve come a long way baby” in a series of commercial celebrating the fact that woman could now use their new found economic life to get cancer like their workaholic husbands they felt so alienated from.

Likewise the propagandists artfully steered the American public away from their fervent opposition to our many wars treating other nations as US property, to a demand that we “support the troops”. Any words spoken against the war(s) were both a source of motivation and “support to our enemies” while undermining the “courageous” efforts of our young men and women in battle. Never mind the fact that the reasons for war were fictitious at best and more than likely morally indefensible.

When the Soviet Union fell the US became the undisputed world superpower. Despite this, the US’s involvement in military conflicts and police actions continued to escalate. Public anger with our government’s international actions and policies grew along with a reluctance to encourage our children to get involved in such military actions.

Then voila we suddenly found (created) an enemy worthy of our fear and hatred. This, of course, is terrorism and the war on terrorism. Terrorists exist no where in particular, but can and as the propagandists say, do exist everywhere.  Terrorists are  as hard to identify as they are to define.

Since terrorists sole goal is to destroy us and our way of life, it is “imperative” that we act aggressively and savagely to extinguish them before they proliferate. The propagandists have used this logic to defend our use of torture, banned substances, and unilateral and unsanctioned military action. The war on terror gives the US reason and the duty to invade any country at any time with or without that country’s permission.

So, now let’s take a look at how the “debate on global warming” is just another example of how good our government and corporate propagandists are at diverting the public’s attention away from the obvious.

The battle between environmentalists and corporate spin doctors and propagandists has been lengthy. At every turn spin doctors have found a way to change the dialogue or find a way to make the most profit out of a situation.

The ecological movement which began in the early seventies suffered a huge set back in the late seventies when an OPEC driven energy crisis and stagflation were used to outweigh all concerns regarding pollution caused by fossil fuels. Public relations departments trumpeted their new “concern for your total environment” putting fisheries next to energy plants while the smoke stack industry tried to make their toxic discharges look more environmentally friendly.

Neatly tailored industrial parks, and beach renovations were used to paint lip stick on the environmental pigs. Nuclear power plants which were not as profitable as coal based plants were phased out as a sign of corporate concern for the public health. Newer plants were able to have the toxic releases of coal plants be less visually obvious, and through the efforts of spin doctors and narrow and highly funded scientific studies industries were able to convince the public that their environment was becoming cleaner and healthier.

The debate over ecological concerns regarding the efficient and frugal use of natural resources would slowly resurface in the early eighties as the economy recovered. It was at this time that a lot of the discussion focused on the deterioration of the ozone layer and its effects on people and wildlife.

Once again corporate spin doctors did an excellent job of posing themselves as well intentioned victims of fanatics and potentially harmful idealists. They fended off attacks by environmentalists concerns regarding species extinction by forming and funding fraudulent and extreme conservation groups who were given ample TV and radio air time as they tried to halt progress in order to save a single bird (like the spotted owl).  Soon the bulk of the American public viewed ecologists and ecological activists as being goofy reactionaries disconnected from the real world.

Likewise, environmental health concerns regarding lead paint, asbestos, PCB’s etc. were posed as extreme measures tending to minor problems. Public sympathy was swayed by the expense, tediousness and inconvenience of the governments (EPA’s) clean up programs and interventions.  Once again the environmental and health concerns of ecological activists were successfully posed as being unnecessary and economically unrealistic and harmful.

The changes and concessions made by corporate America were, like always, done in a manner which increased their profits while at the same time fostering public support and sympathy. Concerns regarding the effects of ozone depletion gave rise to skin and sun screen products as well as more profitable delivery systems than the aerosol can. Highly profitable green industries began to sprout up everywhere from organic food stores to recycling industries and businesses.

The current debate on global warming is just the latest manifestation of how corporate and government spin doctors divert and win public opinion and support. The science regarding the effects of industrial pollution and practices on the environment is still in its infancy. Though much compelling information exists, its models and long term predictions are still crude. The number of variables are vast making it difficult to make any reasonable forecast for the foreseeable future.

The complexity of the situation and science makes it so easy for the spin doctors to make the global warming crowd fit the standard role of naive reactionaries who pose a threat to our economic progress and stability. By forcing scientists and activists to prove their viewpoint through specific predictions over short time frames, they are demanding the impossible, and setting up the ecologists to fail and look ridiculous.

Let’s say when psychologists first talked of the harms caused by physical abuse and torture they were scoffed at and demanded to prove their case. Early psychologists would likely say that abused children would develop many psychosocial problems including depression, increase aggression and violence, low self-esteem and inabilities to establish and maintain relationships. Those who have endured long term or severe torture would have similar social deficits and personal handicaps.

Let’s go on to say that the psychologists were demanded to give specific time frames for the manifestation of these problems to arise. They would say many things, but some psychologists would point out that the onset of many of these problems could be almost immediate.

Therefore, any spin doctor opposed to the psychologists viewpoint could easily distort and destroy the psychologists assertion. One could easily find children and even adults who have been physically abused and tortured who function and appear to be happy and productive people. By writing a few articles stating psychological theories and well documented probabilities as predictions of fact, one could sway the reading public to view the psychologists as reactionary and wrong about their assumptions and predictions of the effects of violence on human beings.

This is what is happening in the global warming debate where spin doctors are now popularizing specific dire concerns and possible scenarios of the effects of industrial pollution as specific predictions. If we do not flood in five years, or all polar bears drown than global warming doesn’t exist or at least does not pose any immanent danger.

Think how easy it would be to form some bogus ecological body and pay them to make outrageous statements or popularize data which negates specific claims. Talk about your low hanging fruit. Think of how many pilot studies and papers are written each day. What if I were paid handsomely to find dubious studies or to find ways to interpret studies to give the impression that if such and such doesn’t happen this winter or this year than the global warming perspective is wrong.

Even though I find much of the current evidence regarding global warming somewhat compelling, to me it isn’t the point. Even if global warming isn’t happening, or at least not to the point to usher in a global disaster or ice age, it doesn’t mean that ecological concerns are myths or needless fear mongering.

The point is that dumping tons of toxic waste into our air and water on a daily basis is most likely not a good thing. It’s hard to prove that abuse is destructive to the human spirit, but its harms are well documented. Just as we could never prove smoking caused cancer, it was obvious it had a terrible track record in terms of personal health.

The debate over global warming is a spin doctors dream. It is diverting the attention  away from the obvious harms of toxic pollution and onto a debate which cannot be decided or proven. Those opposed to global warming do not have to prove that global warming isn’t happening, they only have to show the ways in which any global warming model of their choosing is wrong or inaccurate.

Jim Guido