Robert McChesney's The Political Economy of Media - Part II

Robert McChesney's The Political Economy of Media (Part II) - by Stephen Lendman

McChesney's book is a compilation of his best political economy of media work in the past two decades. It contains 23 separate offerings under three topic headings. In them he covers "enduring issues" and "emerging dilemmas." Part I of this review discussed some of them. More follow below. The entire book is must reading and contains new material never before published.

The Battle for the US Airwaves, 1928 - 1935

McChesney recounts the beginning. It explains much of the current dilemma and necessity to confront it.

The notion that the dominant media system is "natural" and was adopted enthusiastically is pure myth. Opposition to what emerged was considerable. It insisted that network, for-profit, commercial broadcasting was inimical to the public interest, and that there should be a substantial nonprofit sector.

In the mid-1920s, things looked much different than later on. Several hundred nonprofit broadcasters began operating in the decade's early years, mostly affiliated with colleges and universities. Commercial ones, in contrast, weren't even professionals. They were owned and run by newspapers, department stores, power companies and others in the private sector.

NBC was established in 1926, CBS the following year, and neither had an impact until the 1927 Radio Act's passage. Commercial advertising, the pillar of today's system, hardly existed until 1928. It was very controversial and very unpopular throughout the 1920s. Before 1927, it was generally agreed that nonprofit broadcasting should have a significant, even a dominant position, in the US system.

Then came the Radio Act that year. It established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC). It was to make the airwaves orderly, reduce the number of stations, allocate broadcast licenses, and favor those applicants that would best serve the "public interest, convenience or necessity." The FRC was renewed in 1928 and then indefinitely in 1929. It used these years to solidify the emerging industry's dominance and make no effort to change it.

FRC held meetings with commercial broadcasters. Nonprofits and nonbroadcasters were left out, so it's not surprising how things developed. FRC's reallocation plan came out under General Order 40. Of the 90 available, it set aside forty 50,000 watt clear channels for one occupant nationally. The remaining 600 broadcasters got the other 50 to operate simultaneously on at much lower power levels. Those in the same region would share a frequency at different times of day. The squeeze was on, and by autumn 1929, 100 fewer stations were on-air.

Not surprisingly, the networks won big. They got a flying start, and by the early 1930s, controlled 30% of the stations, including all but three of the clear channel ones. In addition, commercial advertising began growing substantially. Equally dramatic was the decline in nonprofit, noncommercial broadcasting. The FRC reduced their hours and power and made it harder for them to generate funds to keep operating. As a result, by 1930, their numbers dropped to less than one-third their 1927 total of around 200. By 1934, nonprofit broadcasting accounted for about 2% of total broadcast time. Business was king. The potential of the medium was beginning to be understood. The FRC was on board to support it, and said it was in "general public service" to do it.

Nonetheless, nonprofit opposition emerged. A National Committee on Education by Radio (NCER) was formed to get Congress to set aside 15% of channels for its use. Other nonprofit broadcasters joined the battle, and so did newspaper owners (at first) and civic groups. The former ended up partnering with for-profit broadcasters, while remaining opposition elements continued the struggle. They were against the status quo and wanted reform. Three themes underlined their position:

-- the airwaves should be a public resource and broadcasting a public utility;

-- most important, an advertising-supported for-profit network would use its programming to defend the status quo and would shut out unpopular or radical ideas; and

-- reformers criticized broadcast advertising and the limitations of for-profit broadcasting; it would work against cultural, educational, and public affairs efforts that are less suited to commercial operations.

Opposition groups proposed a number of plans with three getting the most attention in the early 1930s:

-- setting aside a fixed percentage (15 - 25%) of broadcast channels for exclusive nonprofit use;

-- have Congress authorize an extensive and independent broadcasting study to devise a whole new system; and

-- have the government establish a number of local, regional, and national nonprofit stations; they'd be subsidized by taxes and operated by a congressionally approved citizen board of directors; these stations would supplement, not replace, commercial operations.

None of the proposals were considered. For-profit operators worked against them. The opposition movement was divided in its tactics, and it faced three major barriers - the radio lobby, consisting of NBC, CBS and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). They went all out with a PR blitz to establish the "status quo."

Against this, reformers got little coverage while the press was strongly on board with the broadcasters. So was the legal community. The ABA established a Standing Committee on Communications in the late 1920s and stacked it with commercial broadcasting attorneys, The handwriting was on the wall.

The campaign to restructure commercial broadcasting went through three distinct phases from 1930 to 1935:

-- from 1930 to when Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933; the period was "the high watermark for popular discontent with US broadcasting;" it won over House and Senate support for setting aside nonprofit channels; nothing passed because economy recovery legislation took precedence; more significantly, powerful leaders (like Clarence Dill, chairman of the Senate Commerce Commission) blocked anti-commercial reforms; so did Sam Rayburn in the House;

-- from 1933 until the Communications Act of 1934; it established permanent broadcasting law; reformers hoped Roosevelt would support them; instead he ducked; he was in no mood to confront a "powerful and entrenched communications industry," especially when passing New Deal legislation took precedence; broadcasters seized the moment; they got House and Senate leaders on board; got the Communications Act passed, the FCC established, and pretty much everything they wanted; Roosevelt signed the new law in June 1934; it was called a "New Deal in Radio Law;" indeed so for the broadcasters; and

-- in January 1935, the FCC formerly reported to Congress that there was no need to alter the status quo; nonprofits lost out, and for the rest of the 1930s "the industry became economically and politically consolidated;" by decade's end, the public no longer had a say over what kind of system was best; as far as government and industry are concerned, they still don't, but surging reform movements blossomed post-2000 to change things; McChesney is one of its leaders; more on that below.

The Commercial Tidal Wave

Corporate giants today are so dominant that they compete less on price and more on what economists call "monopolistic competition." Advertising is key. It needs "advertising-friendly policies and regulations to allow it to flourish," and its the major source of media revenues.

Most notably on television, it's "ubiquitous." Yet the greater number of ads, the more alike they become, less believable, and less people pay attention to them. One solution - run more ads. The airwaves wreak with them, and the "commercial tidal wave" takes many forms. On radio and television, they consume nearly one-third of each hour compared to around half that volume before 1982.

Advertisers have also gotten very creative and more intrusive. A proliferation of TV "infomercials" for one thing, and entertainment programming "product placement" is everywhere. The idea is to seamlessly weave products into story lines so they're hard to ignore. It's not cheap with Coca Cola one of many examples. It paid Time Warner $25 million for the characters of one prime time show to "drink Cokes in each episode." Time Warner also developed "virtual" advertising by getting products placed retroactively in popular shows.

Radio is used as well. Increasingly, broadcasters use airtime to hype products they're paid to advertise. Hollywood is also cashing in. Disney's Miramax Films cut a deal to make Coors the studio's official beer and feature it exclusively in Miramax productions. Then consider James Bond films. They once shunned product placements. No longer in today's "very competitive movie environment." It's now a necessity, and look at the payoff. The 2002 Bond film, Die Another Day, so wreaked with them that Variety called it an "ad-venture," and the Financial Times said James Bond is now "licensed to sell" - with a $120 million payoff for the film studio.

Product placements show up everywhere, and children aren't exempt. Far from it. The animated film, Foodfight, had "thousands of products and character icons from the familiar (items) in a grocery store." Children's books also feature branded items and characters, and millions of them have snack foods as lead characters.

ESPN is cashing in as well with help from digital ad firm Princeton Video Image. It places changing product billboards on walls behind home plate on Major League baseball telecasts. Only viewers see them, not fans at games because they're not there.

Overall, the wall separating ads from editorial is disappearing because of media companies' greed, advertisers' enormous clout, and the concentrated power of eight dominant advertising/PR agencies that control 80% of all spending. They have great leverage - over product placement and program content. They're also clever enough to produce ads that are indistinguishable from entertainment.

Sum it up and here's the problem. Advertising is all-pervasive. We drowning in it and paying the price. It's corrosive to society and intrusive in our lives. It fosters false values, wants and needs. It makes otherwise normal people shop excessively for what they never knew they wanted until Madison Avenue mind manipulators convinced them. Years ago, economist Paul Baran said makes us "want what we don't need (nonessential consumer goods and services) and not....what we do (health care, education, clean air and water, safe food, good government, and so forth)."

Things are so extreme, McChesney puts it this way. We're "rapidly moving to a whole new paradigm for media and commercialism, where traditional borders are disintegrating and conventional standards are being replaced with something significantly different." It marries content with commercialism so pervasively they're indistinguishable, and it shows up everywhere all the time - television, radio, movies, publications, music, popular culture, schools, universities, public vehicles, commercial ones, public broadcasting and radio, art, subways, restrooms, and any and all other ways advertisers can reach people whether or not we approve.

McChesney calls it "the greatest concerted attempt at psychological manipulation in all of human history." It increasingly targets younger people. Acclimate them early because they become adult customers, and the children's market besides accounts for tens of billions of dollars globally and growing.

Hyper-commercialism is troubling. It's contrary to democratic practices, crowds out other forms of speech, and diverts attention away from more vital concerns. It also produces "profound cynicism and greed (that's) cancerous to public life." It reduces "our most treasured values....to commodities provided by the market." McChesney believes resisting advertising is "essential" because of its corrosive effect on society. Who can disagree.

The Political Economy of International Communications: Foundations for the Emerging Global Debate About Media Ownership and Regulation

Across the world, media and telecommunication systems are a key profit making area in modern capitalist societies. But the idea that it established "naturally" is rubbish. In the US and elsewhere, state policy is crucial to what emerges. It's true going back to 19th century America when the US Postal Service was the nation's earliest "telecommunication infrastructure." Publisher postal subsidies were instituted. They're important to this day, but very much favor media giants.

Government then was and now is an active player. The question is in whose interests and what values are encouraged. Seen this way, powerful special ones have corrupted US communication policy historically. Today, more than ever, and they constitute a "legitimacy crisis for capitalist media in a democratic society."

Earlier in the last century, "professional journalism" became the solution. It was to be nonpartisan, politically neutral and objective instead of representing the views of owners. It would also be produced by professionals trained to be neutral.

The result was tepid journalism reflecting elite opinions unthreatening to entrenched interests. By any standards, it's weak democracy or barely any at all. It then got worse.

Post-WW II, the US dominated nearly all global negotiations, including communication ones. Prior to the 1960s, colonial states had to accept whatever systems were imposed on them. After becoming independent, however, a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) campaign was established. But it went nowhere after the US and UK withdrew from UNESCO.

Globalists had other ideas, and they've blossomed since the 1980s. Neoliberalism and corporate globalization emerged and unleashed national and international policies favoring business. Markets were the solution to everything while unions, regulations, taxes, tariffs, public investment, and so forth were considered restraints of trade.

These ideas exploded in the 1990s - capitalism's golden age and a heyday for communication giants. After the Soviet Union collapsed and China embraced the market, it was open-season for vast business expansion. Globalization became the buzzword, and privatizing everything a universal solution for developing states. As a result, direct foreign investment rose dramatically along with a spectacular increase in international mergers and acquisitions. These amounted to under $100 billion in 1987. By 2000, they grew tenfold to $1.14 trillion. The world was being reconfigured into "a global market for goods and services (and) an international production system, complemented by an increasing global market for firms."

Giant communications companies were at its forefront. Before the 1980s and 1990s, their operations were mainly domestic, and in many countries state ministries controlled telecommunication monopolies. It changed and fast.

Neoliberal orthodoxy took over, WTO rules were established in January 1995, trade barriers came down, communications giants took advantage, and the US government backed their global expansion efforts. Then and now, their goal was a global communications and entertainment oligopoly controlled by a handful of international companies, mainly US-based. One estimate puts the market potential in the trillions of dollars annually.

Two distinct features characterize the vision:

-- dominant companies "moving across the planet at breakneck speed;" the US market is well-developed, so overseas represents the greatest potential and dominant media firms say they're "supranational entities" regardless of where they're home-based; and

-- consolidating into every market segment is the strategy; the guiding logic is also to get big fast or get swallowed up by a larger competitor; in the end, a mere handful of companies will be "end-game winners."

Today, nine giants dominate global media markets, and nearly all rank among the top 200 non-financial firms in the world. Five are US-based, and consider their power. Among them they own:

-- the major US film studies;

-- the US TV networks;

-- 80 - 85% of the global music market;

-- most satellite broadcasting worldwide;

-- all or part of most cable broadcasting systems;

-- a dominant portion of book and commercial magazine publishing;

-- all or part of most commercial US and worldwide cable TV channels; and

-- a big stake in European terrestrial TV; and more plus an endless appetite for the greatest possible scale; the idea is to spread costs across a large base, be able to outbid competitors, and maximize profits at the same time.

Structural changes in world advertising are also strongly linked to global media consolidation. Further, globalization depends on a commercial media system to market their wares worldwide. It, in turn, is partnered with a handful of "super-advertising agencies" dominating a $400 billion global industry and consolidating just as fast as media companies.

About 100 second tier players are also important. Among them - Gannett, Knight-Ridder and Thomson Reuters in the US and others around the world like Mexico's Televisa, Venezuela's Cisneros Group, London-based Pearson plc, and global publisher Reed Elsevier. These companies dominate their own national and regional markets and have extensive ties and joint ventures with the giants. Together, first and second tier operators control much of the world's media - from TV and radio to publishing, films, music, and so forth, and the entire system is still undergoing change because of continued consolidation.

These companies are in it together, but the race will determine who wins, so it's likely to end up with a small handful of very large finalists. As a result, the global media market is more a cartel than a competitive marketplace. The largest firms have similar dominant shareholders. They each own portions of the others. Their directorships interlock. The CEOs all know each other, are on a first name basis, and communicate regularly as they plot the future of their businesses.

First and second tier operators are also connected through their investment bankers - Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch among them. Financial houses, of course, are matchmakers and make multi-millions at their trade. For them, the more the better, and they had a heyday in the 1990s with deals worth hundreds of billions.

Media content also comes into play. At times it can be positive where media censorship is common. Overall, however, it subverts local culture when it interferes with profits. The "Hollywood juggernaut" concerns many countries as US film exports expand. Of the top 125 1999 grossing ones, nearly all were US produced, so it shows local audiences like them and more for sure are coming.

Music as well captured overseas markets with US recording artists getting 60% of their sales outside America in 1993, although it fell to 40% in 1998 as local music still has great appeal.

Overall, the combination of global media and neoliberalism is numbing. It reduces everything to entertainment and light fare and results in profound depoliticization. Case in point - 2008 America.

It's also the driver behind communication industry consolidation. It made it vast, quick, and got it accomplished in two phases:

-- from the mid-1980s to 2000 across industry segments; soaring equity valuations fueled it; as currency, it helped in selling debt instruments and getting generous loans; everyone in on the scheme got rich - lawyers, accountants, bankers, and especially CEOs whose compensation soared; and

-- a second phase followed the first; by 2001, the technology bubble burst; equity prices deflated, and a "dog-eat-dog" shakeout began.

Companies were enormously indebted. Consolidation came at a high price. Companies were reeling from debt. Some committed fraud to hide it. Write-offs became unprecedented with AOL Time Warner the most noteworthy example. After its market valuation plunged from $290 billion to $135 billion, the company took a $54 billion "impairment charge for goodwill" so shareholders would get stuck with the cost along with laid-off employees by the many thousands.

Global access to voice telephony was just as dramatic. Wired phone access accelerated, and mobile phone usage expanded from a tiny 1990 base to one billion users by 2002. In addition, as business expanded overseas so did telecommunication providers to service it. The FTC backed it. So did the IMF, World Bank, and new trade rules that smoothed the way to opening markets everywhere. In 1997, the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications was established. It harmonized national operating frameworks, bound its 70 signatories to firm commitments, enforced them by a multilateral dispute settlement process, and greased the way for easy market penetration.

From 1984 (before WTO) to 1999, about $244 billion in state-owned systems were privatized - 90 of the 189 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) membership. In addition, by 2000, 25 countries agreed to allow majority foreign-owned carriers use their own controlled networks to provide international voice service.

Between 1990 and 2000, mergers and acquisitions volume skyrocketed - an estimated $1.616 trillion, and cross-border takeovers accounted for a large share of it. Including investments and service revenues, telecommunications expenditures totaled trillions of dollars. Investments were heavily debt-financed. Banks lent an estimated $890 billion. An additional $415 billion came from debt instruments, and $500 billion more from private equity and stock issuance.

At its peak, lucrative markets information-carrying over-capacity was stunning (along with neglect in others) with most of it built from 1996 to 2000 - millions of fiber-optic cable circuitry, underseas cable laid, and huge Internet investments for this burgeoning new technology.

Government partnered in the enterprise. It deferred to business and investor needs while neglecting overall social responsibilities and the nation's basic infrastructure - roads, airports, power plants, bridges, and so forth.

Until the bubble burst, investors were having a party and so were industry players. Rates favored business users. Workers lost collective bargaining rights. Downsizing following, and so did consumer quality of service. They were also victimized by scams and overbilling.

By the second half of 2000, the industry got its comeuppance. It was routed along with the dot-coms in a bloodletting they're still recovering from. Giant firms began reporting huge losses, and most people know the WorldCom story that got its founder and CEO Bernie Ebbers convicted of fraud and conspiracy and given a 25 year prison sentence. Along with Enron, it became the largest ever accounting scandal in US history.

Everything came up roses in the 1990s. The power of global capitalism seemed unstoppable. So even its opponents were resigned and largely quiescent. Ignored was that none of this expansion was natural. It took plenty of government help fueling it. It led to growing monopoly, higher prices, and poorer service so powerful business interests could profit at the public's expense. It's a familiar story going back generations, but the stakes keep getting greater and the harm caused even worse.

Add to it massive fraud, a corrupted business-government alliance, a historic public rip-off, and chalk it up to defrocked market miracles. Those of us committed to democracy have our work cut out for us. And in view of the media's importance, it's crucial to democratize it.

Communication "comprises the indispensable institutional basis for social deliberations - discussion, debate and decision making - beyond elite forums." Solutions aren't simple, and McChesney cites "two overarching principles" central to reform:

-- policy debates on these topics must be public; behind closed doors no longer cuts it; and

-- the public interest must be "reaccredited, strengthened, and enlarged;" to a large degree, it should also be protected from direct state control but not to the point of neglect.

Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times

At a time of technological wonders, communication breakthroughs, and near limitless online ways to stay informed, our society is largely depoliticized. Political involvement is weak, and it's evident when presidential and off-year elections are held. Routinely, half or less of the electorate turns out, and those most in need show up least often or not at all. It mocks the idea of democracy, but who can blame people when candidates are pre-selected, machines do our voting, candidates who lose are declared winners, and winners don't complain.

What's the cause? More than anything, the dominant media that's "become a significant antidemocratic force...." They're larger and more influential than ever. Combined they're the main information source for most people, and it's in their interest to marginalize the public to shut out any interference with their commercial aims. Profits uber alles are paramount. Concentrated power and hyper-commercialism are dominant, and when combined with the sorry state of today's journalism it's easy to understand the problem. Fixing it will be no easy task.

The "corporate media explosion" corresponded with the "implosion of public life," and McChesney calls it "the rich media/poor democracy paradox." He cites two components:

-- a political crisis; our hyper-commercialized corporate media system bodes ill for our politics and society; a crisis this great is totally off-limits for discussion; how and by whom the media is controlled, and how it's structured and subsidized should be at the heart of discussion; and

-- media ideology; its defense is indefensible - that markets "give the people what they want;" commercialized media are innately democratic; so is nonpartisan, objective professional journalism; new technologies are inherently democratic; and most important, the First Amendment gives media giants and advertisers unfettered free speech rights without public or government interference; this reasoning is no more credible than the discredited American exceptionalism notion, except in its negative sense.

Media concentration was most notable in the 1990s, but it was powerfully that way earlier. A handful of Hollywood studios dominated film production since the 1930s. Until cable and satellite TV, three networks dominated national television. Too few companies publish the popular magazines most people read, and from the 1960s to the 1980s, newspapers "underwent a spectacular consolidation."

Now it's much worse in the wake of the outrageous 1996 Telecommunications (giveaway) Act. Mega-media deals followed, and unless stopped, more are coming. Along with them, journalism keeps getting worse - in commercial and so-called "public" spaces. The reasons again are covered above - hyper-commercialism; PBS and NPR as corrupted as the giants; the endless quest for dominance and profits; professional reliance on "official sources;" labor's decline; the public shut out altogether; a lack of local journalism; and the dismal state of democracy overall.

Given the above, reporters need no direction - serve your owners or find new line of work. And when covering media political allies, it's de rigueur to show favoritism and "swift boat" the opposition. It violates fundamental journalistic canon, but at times of campaign frenzy it shows how pervasive the practice is. And the more concentrated media become, the worse it'll get.

The same holds for what's aired, to what degree, and what isn't. Mass antiwar and global justice protests barely get mentioned. But let celebrities like OJ Simpson or even Bill Clinton run afoul of the law (or be perceived that way) and it's wall-to-wall, round-the-clock headline news for days or longer.

Other major topics are also shut out - wars of aggression, a militarized society, hugely repressive laws, erasing social services, silencing dissent, rigging elections, pervasive corruption, the unprecedented wealth gap, and far too many more to list that all should top media discussions in a democratic society where journalists are supposed to hold the powerful to account. McChesney sums it up saying "In the crescendo of news media praise for the genius of contemporary capitalism, it is almost unthinkable to criticize the economy as deeply flawed." He quotes the Washington Post calling us a "perfect economy." Indeed for the rich and them alone.

Next, he discusses the Internet and calls its "rapid commercialization and expansion....the most striking media and communication development since January 1999." But alone, it's not magic and not a solution to media concentration and dominance. In the digital age, they'll continue to grow, partner and merge until we're left with a handful of mega-global giants with potential veto power over world governments. They pretty much have it now as well as large swaths of the Internet.

Worse still is that governments hand it to them - secretly, behind closed doors with no public involvement or press coverage. It shows since the late 1990s in the "shadowy history of how the Internet went from being a public-sector creation to being the province of Wall Street." Politicians from both parties were bought off to do it. Media influence remains dominant, but a battle royal looms to preserve Net Neutrality, and that topic is discussed below. But if media giants prevail, the Internet will be as commercialized as all other media components with the public left out in the cold.

There are more concerns as well - violating our privacy, pervasive spying, shutting out the poor, debasing democracy even more if the Internet is totally commercialized, charging whatever the market will bear, censoring content, and overall letting a potentially wondrous technology cost more than it benefits.

With this in mind, and the media giants insatiable quest for size and dominance, now's the time to demand the unmentionable - reactivate antitrust laws. Break up the giants along with other industry conglomerates. A century ago, it dismantled the Oil Trust and in the 1980s AT & T. Today, however, the only time trustbusting comes up is when one industry sector challenges another, never when it's in the public interest.

Nonetheless, as media enlarge, its public trust betrayal worsens, and the battle for Net Neutrality looms, anything is possible if a great enough groundswell gets behind it. Frances Fox Piven cites four historical times (in her book Challenging Authority) when people in America achieved the impossible. Conditions produced outrage enough over the status quo to erupt into a "disruptive protest movement." It shook the political establishment and brought about transforming social change - if only for a short time.

Media reform pressures are now building at a crucial moment in our history. McChesney put it this way in his 2007 book, Communication Revolution. We have "an unprecedented (rare window of opportunity in the next decade or two) to create a communication system that will be a powerful impetus (for) a more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative (democratic) society." He calls it a "critical juncture" that won't remain open for long. It's a "historic moment" in a "fight we cannot afford to lose." In the digital age, "the corporate stranglehold over our media is very much in jeopardy.." Citizen actions have successfully challenged them. Important victories have been won on ownership rules, public broadcasting, and exposing fake news.

It now remains to enlarge grassroots efforts, take the fight to the next level, partner with other progressive campaigns, and force politicians to respond or be replaced. Media giants won't lay back and take it. They'll do all they can to quash reform efforts. So far they've had everything their way, and "the smart money says that the big guys (always) win." The "same smart money once said that communism" would last forever and apartheid couldn't end peacefully. It may turn out that the "smart money" isn't so smart. If enough people join the fight for media justice, "anything can happen."

The US Media Reform Movement Going Forward

Here McChesney examines the relationship of the political economy of media to the media reform movement and how the former provides understanding of the media's role in society. It's whether it "encourages or discourages social justice, open governance, and effective participatory democracy." Also vital is how "market structures, policies and subsidies, and organizational structures shape and determine the nature of the media system and media content."

For decades US media scholars have been at odds with their counterparts around the world. They assume a for-profit, advertising-supported corporate media is a given. Major reform against capitalism is unthinkable, "unrealistic, even preposterous" for a media system considered inviolable.

Over time, however, it became apparent that viewing a corporate-run media system as "natural" was erroneous. That's how it was at earlier key moments when the status quo was challenged - the 1900 - 1915 Progressive Era and again in the 1930s and 1940s.

In the last century's second half, media became a non-issue. Policymaking was corrupt and commercial interests increasingly dominant. At the same time (and like today), press coverage was nil. So when television emerged it was "gift-wrapped and hand-delivered to Wall Street and Madison Avenue without a shred of public awareness and participation." FM radio, cable and satellite TV got the same treatment.

Things hit rock bottom after 1980 at a time of Republican ascendence and neoliberal ideology's emergence. It took its toll on political economy of media scholarship. The field began declining and headed for obscurity. At the same time, "something was happening." Vital research was published and distinguished figures like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and Ben Bagdikian produced it. Their earlier media critiques are still cutting-edge and seminal.

They proved the crisis of media, how inhospitable it is to democracy and social justice, and how essential it is to change it. Progressive writers and publications also emerged as well as media reform movements. Groups like Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) were in the vanguard and are now seen as trailblazers for today's burgeoning efforts.

Critics at the time weren't just on the left. By the 1990s, things got so bad even some conservatives became alarmed. Ownership was increasingly concentrated, labor weak, journalistic standards dismal, and hyper-commercialism overpowering. Further, editorial staffs were downsized, bureaus closed, trivia got substituted for substance, and who could know what was coming.

McChesney cites the "tipping point" - early in the new millennium "when the connection was made between the nature of the media system and a variety of policies and subsidies that created it." Global justice protests erupted, media activism grew, and the notion that the US free market media system was preordained began to crumble. Back room deals designed it, and benefits cut both ways for the dealers. Politicians were rewarded for their efforts, and media giants got an open field to get bigger. Public interest was off the table.

The key moment came in 2003, and the issue was over new media ownership rules. At the time, it looked like a slam-dunk for Big Media. George Bush was president, Republicans controlled Congress, and three of the five FCC members were Bush appointees. Media giants smelled victory and went for the kill. In spring 2003, what could stop them.

An aroused public could and did, and it seemed to materialize out of thin air. Within a year, two million or more outraged people swamped the Powell FCC and Congress with protests over the proposed relaxation of ownership rules. McChesney calls it the moment when the "contemporary US media reform movement was born," and ever since mushroomed dramatically as millions in the country are fed up and won't take it any more.

They won victories, and the Media Access Project (MAP) got one of them. In June 2004, it prevailed in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC when the Third Circuit Court threw out FCC's new rules. It ordered the agency to reconsider its ill-advised changes that if enacted would be an early Christmas for the giants. They included:

-- ending the cross-ownership ban that prohibits a company from owning a newspaper and TV or radio station in the same city;

-- eliminating the previous ban on radio/TV cross-ownership and replacing both types with a single set of cross-media limits;

-- a concocted "diversity index" to determine cross-media limits; it was based on assigning weights to the various media to determine if markets retained enough diversity; it would only consider ownership limits if by its formula there wasn't enough; it was pure deception because in major markets like New York the FCC gave equal or greater weighting to a community college radio station than The New York Times and local ABC affiliate;

-- cross-ownership limits only in smaller markets; in ones with eight or more TV stations, proposed changes would have no cross-ownership newspaper, TV and radio station restrictions;

-- a company would be able to own two TV and six radio stations in the same market if at least 20 "independently owned media voices" remained after a merger; if only 10 remained, ownership would be limited to two TV and four radio stations; and

-- redefining National Market Share to mean the total number of households company TV stations reach and raising the allowable ownership ceiling from 35 to 45%; a 39% compromise was reached to accommodate News Corp. and Viacom; they already exceeded the allowable limit, so the deal let them keep their stations.

Down but not out, FCC tried again last year under new chairman Kevin Martin. It proposed similar kinds of loose ownership rules. Unleashed a wave of activist protests in response. Members of Congress from both parties joined in. Martin ignored them, and last December 18 pushed through a 3 to 2 party-line win.

Here's where things now stand beyond the timeline of McChesney's book. On April 24, the Senate Commerce Committee voted unanimously for a "resolution of disapproval" to block the FCC's December 18 decision. To take effect, it must pass the full Senate and did in a historic May 15 vote - by a near-unanimous voice vote showing strong bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats are united on this issue (so far), especially in an election year when mass constituency opposition is hard to ignore. Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration threatened a veto. Hopefully it won't matter because too many in Congress feel otherwise.

The issue is gaining traction in the House as well with two Net Neutrality bills for consideration. On May 6, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 was introduced (HR 5353). It's to "establish broadband policy and direct the (FCC) to conduct proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband internet access services, and for other purposes." It also amends the Communications Act of 1934.

On May 8, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (HR 5994) was introduced. It requires that ISPs operate and interconnect with other network providers in a nondiscriminatory way. It applies to content, applications and services, and establishes antitrust measures for anticompetitive practices.

It now remains to be seen how House and Senate legislation turns out, what final forms they take, how the White House responds, and whether there's enough support in Congress to override vetoes. Current efforts show promise, and activists hope sentiment is turning their way. In time, we'll know.

Back in December 2002, McChesney co-founded the media reform group Free Press and serves as its president. In 2003, it started off with a few staffers and now has 35 and a membership approaching 400,000 and growing. In five years, Free Press became the largest media reform group in the country, but it's joined by dozens of others. Freepress.net lists 165, and two dozen formed the Media & Democracy Coalition in 2005. In addition, local media reform initiatives are emerging throughout the country with distinguishing characteristics:

-- media concentration is key and efforts to reverse it are crucial; so is the battle to preserve Network Neutrality, expose and end fake news, protect and reinvigorate public and community noncommercial broadcasting, and influence the course of the digital revolution democratically;

-- making media policy a political issue; open it to public debate; make sure people know there's nothing "natural" about the current system, and that they have a right to participate in policy deliberations;

-- media reform groups are linked to independent media creation efforts; they've exploded online; media reform, activism and independent media "rise and fall together;"

-- for decades, the US was a media activism laggard; now it's a leader, but its future remains undetermined; much depends on the success of the political left; so far it's "weak and largely inchoate;" the bottom line is whether people or corporations will control communication, and that leads to the larger question of who should direct society and what kind will emerge; according to McChesney, at some point ahead, we're heading for "a direct confrontation with capital," and the outcome will determine it.

Millions know what's at stake, and what's vital for a free and open society. Today, we're light years from it. That no longer can be tolerated, but it won't happen without systemic media reform. McChesney, Free Press, FAIR, dozens of other media initiatives, and growing numbers around the country, are more engaged than ever for it. McChesney calls it "our moment in the sun, our golden opportunity," and for media reformers, activists, progressives of all stripes, scholars, political economists of media, and all of the above like himself "we must seize it." Indeed we must. There's no turning back now.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

Robert McChesney's The Political Economy of Media - Part I

Robert McChesney's The Political Economy of Media (Part I) - by Stephen Lendman

Robert McChesney is a leading media scholar, critic, activist, and the nation's most prominent researcher and writer on US media history, its policy and practice. He's also University of Illinois Research Professor in the Institute of Communications Research and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science. UI is lucky to have him, and he says there's "no better university in the United States to do critical communication research."

McChesney also co-founded the Illinois Initiative on Global Information and Communication Policy in 2002. He hosts a popular weekly radio program called Media Matters on WILL-AM radio (available online), and is the 2002 co-founder and president of the growing Free Press media reform advocacy group - freepress.net.

McChesney and Free Press want to democratize the media and increase public participation in it. Doing it involves challenging media concentration, protecting Net Neutrality, and supporting the kinds of reforms highlighted at the annual National Conference for Media Reform.

McChesney's work is devoted to it. He also "concentrates on the history and political economy of communication (by) emphasizing the role media play in democratic and capitalist societies" where the primary goal is profits, not the public interest.

McChesney speaks frequently on these issues, and has authored or edited 17 books on them. They include Rich Media, Poor Democracy, the award-winning Telecommunications, Mass Media and Democracy, and his newest book and subject of this review, The Political Economy of Media: enduring issues, emerging dilemmas. He calls it "the companion volume" to his 2007 book, Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media.

McChesney is today's most notable media scholar and critic. Whatever he writes merits reading. This book is a compilation of his best political economy of media work in the past two decades. It contains 23 separate offerings under three topic headings - Journalism, Critical Studies, and Politics and Media Reform. Issues discussed include:

-- the problem of journalism;

-- a century of radical US media criticism;

-- telling the truth at a moment of truth about the invasion and occupation of Iraq;

-- journalism - a look back and ahead;

-- battling for the US airwaves early on;

-- media sports coverage;

-- public broadcasting in the digital age;

-- the commercial tidal wave;

-- the new economy - myth and reality;

-- the political economy of international communication;

-- the Internet

-- US left and media politics;

-- rich media, poor democracy;

-- the escalating war against corporate media;

-- US media reform going forward, and more.

Most content was previously published in journals or as book chapters in anthologies. Most have never appeared in book form before, so may be largely unknown to readers. Three offerings are new and were written specifically for this book. Combined, the material is timeless, cutting-edge and must read on the most vital issue of this or any other time - the state of the media and its importance as a vital information source and fundamental prerequisite for democracy. McChesney quotes James Madison saying:

"A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."

Today, its mostly from the media, mainly television, and therein lies the problem. Democracy requires a free, open and vibrant media. It, in turn, needs democracy. The "central question" McChesney poses is whether "the media system....promote(s) or undermine(s) democratic institutions and practices. Are media a force for social justice or oligarchy?"

The political economy of the media is committed to enhancing democracy. It first arose in the 1930s and 1940s, blossomed again in the 1960s and 1970s, is often associated with the political left, and that's a key reason for its decline in the past few decades. Today, the media is in utter disrepair, totally corrupted, controlled by big money, and unconditionally backed by Democrats and Republicans to serve state and capital interests. "We the people" are nowhere in sight, and that has to change.

Scholar/activists like McChesney aim to do it. The Political Economy of Media is his latest effort, and in it he highlights 13 "enduring issues:"

-- journalism and its relationship to democracy;

-- understanding political, commercial and private propaganda;

-- commercial media and politicalization of society;

-- media's relationship to inequality - economic, racial, gender, and so forth;

-- media's relationship to US foreign policy, militarism and the imperial state;

-- the importance and role of advertising;

-- the communication policy making process;

-- telecommunication policies, regulations or lack of them;

-- communication's relationship to global and contemporary capitalism and its predatory nature;

-- commercialism's impact on culture and society;

-- public radio and broadcasting; how they've been co-opted and corrupted; and the emergence and importance of alternative media institutions and systems;

-- the relationship of technology to media, politics and society and importance of the digital revolution; and

-- the relationship of media to popular social movements, including a growing force for real media reform.

Along with "enduring issues," McChesney covers "emerging dilemmas" in the wake of neoliberalism's 1980s emergence, its 1990s dominance, the growth of a global economy, and the blossoming digital communication revolution.

At a time government partners with business, profits are the be all and end all, markets we're told work best so let them, taxing the rich is sinful, big government bad, giveaways to the people unacceptable, inequality good, competition better, and best of all is socialism for the wealthy and free market capitalism for the rest of us - aka, the law of the jungle.

By the new millennium, the "bankruptcy and contradictions" of neoliberal dogma lay exposed. Global justice eruptions occurred, became quiescent after 9/11, but still bubble below the surface and may explode anywhere any time. Moreover, given the state of things, "the political economy of media has been rejuvenated." There's a growing media reform movement. In it are scholars, activists, students, and ordinary people comprising "one of the striking developments of our time."

Neoliberalism is discredited. It violates essential human desires and needs. It's beyond repair, and it inspired "the idea of imagining a more humane and democratic social order." It's showing up in places like Venezuela. Political economists of media have a role in spreading it. Communication systems are vital to do it, and digital age technology potentially can make it explode. Assuring Net Neutrality is key, but alone not enough.

Giant telecommunications and cable companies want to prevent it. They aim to privatize the Internet, charge big for everything, and control its content. The issue remains unresolved, but the public can't afford to lose this one because real democracy depends on a free and open media.

More policy battles remain as well and will become "more pronounced in the digital era." McChesney cites three:

-- what passes today for journalism; it's "in a deep and prolonged crisis (because of) corporate cutbacks and erosion of standards;"

-- hyper-commercialism is getting more hyper; it's all-pervasive; derailing it is crucial; the public's role vital; and

-- digital revolution technology cuts both ways; it empowers people, yet entraps them as well; it makes everyone vulnerable to surveillance; increasingly, there's nowhere left to hide.

Key is making digital technology work for, not against us and keeping private for-profit interests from controlling it. The "most important work of the political economy of media" is thus: "understanding and navigating the central relationship of communication to the broader economy and political system." Ours is based on markets uber alles. It's a failed ideology, yet no fit topic for open and public discussion. That has to change, and barriers have to come down to show how predatory capitalism really is, how harmful it is to the greater good, and what humane alternatives exist. It can only be through a free and open mass media. Communication is essential, and "political economists of media (are) at the heart" of using it constructively and justly.

McChesney's book is long, detailed, crystal clear in its message, essential to read in total, and kept as a key reference guide to the media's problems and how to fix them. This review covers a sampling of the book's contents, selective offerings in it. It's to energize readers to get the book and discover it all.

The Problem of Journalism

Real democracy needs superior journalism to "comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable," and function as a "rigorous watchdog (over) those in power." Today in the mainstream, not a shred of it exists, but it wasn't always that way.

Politically neutral, nonpartisan, professional or objective journalism was unthinkable in the republic's first few generations. Journalism's job was to inform, persuade, and, yet be highly partisan by providing a wide range of opinions. At the same time, newspaper publishing changed "from being primarily political to being primarily commercial" because of growing advertising revenues. Competition flourished, cities like St. Louis had at least 10 dailies until the late 19th century, and they represented their owners' politics.

The post-Restruction Gilded Age changed things. Concentrated wealth was its hallmark, the press became less competitive, commercialism flourished, and corruption followed along with yellow journalistic sensationalism to generate sales. At the same time, socialists, feminists, abolitionists, trade unionists and various radical types avoided the mainstream and established their own media to advance their interests.

From the Gilded Age's onset through the early 20th century Progressive Era, "an institutional sea change transpired in US media." Newspapers consolidated into fewer chains in fewer hands, and most communities ended up with one or two dailies. At the same time, the "dissident press" lost much of its following and influence. It created a crisis in early 20th century journalism.

Yet, during the Progressive Era, muckraking journalism proliferated to a degree never again equalled. Reformers like Robert LaFollete called the commercial press destructive to democracy, and historian Henry Adams (grandson and great grandson of two former presidents) was unsparing in his criticism. He said "The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell lies where the interests are concerned."

The era produced and inspired critics like Upton Sinclair. He produced cutting-edge works like The Jungle taking on meatpacking plant abuses and The Brass Check that was "the first great systematic critique of....capitalist journalism." Other great figures were George Seldes who produced scathing media critiques, IF Stone, Lincoln Steffens, and a host of notables mostly unknown and unread today.

Professional journalism came of age at this time with schools established to "train a cadre professional editors and reporters." They were taught to "sublimate their own values," produce "neutral and unbiased copy," and (likely) greater revenues for publishers.

In fact, "neutral" content was a non-starter. As journalism evolved in the country, publishers wanted their values expressed. It's all about business and profits, and journalists had to internalize these ideas to stay employed. As a result, "three deep-seated biases" are in the "professional code," and they're more prominent than ever today:

-- professional journalists regard whatever government, business, or other prominent figures say or do as legitimate news;

-- conflicting sources are ignored so power figures set the agenda and are uncontested; journalists become stenographers to them, and a free press is "guaranteed only to those who own one;"

-- most important, journalism reflects the views and aims of the ruing class; "we the people" are nowhere in sight.

It means fiction substitutes for fact, news is carefully "filtered," dissent marginalized, and supporting the powerful substitutes for full and accurate reporting. As a result, aggressive wars are called liberating ones, civil liberties are suppressed for our own good, patriotism means going along with crimes of state, and vast corporate malfeasance becomes just a few bad apples.

Professional journalism in the US, "hit its high-water mark....from the 1950s into the 1970s, but it was lots different from today. We had Cronkite then. Now it's Couric, and that's one part of a greater problem. But even in its "golden age," owners' interests came first. A "virtual Sicilian code of silence" protected the wealthy and powerful. Even so, a few good journalists stood out and still do, but they don't show up often and never on the New York Times' front page or any other major broadsheet. As for television, media giants no longer even pretend to provide real journalism. We've sunk that low in an age of technological wonders, but none used for the greater good. The more channels we get, the less there is to watch - less of any worth, that is.

In the 20th century's early decades, media owners and journalists vied to shape what content was permitted. By mid-century, however, the battle was over. Media giants prevailed. They consolidated and grew more dominant, and the idea of giving news divisions more autonomy made increasingly less sense. Bottom line considerations took over, and journalism, or what passes for it, "became subjected to (increasing) commercial regimentation."

New technologies emerged. Cable and satellite TV arrived, and with them the proliferation of channels. A handful carry round-the-clock news. The hours have to be filled, but what passes for information is sensationalist pseudo-journalism and fluff. Truth is distorted or omitted. Juiced-up reports on murder, mayhem, mishaps, and celebrity gossip predominate, and entertainers and low-paid teleprompter readers impersonate news people.

Target audiences are middle and upper class earners. In contrast, workers and the poor are left out. Little or no reporting shows up on their issues, but business programming has proliferated. Regrettably, it hasn't subjected commercial interests to hard scrutiny. Instead, reporters are paid touts, and their work is "rah-rah capitalism," and it "teem(s) with reverence for the accumulation of wealth." It let 2001 and 2002 corporate scandals go unreported until they got too big to ignore. They bilked investors of multi-billions. Many thousands lost jobs, pensions and benefits, but a mere handful of fraudsters were held to account. The media "missed the developing story in toto."

The alternative press and Ralph Nader spotted trouble in the mid-1990s. It developed into a major news story and an enormous political scandal with the president and vice-president linked by their association with Enron. Teapot Dome and Watergate made heads roll. This one didn't lay a glove on politicians because Democrats were as tainted as Republicans so they laid low.

The media happily obliged. They're giant businesses and members in good standing in the corporate community with interlocking interests and shared political values. In addition, a number of their executives were investigated for fraud. They included Disney's Michael Eisner, News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch, Charter Communications, Vivendi Universal, AOL Time Warner for cooking its books, and Adelphi Communications for "orchestrating one of the largest frauds to take place at a US public company." At the end of an epic scandal, corporations got off with "bloodied noses and sullied reputations, but little more."

Consider a "broader political-economic pressure....to market news to target audiences." In a largely depoliticized society, there's less demand for political journalism and every incentive for professional journalists to avoid controversy. Real reporting is dumbed down. Trivia substitutes for hard news, and local TV stations have been discontinuing news programming altogether. Walter Cronkite wonders if democracy can "even survive."

It's in this climate that editorial budgets are lowballed. Everything has to be profit-justified, and surveys show journalists are "a grumpy lot" because of bottom line pressures delivering low pay, no raises, job insecurity, and pretty grim expectations for their future prospects. The growth of media giants makes it worse. Consolidation lets companies spread their editorial budgets across different media so one reporter can do the same job for a newspaper, web site, TV and radio station or wherever else owners' directives demand.

A striking development is the rise of the PR industry. It's a cheap substitute for real news. All of it is hype and fake. Its content for a corporate and government clientele, and it comes in the form of "slick press releases, paid-for experts....bogus citizens groups, canned new events," and surveys show this amounts to from 40 to 70% of what passes for "news." But the public thinks it's real.

Except in times of war, international coverage also disappears. So has investigative journalism. It was once the "hallmark of feisty 'Fourth Estate' journalism in a free society." Now it's almost extinct and for the same reason overseas reporting is gone - it's expensive, and bottom-line considerations won't tolerate it.

With real journalism absent and a culture committed to commercialism, truth is out the window. Officials can lie with impunity. So can business fraudsters, and McChesney calls it "a scoundrel's paradise." Professional standards are relaxed, and it forces journalists to shape stories for their owners and advertisers. Today, news departments "cooperate with advertisers to co-promote events and use advertisers as experts in stories." It comes in two forms:

-- direct commercial penetration of news; it corrupts its integrity; is in the form of bribes to write stories, host commercial events, and overall act as a proxy for an advertiser and be well paid for it; and

-- journalists reporting favorably on their owners' commercial operations, such as ABC News promoting a Disney film or NBC News selling the Winter Olympics; this proliferates; it's called "synergy; for journalists with integrity it's "poison."

Consider another issue - the so-called "liberal media" bias. It's bogus but resonates because hard right flacks push it. Their critique is fourfold and largely bogus:

-- journalists have "decisive power;" owners and advertisers are marginalized;

-- journalists (by their nature) are political liberals;

-- journalists use their position to advance liberal ideas; and

-- objective journalism would report conservative views.

The first and last points especially are rubbish. Successful journalists internalize their owners' values. Bosses have power, journalists don't. On issues where journalists lean left, it's where bottom-line considerations aren't affected - women's, gay, lesbian and abortion rights, civil liberties, affirmative action, and so forth. Overall, journalists are pro-business, and why not. Successful ones get good salaries and benefits, and enjoy the fruits of their celebrity.

So how can the bashing go on? Because it resonates and has "tremendous emotional power...." It began in the 1970s. It was an effort to tilt news rightward. It aimed to foster conservative values, train a cadre of appararatchiks, establish conservative think tanks, and hammer all anti-conservative coverage as "liberal" bias.

It's works and makes news reporting more sympathetic to business and right wing politics. Republicans got more powerful. Democrats partnered with them. Journalists play ball with their bosses, and those most pro-business are held in highest regard. The combination of "conservative ideology and commercialized, depoliticized journalism" defines the problem of the media today.

How to Think About Journalism: Looking Backward, Going Forward

American journalism has been sinking for decades. Now it's in crisis. The stakes couldn't be higher. Without viable journalism, democracy is impossible, tyranny takes over and when full-blown needs revolutionary disruption to uproot. Constructive action is needed now, and "the political economy of media is uniquely positioned to provide" it.

The starting point - democratic journalism to hold those in power (and wannabes) accountable. It must separate truth from lies and provide a wide range of informed opinions on the cutting-edge issues of our times. By this standard, today's dominant media fails, and that's putting it mildly.

Journalism is co-opted and corrupted. Commercialism gutted it. Investigative journalism is a memory. Political and international reporting no longer exist. The same is true for local reporting, and all that's left is "the absurd horse race" campaign coverage of endless polls and he said, she said along with pseudo-journalistic celebrity features and the rest. For the most part, it's impossible getting real news and information in the mainstream.

The media keeps sinking lower. We've been heading there for decades, but things came to a head post-9/11. The "war on terror" began. Wars without end followed, and the dominant media hyped them. They were hawkish and giddy championing aggressive wars, international law violations, repressive legislation, and at the same time silencing dissent.

Anti-war became anti-American, and nowhere was the trumpeting greater or with more effect than on The New Times front page. Its star reporter Judith Miller led the charge. She'll forever be remembered as lead stenographer to power. Without her headlined coverage (little more than Pentagon and administration handouts), there might not have been an Iraq war, even though she had plenty of help selling it.

"For a press system, (war reporting) is its moment of truth." In 2002, 2003 to the present, it was nowhere in sight. In reporting on the war, its run-up and current occupation, the major media sunk to its lowest ever depth. They flacked the pro-war line, still support it unconditionally, and tout the idea that America is benevolent and our intentions honorable.

The notion is preposterous, indefensible and disastrous. And professional journalism is to blame. It's in crisis, and it's important to ask why. The industry cites the Internet, its liberating power, unleashing of new competition, and taking away advertisers. Their solution - cut budgets, report less, and consolidate for even greater size and dominance. Rubbish.

Journalistic standards were in disrepair long before the Internet and for reasons discussed above - internalizing media owners' commercial values, or else. It means a little autonomy is allowed but increasingly less as the giants got bigger. They got a huge boost with the passage of the monstrous 1996 Telecommunications Act. It was grand theft media, a colossal giveaway, and a major piece of anti-consumer legislation hugely detrimental to the public interest. It let broadcast giants own twice as many local TV stations as before. It was ever sweeter for radio with all national limits on station ownership removed and greater local market penetration also allowed. Current TV station owners were handed new digital television broadcast spectrum, and cable companies got the right to increase their monopoly positions. Media and telecom giants were winners. Consumers and working journalists lost out.

Professional journalism's "core problem" became more pronounced - relying on "official sources" as legitimate news, blocking out dissent, leaving out the public altogether, and relying more than ever on fake PR releases without checking their truth.

Given the state of crisis, alternatives are needed, and critics "whose analysis (have) been on the mark the longest" are the ones to look to for answers. They've deconstructed the current system, understand how it's broken, and know what's needed to fix it. For starters, structure matters. So do institutions. They shape media content everywhere. They transmit values that become internalized and a requirement to rise to the top, or even stay employed.

From political economy of media research, McChesney cites four "propositions to guide understanding, scholarship, and action:"

-- media systems aren't "natural" or "inevitable;" they result from explicit policies and subsidies; no mandate says only for-profit ones are allowed; a professional journalism "core principle" is for a public service "safe house....in the swamp of commercialism;"

-- the First Amendment isn't to grant special favors to communication sector investors alone; a strong argument can be made for government to structure the media; Supreme Court decisions don't equate a free press with commercialism; they support the state's right and duty to make a viable free press possible; without it, "the entire constitutional process" fails;

-- the dominant US media system is for-profit, but it's not a free market system; the media giants get enormous direct and indirect subsidies amounting to many hundreds of billions of dollars; they cut both ways; they can be beneficial when they serve the greater good; for decades, rarely have any been directed that way;

-- structuring the media should be over subsidy and policy choices, what institutions they'll support, and what values they'll encourage and promote; over time, the process grew more undemocratic; the public is completely left out; the FCC is the industry's handmaiden; and the idea that free markets give people what they want is rubbish.

Consider the evidence. Communication and technology firms spend more on lobbying than any other sector or group. The largest firms assign a lobbyist to each important congressional committee member. They also spend millions in campaign contributions and for PR. Combine this with the "golden revolving door." Key government officials, aides and FCC members move on to lucrative private sector jobs as reward for their considerations while in government.

Here's more evidence:

-- the indefensible "immaculate conception" notion that the US media system arose "naturally;" in fact, powerful figures created it for commercial interests; and

-- the amount of public subsidies debunks the "free market" myth; consider the term "deregulation" as well; in communications, it's pure propaganda for an industry with less, not more competition; under it, great journalism is impossible; the system has to be overhauled, and doing it will take enlightened government policies in a much different operating environment.

What's needed is a "range of structures that can provide for the information needs of the people (with) as much openness, freedom, and diversity as possible. That is freedom of the press."

More than ever today, US history is clear. We need a journalism-producing sector "walled off from corporate and commercial pressures." Government has to be involved. It's most important for the Internet and digital revolution. Left to market forces, they'll be co-opted for profit. Communication giants will control it, charge to the max, censor it, invade our privacy, spy on us, and carpet bomb us with commercialized everything. McChesney is bluntly realistic. Unless we take proactive steps and stop this, "we may come to regret the day the computer was invented."

Consider other policy considerations as well. For the Internet to provide free speech and a free press, "it has to be ubiquitous, high speed, and inexpensive." Much like other essentials, we need broadband access "as a civil right" for everyone - for political, cultural and economic reasons. Other developed countries are way ahead of us. It's shameful and must change. Telecom giants won't do it. Government has to. It has to quash industry efforts to privatize the Internet, preserve Network Neutrality, keep the Internet open and free, and McChesney puts it this way. "The future of a free press (depends on) ubiquitous, inexpensive, and super-fast Internet access as well as Network Neutrality."

But that alone won't solve journalism's crisis. It'll take resources and institutional support. The Internet is wondrous, but not magic. It won't make communication giants amenable to change or transform bad journalism to what serves the public interest. Even so, the blogosphere has potential. Citizen journalism is flourishing. Over time it can increase, and with public support can flourish. But it won't replace full-time professional journalists and the vast audiences they reach. And it's equally important to have competing newsrooms, far more than now operate. The problems are great. No magic bullet will solve them, but McChesney offers suggestions. Besides what's above, he lists:

-- policies that "more aggressively shape the media system" - antitrust and communication laws for more diverse ownership; 19th century-style postal subsidies to encourage a broader range of publications; and most important a viable nonprofit, noncommercial real public and community access broadcasting, not the government and corporate-controlled kind from NPR and PBS;

-- the problem of the Internet allowing Americans "to construct a personalized media world;" it leads to "group polarization" - sharing common experiences selectively, becoming less informed, respectful and more distrusting of outsiders; journalism is key for Americans for a viable democracy; public media provide it best, and they may influence commercial areas;

-- a more radical solution - policies that encourage local and employee ownership, and/or community daily newspaper ownership; within a generation, they'll be largely digital and indistinguishable from other media forms.

McChesney cites an imperative - to "conduct research on alternative policies and structures (to) generate journalism and quality media content." Over a decade ago, a $100 tax rebate idea was proposed. It would let people donate it to any nonprofit news medium choice and could potentially raise hundreds of billions of dollars. It was considered radical then, but no longer. It could launch a real alternative media with public benefits not now available. It would also be an antidote to what McChesney calls "a steady diet of (mainstream) crap" that's dulled the public appetite for great journalism.

His criticism doesn't repudiate the political economy of media. It completes it and its analysis of journalism. On one side are the firms, owners, labor practices, market structures, policies, occupational codes, and subsidies. Its opposite examines journalism as a whole, the media system as well, and how they interact with broad social and economic relations in society. Where inequality exists, depoliticization is encouraged by those on top.

The political economy of media requires enhancing participatory democracy. In turn, it needs great journalism and media systems. An informed and engaged citizenry as well. Journalism needs democracy, and the reverse is true. They also depend on "media reform and broader movements for social justice (that will) rise and fall together."

More on The Political Economy of Media follows in Part II. Watch for it soon on this web site.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

The Supreme Court, Habeas, John Yoo and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal

The Supreme Court, Habeas, John Yoo and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal - by Stephen Lendman

Rupert Murdoch has a corrosive effect on whatever he touches, and this writer once tangled with him in an article called Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire. Former Chicago columnist Mike Royko also did and remarked that "no self-respecting fish would (want to be) wrapped in a Murdock paper....His goal (isn't) quality journalism (it's) vast power, political power."

Even Murdoch's private joke is that "God doesn't trust (him) in the dark." Nor should anyone ever, including Wall Street Journal readers. They've seen the paper's quality deteriorate since he took over, cleaned house, installed his own people in key positions, and now runs it like his other enterprises. He's boss, what he says goes, including on editorial policy after he promised its former owner he'd keep hands off.

It shows more than ever on the Journal's opinion page, yet after Murdoch bought Dow Jones last August, Time magazine asked "Is the Wall Street Journal's editorial page really 'right-wing?' " It stated that "an editorial page should have a strong point of view (and) for years (and presumably now it's) been one of the Journal page's great strengths." No disagreement from its hard right faithful who want their views expressed, never mind truth and accuracy, let alone honor and respect for the law.

It showed up on June 17 in a John Yoo op-ed feature. He's a tenured UC Berkeley professor (since 1999) teaching aspiring lawyers constitutional law at the Boalt Hall School of Law on campus. To the university's embarrassment and shame, some, with good reason, call him "the torture professor," and at least since fall 2005 have denounced him, demanded he be fired, protested inside and outside his classroom, and were arrested as a result.

Yoo is a neocon ideologue and a member of the hard right Federalist Society that espouses views any despot would love. It's for rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal social policies; denying women reproductive choice; quashing government regulations, labor rights, and environmental protections; subverting justice in defense of privilege; and for former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yoo (from 2001 - 2003) even more. He believes presidential war powers grant the executive:

-- unlimited authority to ignore international and constitutional law;

-- the right to torture and assault "enemy combatant"
detainees;

-- deny them habeas, due process, and consign them to "Stalinist show trial" justice in what law professor Francis Boyle calls "Gitmo Kargaroo Courts;"

-- dismiss the fact that doing so violates international law; is a war crime under the Laws of War, Geneva, the Army's own Field Manual 27-10 and other statutes;

-- bypass Congress and the courts in the process;

-- deceive them along with the public; and

-- justify virtually anything (including "unilateral presidential warmaking") to defend "national security," as so stated in his 2005 book, The Powers of War and Peace and in (at least two) memos dated August 2, 2002 and March 18, 2003; he, David Addington (Cheney's legal counsel), and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote them; Jay Bybee, now a Bush-appointed federal judge, also signed them making him equally culpable.

On April 1, Yoo's infamous (81 page) 2003 one was made public. Days later, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urged UC Berkeley to fire him. They also called for his disbarment and prosecution for war crimes. Hundreds of others in the country and around the world share similar views about a man who shames UC Berkeley, has no business teaching constitutional or any other law, and is guilty of high crimes, misdemeanors, and other abuses of the rule of law he disdains.

NLG President Marjorie Cohn, international law expert Francis Boyle, CCR President Michael Ratner and others point out that officials like Yoo are guilty of grievous war and other crimes under:

-- the US Constitution;

-- US War Crimes Act;

-- Geneva Conventions;

-- UN Charter;

-- UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

-- Nuremberg Principles; and

-- various other statutes that were (and still are) repeatedly violated with impunity by Yoo (earlier) and many other past and present Bush administration officials.

Yet there was Yoo on June 17 given prime, near-half page space on the Journal's opinion page to state his views on the important June 12 Supreme Court's harsh rebuke of administration policy. It was in its Boumediene v. Bush (No. 06-1195) 5-4 ruling that Guantanamo detainees (most of whom have never been charged and are innocent) may challenge their detention in US courts in defiance of the 2006 Military Commissions Act - an unconstitutional October 2006 law empowering the administration and Pentagon (in military tribunals) to deny habeas, due process, and act as accuser, trial judge and executioner with no right of appeal and no chance for judicial fairness.

Yoo objected in his piece titled "The Supreme Court Goes to War," in which he rails against the rule of law the way he did as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and likely does in his classroom. He called the Court ruling "judicial imperialism of the highest order," and stated: "The only hope for reigning in the judiciary is the November election (when) the next president will be in a position to appoint a new Court that can reverse the damage done to the nation's security" - by which he means replacing retiring Justices with more extremist ones.

He continued saying "out the window went precedent... Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the US....to challenge his detention (in US courts)." Unmentioned is that nearly all detainees fall outside this classification. They were lawlessly and randomly seized; turned in for bounty; nearly all are innocent victims; yet have been isolated, imprisoned, denied counsel or an inadequate amount of it, and tortured in violation of international and domestic law. Some have died, been killed or committed suicide as a result.

Granting them habeas rights is their best chance for justice long denied, and it can't come a moment too soon. Calling Guantanamo detainees "al Qaeda terrorists" has no basis in fact. Most have been held for years without charge, under the dubious Geneva-superceded category of "unlawful enemy combatant." They're denied their human rights and humanity, and had little chance until now for judicial fairness. Yoo played a major role in the process. He insists it be continued, and got prominent op-ed space for his views - outlandish ones against the rule of law but championed by the likes of Murdoch.

He goes on saying: "Boumediene....also ignored the Constitution's structure (granting) all war decisions to the president and Congress." It twice before (in 2004 and 2006) "extend(ed) its reach to (unproved) 'al Qaeda terrorists' at Guantanamo...." Each time Congress "overruled (it to establish) its own procedures for the appeal of detentions. Incredibly....five Justices have defied the 'considered judgment' of the president and Congress for a third time (to grant) 'al Qaeda terrorists' the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court."

Unmentioned is Jose Padilla's ordeal - a US citizen unlawfully held for nearly four years in military and civilian confinement as an "enemy combatant." Charges against him were bogus and unjustifiable, yet he was denied due process, tortured, brutalized and dehumanized in solitary confinement. They destroyed him by turning his mind to mush, but it wasn't enough. Last January, he was sentenced to 17 years, four months in a police state show trial for his "role" in a "conspiracy" to help "Islamic jihadists" - a concocted scheme to imprison and destroy him further on the pretext of protecting "national security." Chalk up another win for injustice along with all the many others besides.

But it's not how Yoo sees it in his op-ed comments. In an astonishing inversion of truth, he claims "Congress gave Guantanamo (detainees) more rights than any prisoners of war (which they're not), in any war, ever." And he continues by accusing the Justices of "intrud(ing) into the conduct of war....jury-rig(ing) a process (that) second-guesses our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field (and may force them to give 'prisoners') some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture."

There's more. Boumediene "is only a hop, skip and a jump from judges second-guessing whether someone is an enemy to second-guessing whether a soldier should have aimed and fired at him." He goes on, but you get the point. Yoo calls Boumediene a "brazen power grab (with Justices) act(ing) like we are no longer at war." Like we're back to the "business-as-usual attitude that characterized US antiterrorism policy up to September 10, 2001."

It was never kind and gentle, but consider its post-9/11 harshness from what Lawrence Wilkerson told a June 18 House Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture. He's Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff (2001-2005), and his testimony was damning. He told Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler that 108 detainees died in US custody, around 27 were declared homicides, and it "start(ed) as early as December 2001 in Afghanistan."

And that's besides the February 2006 Human Rights First report of hundreds of deaths in US custody, around 34 confirmed or suspected homicides, including at least eight from torture and likely more. Because of command responsibility cover-up, lax investigation, poor record keeping, and little attempt to treat these crimes seriously, few prosecutions occurred, and the stiffest penalty for any was five months in jail. None of this was in Yoo's piece nor any sense of remorse, and in his judgment they likely got what was they deserved.

Others share Yoo's views and get ample mainstream space and air time to present them. Yoo as well in his classroom, and imagine how young minds are harmed. Instead of teaching constitutional law, he renounces it. So do others with clout, and that's the problem.

What's ahead is anyone's guess. Repressive laws won't be repealed. Illegal wars won't end, and extremist judges still dominate the federal bench, one favorable High Court decision notwithstanding. Deserving detainees are still denied justice. Their ordeal continues because influential war criminals are featured daily on major opinion pages where truth and righteousness lose out to hateful viciousness, and the nation slips closer to tyranny - thanks to men like Yoo and Murdoch.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate for the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9383

SuperCorridor Defeat? Don't Bet On It

SuperCorridor Defeat? Don't Bet On It - by Stephen Lendman

The title refers to the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) portion of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) project. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) announced that, for now at least, it nixed this part of the $184 billion scheme calling for:

-- a 4000 mile toll road network of transportation corridors;

-- 10 lanes or 1200 feet wide;

-- two or more trans-Texas corridors being considered; one paralleling I-35 from Laredo through San Antonio, Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth to Gainesville; the other an extension following US 59 from Texarkana through Houston to Laredo or the Rio Grande Valley;

-- others would parallel I-45 from Dallas/FortWorth to Houston and I-10 from El Paso to Orange;

-- they'll accommodate car and truck traffic;

-- rail lines;

-- pipelines and utilities; and

-- communication systems.

It's planned across Texas from Mexico to Oklahoma, would have annexed huge private land tracts, and may later on take much of it anyway. Enough to threaten organizations like the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA), Texas Farm Bureau and other rural interests. Their member property rights are at stake, so they fought it, and for now, prevailed - at least partly, but the matter is far from settled.

On June 10, Executive Director Amadeo Saenz announced that TxDOT "narrowed the (TTC I-69) study area (to) existing highway (routes) whenever possible," and "any area (outside) an existing (one) will not be considered" except for necessary portions. NASCO's Texas highway remains viable. It's just a little less "Super" and for now will use mostly existing state highways and connect them to northern links.

The larger project is far more ambitious. It's to develop an international, integrated, secure superhighway running the length and breath of the continent for profit. It's to militarize and annex it as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) scheme - aka "Deep Integration" North American Union. If completed, it will extend nearly everywhere - North, South, East and West along four main cross-border regions:

-- an Atlantic Corridor, including: the Canada-US East Coast; the Champlain-Hudson Corridor; the Appalachian region; and the Gulf of Mexico;

-- a Central Eastern Corridor; an urban one through large cities and industrial areas; another through the Great Plains to the Canadian Prairies;

-- a Central Western Corridor, including the largest Mexican maquiladora concentration; and

-- a Pacific Corridor linking Fairbanks, Alaska to San Diego into Tijuana, Ciudad Obrego and Mazatlan, Mexico.

From north to south, it will extend from Fairbanks to Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; and Windsor, Ontario, Canada through Kansas City, San Antonio and Laredo, Texas into Neuvo Laredo, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and the ports of Manzanillo, Colima and Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico. Other links will connect Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto, Canada to New York, Chicago, Indianapolis, Denver, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Dallas, Houston with still more routes to follow - East to West, North to South across Canada, the US and Mexico.

Canada's plan is called CISCOR - the Canadian Intelligent SuperCorridor running west from Vancouver and Prince Rupert to Montreal and Halifax. Its web site explains it as follows: "The Saskatchen-based CISCOR Smart Inland Port Network will serve as the central logistics and coordination hub, creating a Canadian east-west land bridge (connecting) three major North American north-south corridors; North Americas SuperCorridor (NASCO), Canada America Mexico Corridor (CANAMEX) and River of Trade Corridor Coalition (ROTCC).

ROTCC was created in 2004 to facilitate trade across 3300 miles from Laredo, Texas to Detroit and into Canada. Another route along I-45 extends from Houston and the I-10 corridor and rail route from Los Angeles and Long Beach to Dallas/Fort Worth.

Overall, it will be a comprehensive energy and commerce-related transportation artery for trade and strategic resources with DHS and NORTHCOM in charge. They'll monitor and militarize it through a network of high-tech sensors and trackers to secure the continent for profit at the expense of the greater public good the way these schemes always work.

Part of the plan involves a proposed arrangement between NASCO and a company called Savi Networks - a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Hutchison Ports Holdings, a Chinese ports management firm. If instituted, it will generate huge revenues by paying NASCO 25 cents for each of the millions of "revenue-generating intermodal ocean cargo container(s)" using the supercorridor as well as along other north-south routes being planned. The idea is to install an RFID chip network and put them in containers as well for tracking. They'll monitor them from port of entry to final destination and make shippers pay tolls in addition to transportation costs. They'll, in turn, pass on costs to buyers.

Lockheed Martin runs a Global Transport Network (GTN) Command and Control Center for the military that provides electronic tracking. On its web site, Savi Networks says it "was formed to improve the efficiency and security of global trade (through its) SaviTrack system." It "utilizes a reliable network of wireless Automated Identification and Data Collection (AIDC) equipment and (Enterprise Resource Planning - ERP) software to provide shippers, logistics service providers, and terminal operators with precise and actionable information."

For now, the Texas artery will be less ambitious but still part of the grander scheme. For its part, I-69/TTC remains a government-private partnership whereby new roads will charge tolls for maximum revenue generation and make the public to pay the tab for their use.

Besides the scaled back I-69/TTC, another planned project is just as worrisome. It's called the TTC-35 600 mile corridor extension along I-35 from Oklahoma through Dallas/Forth Worth to Laredo to Mexico and possibly the Gulf Coast. A two-tiered environmental study for it began in spring 2004 and remains ongoing.

Tier One engendered sweeping opposition but not enough to stop it. Public hearings were held for input on potential corridor locations and promoted what's called the Preferred Corridor Alternative. Federal Highway Administration approval comes next, after which a Tier Two phase would identify proposed highway alignments and other modes and potential access points. Hearings would follow for further public input and be as likely to generate hostility as did the I-69/TTC project. It slowed SuperCorridor momentum, but in Texas and across the country it's very much alive and ongoing.

Powerful forces back it in spite of considerable opposition in states across the country. In support are organizations like:

-- the Council on Foreign Relation and its influential members; it backed business having "unlimited (cross-border) access in its 2005 report titled "Building a North American Community; its Task Force "applauds the announced 'Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)' of North America" - aka North American Union and its SuperCorridor project; it also sees a step beyond with "a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 (giving) specific recommendations on how to achieve it."

-- the International Mobility & Trade Corridor Project (IMTC); it bills itself as a US - Canadian government and business coalition "promot(ing) improvements to mobility and security for the four border crossings between Whatcom County, Washington and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia" - combined called the Cascade Gateway;

-- the CANAMEX Corridor Coalition for a superhighway linking Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta; it supports the "seamless and efficient transportation of goods, services, people and information between Canada, Mexico and the US;"

-- the Central North American Trade Corridor Association (CHATCA); it's for a Central North American Trade Corridor fully integrated in the global economy and refers to "5 T's" as "essential:" tourism, technology, trade, transportation and training;

-- the Ports to Plains Trade (PTP) Corridor; it supports a multimodal one from Mexico through the four PTP states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma up to Canada and the Pacific Northwest;

-- the Champlain-Hudson Trade Corridor and Gateway Coalition representing trade from Quebec City and Montreal to New York; and

-- the I-95 Corridor Coalition alliance of transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations (including law enforcement) from Canada to Florida in support of transportation managements and operational common interest issues favoring business.

Nothing so far is finalized, but SuperCorrider momentum remains viable. It's slowed in Texas, but very much alive and viable.

In contrast, opposition groups are numerous, vocal, but yet to achieve enough critical mass to matter. They include groups like the "People's Summit" that protested in New Orleans last April against the recent three-presidential secret summit to plot strategy. Also, the conservative Coalition to Block the North American Union condemns a "stealth plan" to erase national borders, merge three nations into one, end the sovereignty of each, build a SuperCorridor, put Washington and the military in charge, allow unlimited immigration, and replace the dollar with the "amero."

Still another is a group of citizen-activist Oklahomans and the organization they formed: Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise. Like similar Texas and other state groups, it's against the SuperCorridor and its proposed I-35 route through their state. It's a conservative group believing that "a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market...with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation." It opposes government using the law to facilitate a "corporate takeover" of society and fund it with public tax dollars. On board as well is an Oklahoma state senator who says "the NAFTA Superhighway stops here."

He'll need other lawmakers with him and on April 29 failed. Despite vocal opposition, the Oklahoma state legislature authorized the creation of "Smart (inland) Ports" and SuperCorridor system despite earlier having passed a resolution urging Congress "to withdraw from the (SPP - North American Union)" and all activities related to it. Besides Oklahoma, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) lists 21 other states that have passed public-private partnership enabling legislation considered essential for private investment to go forward.

At the federal level, there's also congressional opposition (but not enough to matter) in spite of Rep. Virgil Goode and six co-sponsors introducing House Concurrent Resolution 40 in January 2007. It expressed "the sense of (some but not enough in) Congress that the United States should not engage in (building a NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

State legislatures as well are against it (in contrast to others in support) - thus far a dozen or more passing resolutions in 2008 and another 20 in 2007. Well and good but remember Adlai Stevenson's response to an enthusiastic supporter during his first presidential campaign. He thanked the woman and replied: "That's not enough madam. I need a majority."

It's no different for the SuperCorridor and North American Union. They're progressing secretly in spite of activist opposition and a largely unaware public. A recent poll sheds light. It was conducted by the American Policy Center that calls itself "a privately funded, nonprofit, 501 c (4), tax-exempt grassroots action and education foundation dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise and limited government...."

It revealed no widespread public SPP opposition because most people (58% living along the proposed Texas to Minnesota route) don't know about it or enough to matter. However, 95% of respondents with awareness opposed it but unfortunately in answer to biased questions. Their wording apparently conveyed the idea of "private corporations (having) power to enforce trade policy that may adversely affect our national sovereignty and independence."

Market researchers know that questions must be neutral and unbiased to produce reliable results. For example, respondents should have been asked: From what you know about SPP, do you favor or oppose it? A follow-up should then ask "why" to get unguided replies. Other biased questions were also asked and elicited strong opposition to an "amero," NAFTA courts superseding state and federal ones, the Bush administration being allowed to proceed without congressional approval, the US being "harmonized" or merged with Mexico and Canada, and more.

Most important is that public knowledge is sparse. What is known is incomplete, at times inaccurate, and either way plans (so far) are proceeding with or without congressional or public approval.

It means a corporate coup d'etat is advancing, aided and abetted by three governments. They plan to unite and become one, militarize the continent for enforcement, lay ribbons of concrete and rail lines across it, and hand it over to business for profit. That's where things now stand. Imagine where they'll end if a way isn't found to stop them.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9383

Doug Dowd's "At the Cliff's Edge" - Part II

Doug Dowd's "At the Cliff's Edge" (Part II) - by Stephen Lendman

Dowd's book is an essential text for students and adults. It's a critical review of 500 years of history that brought us to today's unprecendented dangers. Part I covered four and one-half centuries through WW II. Part II continues the story to the present.

Part III - Our World Today: Great Possibilities, Worsening Realities - 1950s - 1960s: Monopoly Capitalism, Cold War

Compared to what followed, the 1950s (post-Korean War period) were placid by comparison. Things changed:

-- 1960 - black student sit-downs began at store counters; civil rights agitation revved up;

-- 1961 - Eisenhower warned of a "military industrial complex;" it wasn't heeded, and Cuba foiled the Bay of Pigs invasion; it was the first of hundreds of attempts to remove Fidel Castro; most by assassination, and once it nearly succeeded;

-- 1962 - the Cuban missile crisis; later evidence showed how close the world came to nuclear disaster;

-- 1963 - Martin Luther King marches on Birmingham; his "I Have a Dream" speech in Washington; JFK assassinated in November; Vietnam hostilities escalate;

-- 1964 - the Senate passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution "legitimizing" war on Vietnam; only two senators opposed it;

-- 1965 - war intensifies; North Vietnam bombed; Malcolm X assassinated; riots erupt in Los Angeles Watts District;

1966 - US troop buildup escalates;

1967 - Martin Luther King's anti-Vietnam war speech one year to the day before his assassination; American street riots spread;

1968 - Tet turns the war; Martin Luther King assassinated; also Bobby Kennedy; Nixon elected; six and half more years of war;

1969 - Nixon announces "Vietnamization;" promises to end the war; intensifies it instead; secretly bombs Cambodia and Laos; North Vietnam as well; secret peace talks begun between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho; US duplicity highlights them; the Paris Peace Accords signed in January 1973; Saigon falls in 1975; remaining US civilian and military forces withdraw; Vietnam is still recovering; no reparations paid or war criminals prosecuted; the Cold War spreads; capitalism solidifies.

Capitalism is both a social and economic system. Economists Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy called it "monopoly capitalism (monocap)." Its six power components are:

-- giant corporations;

-- partnered with friendly giant states;

-- consumerism that Paul Baran defined as wanting things we don't need, not ones we do;

-- globalization at the center of the six; it exploits people, resources and markets worldwide in an endless quest for destructive growth;

-- the military industrial complex; its fuel - enemies (mostly invented), wars, removal of "uncooperative" leaders, corruption, and disdain for the rule of law; ignored - homeland social costs and vast ecological devastation; and

-- a supportive Big Media in an integrated world economy; democracy is disdained; so are people needs; society is uncaring; it characterizes America, and we're exporting it everyone for a one-size fits all world run by made-in-Washington rules; rule No. One - we're boss, and what we say goes.

The US Economy, 1970s - 2000: Its Crisis and Triumphs, Achievement and Disasters

Social and democratic advances occurred to some degree from the mid-1930s through the 1960s. Thereafter, they reversed and at an accelerating rate, especially post-1980 and even faster post-2000. For the past three and a half decades, there's been a pronounced shift to the right. Business flourished. People suffer. That's the plan with more of the same ahead.

Further, capitalism's nature is problematic. As a system, it's dysfunctional. It produces "periods of pervasive excess and productive capacities." It's essentially "destructive." The 1970s reflect the problem. Dowd refers to the "defects of its virtues:"

-- seemingly assured economic expansion yields higher costs and prices;

-- global economy superstates become rife with inefficiency and corruption - in business and government;

-- expansion yields excess productive capacities slowing economic growth;

-- it also creates unprecedented debt - for business, government and consumers;

-- in the 1970s, economic growth stagnated, but costs, prices and taxes rose; and

-- unemployment rose; poverty and urban decay grew; social tensions built; politics shifted to the right, and its proposed solution was curb democracy and cut social expenditures.

Things began accelerating, and corporate giants became triumphant. Post-1980, successive friendly presidents supported them. Two parties effectively became one. Multinational corporations became transnational. Business was better than ever because of how capitalism works - taking from the many for the few. It can't miss when governments back it.

Dowd reviewed its expansion through an unprecedented merger and acquisition (M & A) wave. In 1998 alone, there were 12,500 valued at $1.6 trillion. In two sectors especially - financial services and telecommunications, including the media. It got Fortune magazine to remark that "the face of the Global 500 was dramatically altered." At 1998's end, their revenues were $11.5 trillion, profits $440 billion, assets $39 trillion, and employees 40 million, after substantial downsizing "for greater efficiency." People are production inputs. The less needed, the lower the cost, the greater the profits. That's the idea behind setting down anywhere business operates cheapest regardless of people effects.

Sum it up - since the 1970s, average inflation-adjusted worker income and welfare declined, poverty rose, social benefits disappeared, and business got better than ever. Globalization flourished and with it the downsizing of a nation unmindful of homeland social costs. At the same time, the manufacturing base declined hugely, service industries grew, in financialization especially and with it speculative excess.

A scant 1% of the population sits at the top. Its rewards are outsized. Another one-fifth or so gained, while the remaining 80% have been weakened and cheated. Globalization is the driving force. Within it central banker demands take precedence. People and societal needs don't matter, and financialization and the State are "two sides of the same coin."

Borders are erased, capital is empowered, "externalities" are ignored, excess builds, so do profits, problems grow, the world gets more unlivable, but that's for others in the future to deal with.

Dowd wrote his book in 2006 before mid-2007 market turbulence erupted. It was brewing and predicable, and he asked "Is the United States Building a Debt Bomb?" He cited a 1999 Business Week essay referring to a tsunami of debt - household, corporate, financial sector and government. The data were alarming and much more so now. They reflected direct financial institution borrowing plus investors' securitized lending at $7 trillion compared to one-third that amount a decade earlier.

Add to it US foreign debt in the many trillions plus the impossible to repay national indebtedness in the many tens of trillions with unfunded liabilities factored in. It's made US and world economies "more precariously situated today than ever before in history," and it's playing out in today's market turbulence with no one sure what's coming but most people worried or they should be.

Key to the problem is consumerism that Thorstein Veblen called "conspicuous" in his 1899 book "The Theory of the Leisure Class." F. Scott Fitzgerald explained that "the very rich....are different from you and me." Veblen wrote about their spending habits and coined the phrase "conspicuous consumption." Today, it's called "keeping up with the Jones" or consumerism - not for essentials but for outsized gratification, and not just by the rich.

Consumerism is virulent and destructive. It pays no heed to its consequences, and therein lies its problem - personal overindebtedness and rising bankruptcies; neglected health, education and other essential needs; ecological destruction; unhealthy and unsafe consumer products; militarism and foreign wars; and democratic decay in a corporate-empowered state.

Consumers have lost their senses, have become "bewitched," and Dowd wonders what's next. He's not encouraged by what's happened thus far with the world "at the cliff's edge."

1970s - 2000: Social Deterioration, Politics, and Society

Why so? Things never should have come to this, but they did. When the 19th century ended, "the time had come when, for the first time in history, the basic needs of the people of industrial societies (could) be met:"

-- adequate nutrition and clean water;

-- good education;

-- health care;

-- proper housing; and

-- access to opportunity in a modern world that today is even easier to provide, but it's not in a society addicted to militarism, wars, and the benefit of the few over the many.

Industrial nations have no excuse. "Long ago (they) became (able) to meet" basic needs. Take America. Our wealth is so great, resources abundant, ingenuity immense, and science and technology advanced that it's unthinkable how poorly we performed. We've "long (been able) to meet all human and social needs at home and to cooperate" in lifting developing nations similarly.

Instead, we opted for the opposite, and look what's happened. Everything's commodified. Consumerism became religion and society warped. Values are corrupted, and people are sacrificed for profits. We rank shamefully low or lowest among industrial nations in most things mattering most - health care, education, adequate income and other essential human needs. We're consumed by excess, greed, wealth, corruption, militarism, and the idea that markets work best so let them.

Even worse is the notion of unleashing business to accomplish it, and economist Milton Friedman taught how: privatize everything, eliminate social services and benefits, and every constraint on business like taxes, regulations, interest rate ceilings, and all consumer protections against waste, fraud, abuse and unsafe products. A paradise for business. Hell on earth for people. Hard to believe they buy this. Sadly most do, and today we're consumed by it. Things aren't improving. They're worsening and to the point where the planet is endangered and young people have no future unless things radically change.

Further, inequalities are rising and essentials like health care are unaffordable for millions. Of the world's 20 richest nations, America spends the most and provides the worst care to its citizens. World Health Organization rankings put us 37th behind developed countries like France and Italy plus others like Chile, Saudi Arabia and Colombia. Consider Cuba that's viciously scorned as an outlier. It easily outclasses us in all health care categories because theirs is world-class, free, and accessible to everyone, including people in other countries where its doctors treat the needy. In America, that's unimaginable except for providers doing it pro bono.

Dowd covers the topic broadly, and hits greedy drug companies, HMO's and unneeded insurers hard. They add nothing to good care but plenty to costs with their bureaucratic add-ons that make care less affordable for millions. He also cites illness as the main source personal bankruptcies, the destruction of Medicaid, and the erosion of Medicare coverage for retirees.

Social Security is just as threatened. Dowd reviews the record, notes its built-in flaws, and explains the outlandish privatization scheme that will effectively end the most effective poverty-reduction program ever for retirees, the disabled and other eligible recipients. In George Bush's "ownership society," people can have anything if they pay for it. If not, they're on their own, out of luck, and endangerment to life and welfare don't matter.

Things are as bleak for public education. Privatization threatens a 373 year tradition that once served people well. No longer, and as a noted educator, Dowd shudders about the future. Imagine a country able to provide the best, yet opts for commodifying education the way it treats health care, other essentials, and all consumer products and services people don't need but can't live without.

"Reform" is the pretext behind it. It defines the misnamed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. It's long on testing, school choice, and market-based "reforms" but short on real achievement. It's built around rote learning, standardized tests, requiring teachers to "teach to the test," assessing results by Average Yearly Progress (AYP) scores, and punishing failure harshly - firing teachers and principals, closing schools and transforming them from public to charter or for-profit ones. That's the whole idea, of course, and it reflects current era thinking - that anything government does business does better, so let it, and the spirit behind it is bipartisan.

Dowd also laments about an educational system training students to obey authority, respect the status quo, and disenfranchise learning by adjusting classrooms to students instead of the reverse. From decades of teaching, he discovered that "when education is carried on as a learning process for the students, it is also one for the teacher." He and his students learned more by answering their questions than having them answer his. In other words, an open interchange between teacher and students for the betterment of all, and knowing that rote memory isn't learning, let alone understanding.

Education in America is mirror-opposite this. Students are cheated and likely manipulated the way they'll be short-changed and marginalized as adults - in an "ownership society" uncaring of people. Whether education, health care, proper nutrition, or housing, America disdains the needy and blames them for their misfortune. It's shocking, disturbing and undiscussed in the mainstream where images show all things people don't need and none of what's essential.

1970s - 2000: Savaging the American Dream: Inequality, Corruption in Politics, the Media

Ideologies justify the unjustifiable root of capitalism - inequality as "natural and normal" with victims responsible for their own misfortunes. On this score, America is "world champ" and then some.

Consider equality for starters. At birth our needs are equal. Our opportunities should be and be minimally met from cradle to grave. Not so under capitalism where "everything is always up for grabs." Worse still, and especially in America, race, gender and class play heavily into defining our needs and possibilities, and those topping the power structure make the rules. It makes us world leader in racism, poverty and inequality extremes. It's no way to run a democracy. It's never been another way, but today it's worse and much more dangerous.

Wages don't keep pace with costs, poverty is rising, inequality growing, discriminatory practices extreme, and they show up in countless data rarely discussed:

-- voter disenfranchisement; elections reduced to theater with half or more eligible opting out; why not when candidates are pre-selected, machines do our voting, losers are declared winners, and winners don't complain;

-- constitutional protections erased in a post-9/11 world;

-- a burgeoning prison population; now the largest in the world and mostly for blacks, hispanics and the poor for whom due process and equal justice are near impossible;

-- a plague of two household earners of necessity and combined it's often not enough; young children, of course, suffer without an at-home caregiver, preferably a mother or father;

-- an unprecedented wealth disparity between an elite few and most others; distinguishing between wealth from income with over half to the rich through inheritance; case in point - the current Bush generation with Bush I once described as being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple; Bush II bested his father plus his dark side as well; from his earliest days; pre-college as a boy; to his time as Texas governor when his aides described him as a man who enjoys killing - in reference to how many executions he presided over - more than in any other state after the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

Many other examples are similar. They show inequality extremes and dismissiveness of human needs as "capitalism moved toward industrialization (and) workers became (wage-enslaved) laborers." With globalization, it's everywhere to serve an insatiable desire to "accumulate." It's ideologically ingrained in us. Schools teach it. Media and PR wizardry sell it. Big money creates it. Politicians are bought to back it. Even the clergy are on board.

Mind management is clever, manipulation now easy, infotainment passes for reality, disinformation for truth, and the American dream is pure illusion and more nightmare. Dowd cites the "deep-seated corruption of the media." It's all-pervasive in commercial and political communication supporting big business, public harm, and erasing dwindling democratic remnants for plunder in disdain for human needs.

US Militarism, Past and Present: Talking Peace, Making War

All nations are culpable but none more than America - waging war for the sake of peace without cause so it's invented. The US today is omnipotent, mostly resource self-sufficient, and easily able to obtain all else it needs. In addition, it has no enemies and never did except during WW II. Even then, FDR provoked Japan into attacking, and Germany was obliged to its axis partner to declare war on us in support.

Nonetheless, America has been at war with one or more adversaries every year in our history without exception - abroad and/or internally. We're just as violent at home. We have the highest homicide rate in the West; a passion for owning guns; a craving for violent films, television and video games; and our society is called a "rape culture." The human toll is horrific, yet hardly discussed.

Dowd laments that "we haven't learned to hate war enough," and adds up "the arithmetic of slaughter." For America alone:

-- WW I - 110,000 dead (one-half from combat) and 200,000 wounded;

-- WW II - 400,000 dead and 670,000 wounded;

-- Korea - 36,000 dead and 103,000 wounded; and

-- Vietnam - 58,000 dead and 153,000 wounded.

To these numbers add many hundreds of thousands more with deep emotional scars plus many others taking ill from exposure to toxic environments. Add also the bloodiest war in US history - the Civil War. Three million fought on both sides and 600,000 died at a time the population was 31 million, including 4 million slaves. In proportional WW II terms, it would have taken 2.5 million lives. Today - six million.

Our adversaries fared much worse - at least three million Koreans, another million Chinese, three to four million Southeast Asians, countless millions of noncombatants plus immeasurable amounts of destruction. Even these numbers pale compared to WWs I and II - over 20 million killed in the first and up to 60 million in the second plus countless millions wounded and displaced.

Today the toll rises daily in Iraq and Afghanistan in numbers far higher than reported. Official ones are fiction - for US combatants but far more so for Iraqis and Afghans. Some estimates since the Gulf War place sanctions-caused deaths at around 1.7 million, including 1.2 million children under age five. Add another 200,000 violent Gulf war deaths and up to two million 2003-2007 war deaths, including 800,000 children under age five according to UNICEF. For Afghanistan from 2001- 2007, estimates range up to 3.2 million deaths, including 700,000 children under age five.

Consider US casualties as well. Again, media-reported figures are fiction. One estimate totals combatant deaths plus Pentagon wounded count updates. It tops 85,000 from hostile and non-hostile causes plus many thousands later reported with brain traumas from explosions. It leaves out future illnesses and deaths from toxic substances exposure, most critically depleted uranium. In addition, the VA-reported 18 daily suicides and the greatest tolls of all from various studies - from 18.5% to 32% with post-traumatic stress (PTSD) disorders plus another 19% with concussions and/or head wounds-inflicted brain injuries. Before these wars end, many hundreds of thousands of Americans alone will be scared for life or dead.

For Iraqis and Afghans, it's many times more hellish with no end of conflict and occupation in sight and worrisome signs of further war against Iran. Dowd is justifiably angry. He states that "come hell or high water, no matter what, those who rule the USA will never learn. But will we (in time to stop them)."

Part IV - Toward a Better World - Or the Worst Ever? - At the Cliff's Edge

Dowd states what's hard to dispute - that "we live in what must be seen as the most perilous times ever" with his finger pointing squarely at America as culprit. He cites an "abyss" of:

-- unending wars, possibly nuclear ones; each one begets the next;

-- a fragile world economy; excess greed; unrepayable mountains of debt; America eating its seed corn;

-- pervasive political, business and social corruption; stolen elections highlight it; so is an illusory democracy and the power of big money running everything; and

-- potential environmental disasters.

These are multiple ticking time bombs. Any one of them can destroy us. Conditions aren't improving. They're worsening. The stakes keep getting greater, but most Americans are distracted and unmindful.

Dowd blames it on "demon growth" - on capitalism's toxic fallout. Its nature demands more by exploiting "nonhuman and human elements of nature - in a destructive and tragic interaction." With unimaginable capacities for good, they're wasted on producing ills. Damage keeps mounting inexorably toward a harsh future fate.

Unless we change and live differently, we'll "go down with our planet as a species." Knowing what to do is easy. Doing it another matter. We've so far not even tried.

A Democratic and Totalitarian or a Genuinely Democratic Society?

Dowd quotes Lincoln during the Civil War saying: "We must 'disenthrall' ourselves, and then we shall save our country." He meant accepting reality and ending self-deception. It applies more today than ever, but does anyone notice. Some but too few.

We're afflicted with too many "isms," negative ones - racism, sexism, consumerism, nationalism, militarism, imperialism and capitalism. Shorting of ending them, we're heading "toward degeneration and self-destruction."

Solutions:

-- change "ingrained habits of mind;"

-- never lose hope; the impossible is possible; by effort, not wishing;

-- future predictions are futile; they'll be what people make them; promising signs emerge; weakening US dominance is one;

-- remember Antonio Gramsci's challenge - "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will;" don't just think it; do it; become political, informed, active, disruptive; know the stakes; spread the word; do it now and keep doing it;

-- we've done it; it works; it freed black slaves, empowered unions, produced civil rights and won impressive social gains; all too often then lost; movements lose their energy; people "rest on their oars;" elitists take advantage; they've never been more empowered; it's time to heed Arundhati Roy; "we are many, they are few."

We're all in this together. It's "one world or none at all." Unity is essential and plenty of it. Otherwise, we're heading for "disarray, degeneration, and disaster." We alone control our fate. The goal - a world society based on cooperation, not competition. One without "isms," at least the above negative ones. Invent a new one or use none at all. What matters is what we produce - democracy, real, not illusory: "culturally, economically, politically, socially" with humans as part of nature, not its adversary. And fundamental is that wars won't be tolerated - never as a first or last resort. Each begets the next. Their dangers inevitably increase. They're now too horrific to contemplate. Ending them is the only choice or they'll end us.

"If not now, when? If not us, who?" If not soon, maybe never. If that's not incentive enough, what is?

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9302

Doug Dowd's "At the Cliff's Edge" - Part I

Doug Dowd's "At the Cliff's Edge" (Part I) - by Stephen Lendman

At age 89, Doug Dowd is a wonder. He's still active, vibrant and thankfully so. He calls himself a "radical economist" in the best sense of the term, and for more than 50 years through the late 1990s, he was a distinguished interdisciplinary professor of economic history and more at Cornell, UC Berkelely and elsewhere. It went along with his activism, progressive thinking, honest concern for the least advantaged, and love of teaching young people. He's no different today, except that he's semi-retired, living full-time in Bolonga, Italy, nearing his 60th year teaching at nearby Modena University, and approaching his 10th decade.

Dowd also authored many scholarly writings, numerous articles, and many books on cutting-edge economic, political and social issues. Included are Capitalism and Its Economics, the two-volume Broken Promises of America, and his newest and subject of this review, At the Cliff's Edge: World Problems and US Power.

Doud dedicates his book to his students in America and Italy. "More than a few of (them) have become dear friends." They've thanked him for his teaching, and this book is his "opportunity to thank them."

He's witnessed history longer than most others and cites his concerns. "The world now stands on 'a cliff's edge' " below which he sees "four related groups of horrors: existing and likely wars, a fragile world economy, pervasive and deepening corruption, and the earth dangerously near the 'tipping point' of environmental disaster." Add one more for good measure - a disdainful administration heading the world for potential disaster, uncaring about what it's doing, and leaving its mess for a successor.

For Dowd, it's ominous and disturbing. We may be at "the last stop" of a centuries-long voyage. It produced 15th to 18th century colonialism and nationalism. They, in turn, spawned capitalism and industrialism, and then combined "transformed colonialism into imperialism."

Dowd wrote his book for a purpose. He learned as a student and teacher that what's in it isn't taught or publicly discussed. His classes were never that way. It's why they were and are still so popular, and why one of his former students asked him to write a needed classroom text. As a high school social studies teacher he found none that were "readable, pertinent, and accessible." Dowd's book fills the vacuum. It's broad in scope, clearly written, easily understood, and a wonderful primer for students. Adults also, and it covers 500 years to the present. In it, he's critically unsparing in his assessment - of the modern era and what preceded it.

The book is panoramic in scope. It's long and detailed, and this review covers its highlights in hopes readers will get the volume for it all. Plus the character of the man who wrote it and now working on a new so far unfinished book with likely more offerings ahead. Approaching age 90, Dowd is resilient, dedicated and continues to write and teach. We're all the better off for it. Read on.

In a moment of reflection, he imagines what America could and should be, not what it is. Therein lies the problem. We have an "unconscious way....of seeing ourselves....as something special (or) better" than others. Hardly so about a country one observer describes as being "a marriage of all that's admirable with all that's appalling" with an emphasis on the latter now and worsening. Instead of being virtuous, "we have evolved toward something like its opposite." Dowd equates the gap between "our realities and our ideals" to "the Grand Canyon."

And sitting in its "dirty center....are three unacknowledged ways of life, attitudes, (and) values that have been mutually supportive:

-- racism and other forms of prejudice;

-- ....violence and militarism; (and)

-- ....insatiable and socially sanctioned greed for money, things, and power."

In his forward, Dowd gives examples but laments that they're not taught in classrooms. One was the Compromise of 1877 unknown to most readers. It was after the Civil War during Reconstruction when northern troops occupied the South. Blacks were nominally free, and southern whites were furious to see them hold office, be policemen, eat in public places, and so forth. The so-called Compromise ended the occupation and "freed whites to do as they wished to black men, women and children." It took almost a century to end Jim Crow laws, savage lynchings, and a federal government committed to stopping them.

Before it happened, here's what the North got in return. The right to exploit southern resources, its mines, railroads, factories, cheap labor, and keep blacks de facto slaves as sharecroppers with no schools, voting rights, safety or any legal recourse from the state. For them, everything changed, yet everything remained the same.

Another example is notable with memories of two stolen elections still vivid. In the 1876 (US) presidential election, Samuel Tilden got "today's equivalent of 2 million more popular votes than (Rutherford B.) Hayes." In all elections, electoral college votes are decisive. Hayes was awarded one more than Tilden, but 20 votes were disputed, so a congressional committee got to decide. In secret session, a deal was struck to make Hayes president. In hindsight, there's no doubt that the election was stolen in similar fashion to the Supreme Court giving it to George Bush in 2000.

Marc Crispin Miller's book then documented the encore in 2004 - electoral fraud writ large in a process even more one-sided than in 2000. Miller's account makes persuasive reading. "Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform" shows what we're up against and what to look forward to going forward unless sweeping electoral reform is undertaken.

Part I - The Beginnings and Growth of the Modern World

Dowd observes how terribly wrong things are today - too much poverty, hunger, war, anger, privilege and too little of what's essential to make life tolerable. His book explains how it evolved - "but need not stay this way."

He cites what he calls the "Big Four" - colonialism (now imperialism), capitalism, nationalism, and industrialism. They're "processes," not "things," and each "fed the others."

Colonialism began in the late 1400s, and "explorer-heros" like Columbus advanced it. It was brutal, ugly, racist, and violent. Over three centuries it spanned the world and made way for what followed. Thomas Hobbes described life then as "nasty, brutish and short." With today's scientific advances, it should be better but isn't. It's "worse than ever....because of a maldistribution of power" - too much at the top and mass misery at the bottom and worsening. Add the nuclear threat and potential ecological disaster, and you get the point.

As the world's leading superpower and richest nation, America bears most responsibility - what's wrong and how to fix it. We're not alone, but "the USA is largely responsible for bringing the world to the cliff's edge."

Colonialism: The Earliest of the Big Four

It began in the Mediterranean region, then spread everywhere through trade, financial activities and more. Dominant countries were Spain, Portugal, but by 18th century's end the Dutch, then overtaken by the British in the 19th century. Centralized control became important, the national state common, and a social system called mercantilism emerged to serve it. It then evolved into industrial capitalism but in a much more primitive form than today.

Mercantilism was based on national economic protection. International trade developed, and the idea was to maximize exports, minimize imports, and use revenues to finance government, wars, and greater expansion. It, in turn, led to capitalism, nationalism, and industrialism and all the ills they produce.

Colonialism benefitted elitists who exploited cheap labor on stolen and occupied lands. Millions were enslaved, and Dowd calls slavery "the worst crime of all." It existed much earlier, but by the 17th and 18th centuries burgeoned with trade to the Americas, especially the US colonies. Rich agriculture was their strength, and slave labor maintained it. Africa supplied it in the many millions.

Capitalism: The Most Important of The Big Four

Capitalism is a social as well as economic system, much like slavery was. First and foremost, capitalists are a money-chasing "class" who've found ways to rule the "entire social process." Not just our work but what we think, and that's crucial. Witness the power of Big Media in an age of mass communication with giant corporations and their advertisers benefitting. They "shape our feelings, thoughts, and behavior as both consumers and voters."

Dowd defines capital and its components - the means of production, accumulation, technological advance, a powerless working class, and finance to pay for it. In the modern era, add another element - more than ever, government partnered with business, and providing a legislative and subsidized open field for profits at the expense of working people. The deck is stacked in a zero sum game - business wins; people lose.

Consider the "heart, brain and muscle of capitalism:"

-- its heart - limitless exploitation of workers and the land;

-- its brain - continued economic and geographic expansion; and

-- its muscle - capitalist power and ability to rule society's economic, political and social life.

Marx described it as the exploitation of human beings and Mother Nature and the resulting destruction of our humanity and fertility of the land. It goes back to medieval England, the feudal era, a world of lords and serfs, the emergent enclosure movement, and a powerless working class today called "wage-slaves."

With technological advances like the steam engine and textile machinery, industrialism emerged in the early 19th century. Capitalism flourished, but for workers life was "nasty, brutish and short." It still is for 80% of people the way economist Paul Baran explained it in his Political Economy of Growth. He observed what's just as true today: "the rich become richer by causing the poor to become poorer." Even worse, the poor get blamed for their own misfortune.

There are plenty of them, including millions in America - far more than official Census Bureau numbers that deliberately understate the problem at about one-fifth of the population. Today, 68% of US workers earn less than the Economic Policy Institute's living wage estimate for a family of four - $14 an hour or about $30,000 a year. Even with two family wage-earners, US poverty is likely double the Census Bureau number - in the richest country in the world Dowd calls "the Unequal Society of America."

Corporate capitalism requires inequality - economic, political and social. Racism is one of its defining features. It pits workers against each other for a dwindling number of good jobs, weakens them, and strengthens those with power. It shaped today's America, and consider a few of our "firsts:"

-- the number of mentally ill,

-- incarcerated,

-- without health coverage or too little of it,

-- with inadequate savings or none at all,

-- indebtedness,

-- homelessness,

-- ill-educated,

-- illiterate,

-- impoverished,

-- abused children,

-- waste,

-- environmental degradation,

-- nuclear weapons stockpile,

-- a stated intention to use them preemptively,

-- militarism and the multi-trillions it costs,

-- the amount of public fraud, and

-- much more. Nowhere else are excesses and inequalities greater, and no country is more able to avoid them, won't, and inflicts so much harm on so many people everywhere.

Nationalism: Your Country Can Do No Wrong

"Nations and nationalism came into existence and strengthened as the needs for their strength arose." It has nothing to do with patriotism or love of country. It's a "blood brother of racism, militarism, hate and fear" and belief one's country is superior and "can do no wrong." It spawns imperialism that, in turn, feeds capitalism, industrialism and nationalism. It spurs competition between nations and is a frequent cause of war. It's key to understanding WWs I and II, what's ongoing in the Middle East and Central Asia, and what may lie ahead as nations vie for power, resources, markets, and cheap labor.

Industrialism: Invention Is the Mother of Necessity

It goes beyond nonagricultural production. It's about large cities, a class society, enough educated people, strong government, technological advances, and a modern infrastructure. Dowd distinguishes between the (first) industrial revolution with its steam and simple machinery. It led to a second technological one because of chemistry and physics advances. We're now in a third, it's global, and it's based on electronics, biotechnology, information and plenty of high-octane finance. Decades back, a high-school education sufficed. Today, one or more college degrees are vital and in the right fields. Even then, good jobs are disappearing - to low-wage countries, in growing numbers, so what's left are fewer opportunities as the nation eats its seed corn.

That would have been unimaginable when modern corporations emerged around 1855. Necessity was the reason. Large-scale production needs capital and more than individuals can raise. Corporations get it (like today) by selling shares to investors. By the 1870s, an earlier version of today's America emerged. One author called it the age of "Robber Barons" with names still familiar to most. They were predators very skilled at their trade - monopolizing markets, skimming millions from corruption, speculating wildly, exploiting workers brutishly, and getting away with it with friendly government help. It's no different today except the stakes are greater and risks unimaginable.

Earlier, mergers became common. Before WW I, they combined businesses producing like things like steel and oil. By the 1920s, vertically conglomerates emerged of the type so common today - like a GE owning appliance, media, finance and other dissimilar companies.

They became multinationals (MNCs) in the 1960s, then transnationals (TNCs) in the 1980s operating everywhere. They're huge, powerful and in many cases larger in GDP equivalent than their host countries. The buzzword is globalization. Protests are for global justice. Little so far is in sight. Hopefully it will come. The need is overwhelming, but challenges against it are daunting:

-- hugely powerful TNCs;

-- governments in their pocket;

-- extremes of wealth concentration and power increasing;

-- destructive militarism for more; capitalism requires it;

-- people exploitation enhances it;

-- consumerism keeps it profitable;

-- efficiency also as well collateral ecological fallout.

It's horrific - enormous waste; destructive wars; and little relief in times of peace: conglomerated production and agriculture; exploited labor; extreme wealth disparities; commodifying everything; planned obsolescence; productive overcapacity; unemployment and underemployment; racism; people as production inputs to be used and discarded like waste; and deep-seated levels of corruption.

As companies grow, things worsen in our war-addicted economy profiting business and government together - a mutually destructive alliance. Their gain is civil society's loss, and the stakes keep getting greater. It's what Dowd means by a world "at the cliff's edge."

Part II - The Global Spread, Functioning, and Breakdown of Industrial Capitalism, 1815 - 1945 - From Imperialism to WW I

Dowd gives a sweeping review of 130 years through WW II's end. Of necessity, this account is briefer. Britain was dominant in the 19th and early 20th century through WW I. Inevitably it was challenged by Germany's science and educational superiority and America's incomparable strengths. These three nations and other European ones "unleashed the 19th century version of colonialism. It was called imperialism (and it) made colonialism look tame." By the late 19th century, resource needs "were raging," and competition intense to secure them.

Consider Africa - resource rich and "doomed to endure one set of disasters after another." Slavery gave way to endless civil wars to ruthless imperial exploitation. The Congo was typical and most important as the continent's greatest prize - an abundance of ivory, cobalt, copper, rubber, diamonds, gold, zinc, manganese and more in a country the size of western Europe.

Belgium's King Leopold took it as his private fiefdom, sucked out its riches at the cost of millions of lives, and the country remained a colony until post-WW II. Popular protests won liberation as in other African states. Patrice Lumumba became its first Prime Minister. He wanted Africa freed from European dominance, and he paid with his life for his efforts. The continent is no better off today. America exploits it most. Oil and its other resources are coveted, and no independent leaders are tolerated.

The war in Somalia and challenging Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe highlight the continent's crisis (and nations everywhere). By 19th century's end, European powers controlled all of it. Today America is preeminent and intends to remain so.

Asian history is similar and a lot more than about China and Japan. There's the subcontinent, Central, and Southeast Asia for a vitally important world region. Add the Middle East and its vast oil riches that were discovered early in the last century.

The US was least aggressive but not quiescent. In the 19th century, it took America and half of Mexico, then added Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Samoa, assorted other territories, the Canal Zone and control of Cuba with in perpetuity Guantanamo Bay rights so long as rent is paid or unless both countries back out by mutual consent. Looking back, it was mere prelude to far greater 20th century aims, especially post-WW II when they extended everywhere and now include space.

1914-1945: The Most Disastrous Years in History

Dowd is blunt, and who can disagree. He calls the period between WWs I and II "the most turbulent and disastrous in all of recorded history." Economically the global economy suffered. Many countries endured depressions that were only exceeded by the "most severe conflicts in their history." Britain was one, and its economic troubles emerged in the late 19th century. Brits created "the first world economy." It was strongest militarily, the envy of all Europe, and it became a recipe for rivalries. Who'd be able to create an empire first and be strong enough to keep it. It led to WW I, a flawed peace, years of chaos, conflict and convulsions leading to another great war that the first one was supposed to prevent.

Except for the Great Depression, America was spared, and is now the world's only superpower. Post-WW I, the US emerged strengthened. For its part, Britain was effectively bankrupt. The war took its toll as it did against the continent's other combatants. It turned the 1920s into years of "serious recession, economic slack, withdrawal from international trade," and the rise of fascism as an antidote to hard times. WW II was a war to end it. Instead, it merely slowed it, then relocated it to America - first in "friendly" form, but post-9/11 in increasingly new millennium despotism. What Peter Dale Scott calls the "deep state" - unaccountable, lawless, below the radar, self-serving against the public interest and operative for decades but near omnipotent today. Its classic elements are mostly evident and worrisome:

-- severe repression;

-- de facto one-party rule;

-- despotic laws backing it;

-- courts supporting it;

-- iron-fisted militarism and "homeland security" enforcement;

-- a permanent state of war;

-- institutionalized illegal spying;

-- stifling dissent;

-- stealing elections;

-- a claimed messianic mission;

-- outlandish racism and targeting racial and ethnic groups on the pretext of fighting "terrorism;" and

-- corporatism writ large with strong elements of patriotism, nationalism, yet calling it democracy.

Post-WW I, Dowd traced its rise in Italy, Germany, and Japan with a fundamental lesson for today - democracy and freedom are fragile. Given the right circumstances, they're easily manipulated and corrupted. Earlier the world paid dearly. Today it still does. The dangers are overwhelming.

1945 - 1950: From the Ashes Arising

WW II left most of Europe and large parts of Asia in ruins. America remained untouched and triumphant. Rebuilding began but for a purpose - to solidify US dominance, create foreign markets for business, and fabricate a Soviet threat for an emergent military-industrial complex. Enter the Marshall Plan, IMF, World Bank, GATT, the Cold War, NATO, and stationing US forces everywhere in ways unimaginable for another country to do here.

Japan became "an immense aircraft carrier (and US) naval base...." West Germany was much the same on the continent. The Depression was over, the great war won, America was triumphant, so on to the next great quest - advancing "capitalist development: monopoly capitalism and the Cold War."

The Wars in Korea and Vietnam

Liberation helped neither country at a time of Cold War strategy. Things got worse and then some - division; horrific wars; and millions killed, wounded, displaced and immiserated. Wounds are still healing, South Korea still occupied, the North isolated, tensions still high, and Vietnam is chemically contaminated and a US offshore sweatshop.

Dowd reviews the histories and concludes: "To those who cheer our 'victory' in the Cold War, our fist-shaking against the 'axis of evil,' and our 'mission accomplished' in Iraq, here is a request - Dear Uncle Sam: Spare us your victories." They reveal deceit, betrayal and conquest for world dominance.

More on Dowd's book follows in Part II. Watch for it soon on this web site.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9302

BBC's Pro-Israeli Bias

BBC's Pro-Israeli Bias - by Stephen Lendman

In its near 86 year history, BBC has a long, unbroken and dubious distinction. Today it's little different from its corporate-run counterparts in America, Britain and throughout the world. In fact, on its tailored for a US BBC America audience, what passes for news matches stride for stride what people here see every day - mind-numbing commercialism, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, celebrity and sports features, and other diverting and distracting non-news that should embarrass correspondents and presenters delivering it. It offends viewers and treats them like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about the most important world and national issues affecting their lives and welfare.

That's the idea, of course, and has been since BBC's inception. John Reith was its founder and first general manager. Reassuring the powerful, he set the standard adhered to thereafter: "(You) know (you) can trust us not to be really impartial." BBC never was and never is.

Impartiality has no place on BBC nor does its claim about "honesty, integrity, (and being) free from political influence and commercial pressure." How can it? Its Director-General, Executive Board Chairman, BBC Trust Chairman and senior managers are government-appointed and charged with a singular task - to function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." On all vital issues - war and peace, state and corporate corruption, human rights, social justice, or coverage of the Middle East's longest and most intractable conflict, Westminster and the establishment rest easy. They know BBC is "reliable" - pro-government, pro-business and dismissive of the public trust it disdains. Now more than ever.

This article covers one example among many - BBC's distorted, one-sided support for Israel and its antipathy toward Palestinians. In this respect, it's fully in step with its American and European counterparts - Israeli interests matter; Palestinian ones don't; as long as that holds, conflict resolution is impossible. Therein lies the problem. With its reputation, world reach, and influence, BBC's coverage exacerbates it.

Key BBC Terms In Its Israeli - Palestinian Coverage

In October 2006, Electronic Intifada.net listed BBC's "key terms" in its conflict coverage - to "find a balance" that, in fact, tilts strongly toward Israel. For example:

-- pre-meditated assassinations are called "killings" or occasionally "targeted killings" if Israeli sources say it;

-- the separation or apartheid wall is called a "barrier, separation barrier, West Bank barrier, (or simply) this wall;" sometimes "fence" is used as well; no hint of its real purpose or that the World Court ruled it illegal; no mention either that it's unrelated to security and simply a land-grab scheme and effort to heighten Palestinian isolation;

-- East Jerusalem - BBC recognizes West Jerusalem as part of Israel; East Jerusalem is considered occupied with its status "still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties....We recognize no sovereignty over the city;" The phrase "Arab East Jerusalem" is avoided; so is any mention that Israeli settlements encroach on it and aim to annex it entirely; Palestinians want the city for their capital; it belongs to them; Israel won't allow it; BBC won't explain it;

-- Gaza - Israel nominally disengaged in summer 2005; in fact, it never did; it merely redeployed its forces, and maintains rigid control over the Territory's land, coast and airspace; it invades and attacks at will and maintains a brutish mediaeval siege; all movement in and out of Gaza is restricted; so are Gazans' access to food, water, health care, fuel, electricity and other life essentials; the result is a deep humanitarian crisis; BBC ignores it; instead it merely refers to an "end to Israel's permanent military presence," not an end to its occupation, repression, continued incursions, mass killings, targeted assassinations, and systemic use of torture;

The Green Line - it separates Israel from the West Bank, but BBC reporting blurs it; it doesn't call it a border because that implies internationally recognized status; instead it fudges by calling it "the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank;"

-- Intifada - more fudging when referring to causes; value judgments are avoided; so is truth; don't say Ariel Sharon's September 29, 2000 Haram al-Sharif provocation incited a popular uprising; package his visit with Palestinian frustration over a failed peace process and say it "sparked the (second) intifada (rather than it) led (to it or) started (it);"

-- Jewish - distinguish between "Israeli" or "Jewish" to avoid religious or racial connotations; stress political ones instead; ignore how Israelis stress Jewishness by relating to "the promised land," one "without people for a people without a land," a Jewish homeland, Israel's biblical connection, and raising the issue of anti-semitism against harsh Israeli critics; when they're Jewish call them self-hating;

-- Occupied Territories or Occupation - BBC refers to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, not the Golan Heights; after Israel "disengaged," Gaza is in political limbo; BBC distinguishes between the "occupied territories" and Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories; calling Gaza and the West Bank "disputed territories" is preferred; in fact, there's no dispute; they're both Israeli occupied Palestinian land;

-- settlements and outposts - BBC distinguishes between them when, in fact, they vary only in size; BBC avoids calling them illegal; they're all illegal but adjectives aren't used unless they're vital to a story; in all reports, BBC is one-sided; it stresses that Israel disputes international law; anti-Israeli value judgments aren't made; the rule of law is dismissed; Palestinian rights are ignored; the growing number of Israeli settlers is fudged, downplayed and generally not mentioned;

-- Palestine - BBC acknowledges that no independent state exists but the "peace process" aims to create one; unmentioned is that negotiations are fake and their reports try to hide it; so do deceptive words to appease pro-Israel critics; BBC obliges them;

-- "relative calm" or "quiet" periods - it refers to quiescent Palestinian resistance, no Israeli deaths, but not ongoing Israeli attacks and killings;

-- right of return - BBC ignores international law and UN Resolution 194; it promotes the Israeli position instead; and

-- "terrorists" - a loaded term applying only to Palestinians; never Israelis; most often other words are used like "bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent (or) militant;" Palestinian self-defense is never called resistance, and Israeli incursions aren't ever called aggression.

Media "Rules of Engagement" in Covering the Middle East

In June 2002, Robin Miller listed "The Media's Middle East Rules of Engagement." BBC's Israeli-Palestinian coverage adheres to them rigidly:

Rule 1 - "View the Middle East (ME) through Israeli eyes;" Palestinians are terrorists and aggressors; Israelis are victims who retaliate; self-defense is their motive; so is avoiding the truth;

Rule 2 - "Treat American and Israeli governmental statements as (truthful) hard news;" avoid any information that contradicts them;

Rule 3 - "Ignore the historical context;" avoid mentioning six decades of dispossession, occupation, and hundreds of preceding years during which Palestine was the Palestinian homeland; also suppress the idea that a Jewish homeland first originated with Zionism's late 19th century's founding and didn't exist prior to that;

Rule 4 - "Avoid the fundamental legal and moral issues posed by the Israeli occupation;" say nothing about Geneva, UN Resolution 194, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and all other recognized international human rights laws;

-- Rule 5 - "Suppress or minimize news unfavorable to the Israelis;" this rule is ironclad and unforgiving; open debate isn't tolerated; facts are suppressed; aggressors are called victims; self-defense is called terrorism; news is carefully "filtered," minds manipulated, and truth conspicuously absent; BBC excels at it and lets Israel get away with murder;

-- Rule 6 - "Muddy the waters when necessary;" major US media do it; so do human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; they tread lightly on Israeli-Palestinian issues and slant their views accordingly; so does BBC;

-- Rule 7 - "Credit all Israeli claims (as fact), even if wholly unfounded;" if Israelis say it, it's true; BBC approves;

-- Rule 8 - "Doubt all Palestinian assertions, no matter how self-evident;" if Palestinians say it, it's false or at best an unsubstantiated claim; most often ignore, downplay or fudge it;

-- Rule 9 - "Condemn only Palestinian violence;" treat it as a crime against innocent Israeli victims; ignore any reference to self-defense against Israeli aggression and rule of law violations; and

Rule 10 - "Disparage the international consensus supporting Palestinian rights;" better still - ignore it or condemn it as biased or anti-semitic.

Add one more rule for good measure. Repeat any lie often enough and most people will believe it. It's foolproof and works every time.

Independent Analysis of BBC's Israel - Palestine Coverage

In 2005, the BBC commissioned a study to review the impartiality of its Israeli - Palestinian coverage. It consisted of an independent panel, the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, and British - Israeli international lawyer Noam Lubell. Their published April 2006 findings weren't what the broadcaster wished. Highlights from them showed BBC coverage:

-- rarely covered daily Palestinian hardships and repression under occupation;

-- was incomplete, misleading, and failed to consistently provide a full and fair account of the conflict;

-- overlooked important themes; in the study period it most notably ignored Israeli annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;

-- omitted a substantial amount of important news vital to Palestinian concerns;

-- failed to convey the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience; specifically that one side is dominant and the other under occupation and forced to endure dependence indignities and hard line repression;

-- seldom used the term occupation; mentioned military occupation only once during the study period;

-- reported nothing about nearly four decades of occupation and repression;

-- misportrayed Israel's Gaza disengagement as a positive step; failed to clarify it as a ruse and that Gaza remains occupied, invaded and attacked at will;

-- failed to report Israeli assertions that relocating Gaza settlers would strengthen Israel's control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem;

-- never clarified that Gaza settlements were illegal; that Gazans face ongoing hardships and stressed instead the "controversy" of withdrawing among Israelis;

-- misused or misportrayed the term "terrorism" and only applied it to Palestinians;

-- omitted any reference to historical background and failed to put stories in proper context;

-- provided inadequate analysis and interpretation of key events and issues;

-- failed to explain the meaning of Zionism;

-- failed to provide background of the 1967 and 1973 wars;

-- consistently misportrayed Hamas; described it as formally committed to Israel's destruction; ignored Hamas' acceptance of the Arab peace proposal and its willingness to recognize Israel in return for an end to the occupation;

-- mischaracterized the Oslo Accords as positive; ignored its deficiencies and betrayal;

-- mentioned the Intifada with no explanation of cause or justification;

-- failed to cite international law and UN resolutions; their call for an end to Israel's occupation; and the fact that Israel ignores international rulings contrary to its interests;

-- ignored Palestinians' legal right to return or restitution if they choose not to;

-- ignored humanitarian and human rights laws;

-- failed to explain extrajudicial executions are illegal;

-- mischaracterized the Separation Wall that the World Court ruled illegal;

-- misrepresented the status of Jerusalem;

-- gave unequal access to Israeli officials and spokespersons; stations none of its correspondents in Occupied Palestine; has them all inside Israel; results in a huge disparity in reports favoring Israel while disparaging Palestinians;

-- misportrayed Israelis as peace-seeking and Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims as aggressors;

-- stressed Israeli victimhood, the importance of Israeli deaths and injuries, and relative unimportance of a disproportionate number of Palestinian ones;

-- responded to criticism defensively; continued to repeat past errors cited; showed deference to Israeli issues and the pro-Israeli Lobby;

-- ignored its own established editorial standards, including on terminology; as a result, consistently showed bias, a lack of clarity and precision and did little to improve comprehension and understanding;

-- overall - BBC falls far short of fair and impartial reporting and has done little to redress pointed out deficiencies; one positive note - the analysis found no evidence linking anti-Semitic behavior to BBC reports; it also found none dispelling it.

Glasgow University Media Group Study of Middle East News Coverage - It's "Bad News from Israel" and BBC

Researchers Greg Philo and Mike Berry conducted the study between 2000 and 2002, and their above quoted 2004 book title discusses it. Little has changed from then to now, BBC's reporting highlights it, and it's "bad news" for kept-in-the-dark viewers of major UK news and current affairs coverage.

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn agrees and explained in his unsparing comments about his former employer. He called it "dishonest - in concept, approach and execution....(it) favours the occupying soldiers over the occupied Arabs, depicting the latter, essentially, as alien tribes threatening the survival of Israel, rather than vice versa." It depicts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "as a battle of two (equal) forces (with equally) right and wrong responsibility. It is the tyranny of spurious equivalence." As the UK and world's leading broadcaster, BBC is justifiably blamed.

"Bad News from Israel" explains how - by consistently showing pro-Israel bias in virtually all its reporting and at times in the extreme. Beyond the book's timeline, correspondent Chris Morris' January 2004 "Lost hope in Mid-East conflict" report is a case in point. It's about an expectant Palestinian woman confronted at a checkpoint. Prevented from passing, she gives birth and miscarries.

Morris is sympathetic but sides with the soldiers. "You can't blame (them, he says) for being jumpy at checkpoints....because there are Israeli victims too, children among them, killed by snipers and suicide bombers from the West Bank. What would you have done? Would you have taken the risk? Or would you have played it safe, fearful of a trap? And so it goes on - another week in the Middle East."

Even worse, the greater issue is ignored - an instance reflecting daily life in Occupied Palestine plus regular killings and abuse. Morris turns a blind eye. He highlights suicide bombings instead - "A Palestinian mother in her early 20s blows herself to bits and takes the lives of four young Israelis, after tricking them into believing she was ill." He continues - "A Jewish settler is killed on the West Bank, leaving five children without a father, including triplets just three months old." Reports like his are commonplace on BBC. Israeli lives matter. Palestinian ones don't. Philo and Berry document the evidence.

Their study covers what media should report, a content analysis of their coverage, and how focus group interviews show how viewers are ill-served and left uninformed. Below are some results that apply to today:

-- little or no historical context was provided; origins of the conflict were omitted; in the 2000 timeframe covered, BBC (and ITN) devoted 3500 lines of text to the Intifada, but a scant 17 to context or history;

-- reporting consistently was pro-Israel and justified the most extreme actions and lawlessness; at the same time, Palestinian resistance was highlighted and condemned as terrorism;

-- in the authors' words: "There (was) no evidence from our analysis to suggest that Palestinian views were given preferential treatment on the BBC. The opposite (was) in reality the case;"

-- BBC justified Israeli violence as "response" or "retaliation;" in contrast, Palestinian resistance was called "horrific," an "atrocity," "terrorism," or even "mass murder;"

-- some BBC reports were rife with errors whether intentionally or from ignorance;

-- reports focused on Israeli security and right to exist; comparable Palestinian rights got little mention; nor did their impoverishment, deplorable daily existence, or a brutish four-decade military occupation;

-- Israeli deaths were highlighted; Palestinian ones played down or ignored; regular Israeli incursions got little mention or weren't reported;

-- as a result, only 4% of focus group respondents knew Palestinians were driven from their homeland; only 10% that Israel occupied Palestine; some believed Palestinians were the occupiers; some viewed the conflict as a border dispute; 80% didn't know the origin of Palestinian refugees or that they were dispossessed; two-thirds didn't know Palestinian casualties exceeded Israeli ones; more knowledgeable respondents had access to books and other material that dispel BBC bias and inaccuracies;

-- senior BBC journalists interviewed told researchers that they were instructed not to give explanations; to dumb-down the news for easy listening and do it in "20-second attention span" segments; researchers believe BBC has it backwards; this type reporting alienates viewers; accuracy and more context enhances viewership; under heavy Israeli Lobby pressure, BBC and other major media report propaganda; truth is the first casualty, and viewers remain uninformed; today it's worse than ever.

BBC's Coverage of Gaza Under Siege

BBC reports little about Gaza under siege and the humanitarian crisis it caused. Instead, accounts like its January 2008 one are common. It's headlined "Gaza's rocket threat to Israel" and highlights homemade Qassams "fired by Hamas and other Palestinian militants at Israeli population centres near the Gaza Strip." They've "killed 13 people inside Israel, including three children. In some months, more than 100 launches have been recorded by the Israelis."

No mention is made of Israeli incursions, their frequency, the use of F-16 air-to-surface missiles, their accuracy and destructive power, high-tech battle tanks in civilian neighborhoods, and other sophisticated weapons freely used, including illegal ones. Nor is there mention of hundreds of Palestinian deaths, injuries, inflicted Israeli destruction, and use of Palestinians as human shields. Instead, the Israeli town of Sderot is highlighted because it's "the only large Israeli population centre within the original Qassam's range." BBC describes them in detail to over-hype their destructive potential. In fact, they're crude, inaccurate and limited in range. They hardly compare to Israel's high-tech weapons that when unleashed against a civilian population are devastating.

Later in BBC's report, it admits "Qassams are very primitive missiles and their main effect on Israelis in the area is psychological torment (and that) Israeli casualties have been relatively light." In contrast, Israeli attacks on Palestinians kill and injure many hundreds and inflict immense psychological terror against a civilian population. It's gone on for six decades, shows no signs of ebbing, but BBC won't explain it.

Nor does it report on Gaza under siege, the collective punishment of its people, the humanitarian crisis it caused, and Israel's lawless act that BBC should expose and denounce. Instead it features reports like a May 10 one about a "Gaza mortar attack kill(ing an) Israeli." Israeli air strikes followed, five Hamas members were killed and four others injured. BBC featured an Israeli government spokesperson saying "We hold (Hamas) accountable for today's attack and the murder of civilians." No Palestinian response was aired, and BBC merely ended saying that "The Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas since last June when they ousted their rivals from the Fatah movement." No context, no background, no fair and impartial reporting, no truth, and no possible way for viewers to understand.

BBC suggests that Palestinians are responsible for their own condition, that a humanitarian catastrophe is their fault, and that Israel has every right to terrorize and starve them to submission for its own security and self-interest. By BBC's standards, Israel may rightfully lock down 1.5 million people, collectively punish them, continue a repressive occupation, and refuse to negotiate in good faith, or at all. BBC is dismissive. Palestinian suffering is inconsequential, yet consider its outrage from a single Israeli death. It's also contemptuous of Hamas, ignored its months-long unilateral ceasefire, and refuses to report its willingness to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders.

BBC views the conflict from an Israeli perspective. It features government officials to explain it, and reports whatever they say as fact. This turns reality on its head, makes lawless actions justifiable, results in double standard journalism, and lets Palestinians suffer the consequences. Why not and who cares. They're just Arab Muslims in the land of Israel where Jews alone matter and not a hint of even-handed reporting exists. Now more than ever in the conflict's seventh decade, and BBC's reporting exacerbates it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate for the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9302

Exposing Bush Administration Corruption

Exposing Bush Administration Corruption - by Stephen Lendman

Information for this article comes from long-time business, finance and political writer and analyst Bob Chapman who publishes the bi-weekly International Forecaster. It's power-packed with key information and a valued source for this writer. He obtained voluminous material directly from its source. People need to know it. Read on.

SueAnn Arrigo is the source - http://www.libertycalling.com. She was a high-level CIA insider. Her title was Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). She also established the Remote Viewing Defense protocols for the Pentagon in her capacity as Remote Viewing Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). It earned her a two-star general rank in the military. She called it a "ploy" so the Pentagon could get more of her time and have her attend monthly Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings. Only high-level types are invited, and she was there from October 2003 to July 2004.

Part of her job involved intelligence gathering on Iraq and Afghanistan - until August 2004 when she refused to spread propaganda about a non-existant Iranian nuclear weapons program and left. She followed in the footsteps of others at CIA who resigned for reasons of conscience and became critics - most notably Ray McGovern, Ralph McGehee, and Phil Agee.

On May 16, 2008, Arrigo sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee - in 12 separate cases. This article covers four of them or about one-third of what Congress got. The 12 are explosive and revealing but just the tip of the iceberg:

-- of government corruption and war profiteering;

-- sweetheart deals and kickbacks;

-- high-level types on the take;

-- trillions of missing dollars;

-- on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld admitting "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions;"

-- imagine the current amount;

-- its corrosive effect on the nation; and people should

-- demand accountability - who profits, who pays and what are the consequences of militarism gone mad.

SueAnn Arrigo offers a glimpse and at great personal risk. In August 2001, DCI George Tenet told her to assemble "a moving van full of Pentagon documents showing Defense Contractor kickbacks to Pentagon officials." She did as instructed but not to expose corruption as she learned - to conceal it and in her judgment so CIA could divert defense business to Halliburton and "Carlyle-related contractors." She stated: "The mood at the CIA and Pentagon was 'war is coming' because the Bush Family stands to make billions from it -- so get ready."

Arrigo was shocked at what she found and how brazenly the Pentagon wrote it up because it feels untouchable, especially since 2001. That notion proved misguided after CIA used the material to blackmail or bribe its officials "into 'working on' the Halliburton-Carlyle team." Top CIA types were involved, and Tenet laid it out for Arrigo: You've "given me the keys to the kingdom. (These) documents will make me rich."

She collected three types. Her report covers one but has plenty of incriminating evidence. Her precise recall of dates and names is incomplete, but events are factually right and damning on how Washington operates. It's always been this way but never to the degree as under George Bush. Arrigo exposes the scheme - the systematic looting of the treasury to enrich contractors and high-level officials at Pentagon, CIA and others well-placed in government. Precise amounts are unknown, but at mimimum are countless multi-billions, even trillions - at taxpayer expense and diverted from essential social and infrastructure needs.

Case 1: Ordering Unneeded New Fighter Aircraft

Arrigo discovered high-level Pentagon corruption. It involved bid-rigging and implicated "an Air Force general on the JCS and a Defense Contractor, Boeing." She disclosed it to JCS Chairman Hugh Shelton and DCI George Tenet, and in both instances drew blanks. She also reported it to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. It was vetted and confirmed, but left unaddressed the larger issue of whether new generation planes are needed at an enormous cost to taxpayers. Arrigo believed not, and several Air Force generals agreed. Not other JCS members, however, who she learned are on the take.

There's more. They "had the gall to try to force through another unneeded plane contract for Boeing." At an early 2004 JCS meeting, Arrigo complained about the previous undelivered order because it didn't meet Pentagon specifications. Yet one general in particular tried "to force the US military to buy another (unneeded) upgrade." One other JCS member backed her to no avail, and the new order went through. Arrigo rightfully concluded that new plane orders were to enrich Boeing and high-level Pentagon types getting kickbacks for their cooperation.

She also learned how much - an average $22,000 "for each (JCS meeting) vote according to their bank" records. Not US ones. CIA-arranged Swiss accounts specifically for this purpose. Everyone at the meeting cashed in, except Arrigo and one dissenting general. More disturbing is that this is standard Pentagon practice - handouts to contractors; kickbacks to complicit brass; and taxpayers out multi-billions - year after year.

Jeff St. Clair wrote about it in his 2005 book "Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror." It's an explosive account of how contractors like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Bechtel and the Bush family-connected Carlyle Group scam multi-billions at taxpayer expense and not a whiff of it in the mainstream. It's the reason US annual "defense" spending tops $1.1 trillion (conservatively) with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and other allocations included.

Case 2: Halliburton Delivers Half Full Cartons to the Pentagon's "Swing Shift"

Arrigo refers to the Pentagon's Receiving Department "swing shift" personnel. They alone are on the take so other shifts are shut out and can't report it. As a CIA insider, she checked and found damning evidence - about "the military (not) getting supplies to the troops on time." She also learned that Halliburton has its "Representative to the CIA," and one at the Pentagon as well. Both get federal salaries but neither was "hired by CIA or the military through their personnel departments. Neither had done military training or trained at (CIA's) 'Farm' as a spy." Arrigo was disturbed and with good reason when orders from the top said back off.

It got worse. Arrigo worked at CIA for over 30 years and reported directly to Tenet. But she wasn't prepared for what she found - a new section at the Agency without her knowledge. It employed 40 people, all working for Halliburton "while being paid by the US taxpayer as if they were CIA." It was secret. No files were on them. They were never interviewed, never vetted, and she concluded: "CIA had a back door in its security to let Halliburton put anyone they wanted in (its) hallways. It was an outrageous (breach) of US National Security," and in a post-9/11 "war on terrorism" climate.

She was shocked and told Tenet. His reply: "Yes, I know." Head of CIA building security also knew. Arrigo asked what he'd do about it. His answer: "Keep my mouth shut so I can stay alive and I suggest you do the same." She asked if he, CIA or Halliburton would kill her if she talked. He didn't think so. Would national security firm CACI do it because it's affiliated with Halliburton and also has a CIA back door for its personnel at the Agency.

Arrigo dug deeper. She got inside Halliburton's area and asked questions. Why was the company shipping half the contracted for amounts and shortchanging the troops and taxpayers. It was no different for war zones. Halliburton "set up the same corrupt system of swing shift receivers (for) at least 3 continents. They received the cartons and signed (off) that the goods were all received properly. Then the shortages later were chalked up to thefts or war damage, etc."

Arrigo again informed Tenet. His answer: "This is nothing new," then added: "Have a report about it on my desk before Christmas (2001)." It got worse. Arrigo told Tenet he's responsible for "correct(ing) Halliburton's short-shipping and its invasion of the CIA." He said he couldn't because the White House tied his hands. Call Congress, Arrigo said. DCI "should be a man of courage." Tenet ignored her, so Arrigo faxed documents revealing Halliburton fraud to GAO - omitting national security secrets. One of them crowed about the scheme's profitability, and having high-level officials involved made it foolproof.

It was clever and even more devious than Arrigo imagined. Halliburton uses each shortage complaint as a new order. "In that way (it) never (loses) by having to make good for (what's) missing," and (it gets) paid double for the same merchandise.

Arrigo knew too much, took risks to learn it, and what happened next is shocking. Halliburton's "CIA Representative" confronted her, tore out her phone, ransacked her office, removed every shred of paper, and hauled her off bodily "to a prison cell" inside its basement offices. She was intimidated and threatened. Thought she might be killed. She survived, but the message was clear. She complained to Tenet. Showed him her bruises. He responded dismissively: "There, there, everything will be all right in the morning."

GAO still has Arrigo's files. It began investigating but stopped. She thinks that Congress can resume it and asked Waxman to do it. That's where things now stand.

Case 3: The White House Conspiracy to Cook the Books - Halliburton, Carlyle and CIA

In 2002, Arrigo tried a new tact - ingratiating herself with "Halliburton's Man" and using it to her advantage. She offered cooperation for access to his space and make him think she was on his side. It worked, went on for four and one-half months through late May, and it paid off - with plenty of insider knowledge "about Halliburton and how it works." Enough to fill a book, she says, but her account sticks to highlights.

First off, it's pure myth that Dick Cheney stopped running the company. "He called in orders to the man I worked for almost every day and sometimes two or more times a day. He remained (Halliburton's) functional head in all but name. No one....had the power to override his orders." Second, Cheney never divested himself of Halliburton profits. "He merely hid how (he got them) through a series of shell companies."

One of Arrigo's jobs was to liaison between Halliburton and CIA's "creative accounting departments." In other words, their co-conspiratorial treasury looting efforts, and Arrigo got insider access to it. Her advanced math and computer software training qualified her. In a few months, she became expert in how CIA and Halliburton hid their "financial illegalities."

She explained - "Computers are good ways to fool most people because (they don't) look inside of them." They can be programmed "to print out one set of books for regulators, another for Defense Contractors, another for the Pentagon, another for the taxpayer," and so forth. It's simple. Decide what you want, and machines will create it in any desired form. The trick is doing it expertly, most criminals can't, so they need professionals to do it for them. It means crimes are never secret, and many computer experts know about them. CIA has always been tainted, kept it secret since inception, so far has been untouchable, but remains vulnerable to exposure by people of conscience like Arrigo.

She explained: Halliburton has eight software programmers at CIA. Its home office has many more. She was on conference calls with 60 of them on ways to conceal illegalities and assure none of it leaks out. The company has less expertise than CIA so the Agency took charge to make the two systems compatible. It took several years and over 100 programmers. They came, left for other jobs, and took insider knowledge with them. It risks more leaks about Halliburton, other contractors, CIA, the Pentagon, high-ups in government, and the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements for its part in corruption.

Many investigations are ongoing, but huge pressure is exerted to quash them. It's feared leaks may unravel the whole scheme - a vast corruption web involving countless numbers of contractors, related companies, and many high level government and Pentagon insiders. Cover-up software hides it. Taxpayers fund it. Amounts keep getting greater, and they're up to unimaginable levels.

Arrigo explained the system. Suppose Halliburton sold product A in 100 Lot Sizes, in Quantity X at Price Y to the Pentagon on a given date. Most civilian invoices disclose this. Pentagon ones don't so contractors can cheat and Pentagon brass profit. Missing information conceals whether all merchandise was delivered as nothing indicates quantities shipped. Further, repackaging also hides proper amounts. Omitting the price alone conceals whether a shipment was shorted, but CIA is more clever than that. It experimented with "tested receivers at some of its front companies" to learn how best to deceive them. What works best is "shifting prices around like random noise" - one day this cost, another a different one, and so forth.

One company used a "gross overcharge method" that looked suspicious. It got receivers to discover the real price, and that defeated CIA's scheme. When it works, it cooks the books, and no one's the wiser. Ledger entries are inflated, undercut, omitted, added, or varied in amounts of similar transactions. Like a "professional crime institution," CIA is expert at falsifying books so no one catches on. How? By random price variations to keep auditors off balance and unable to discover corruption patterns.

Another example:

CIA varies its front company prices monthly. Suppose Halliburton made a purchase "when it (used) a cost inflation idea of cheating. Halliburton (has) an incentive to inflate the cost of its purchases (to) justify (its) high (price) to the military." So as standard practice it uses CIA's highest price and claims that amount for its cost.

But comparing two sets of books reveals the scheme. So methodology became more sophisticated to conceal it. Halliburton takes CIA prices and doubles them on its books. It then claims the Agency recorded half the charge "accidently," says its front company promised a 50% discount, but never delivered. CIA looks bad, and it balked. No matter. Halliburton still does it, but CIA has "lots of fronts with lots of customers and worse problems (to hide) than merely jacking up prices. Some fronts (are) fictitious and (make) no products." Others have real customers plus fake ones to launder money. CIA tries to "make (their) crimes 'undetectable.' " Halliburton hopes to "sneak by" until caught, then find a way to weasel out of it with minimal damage or cost.

Case 4: Halliburton's Rigged Back Door Accounting Computer at the Pentagon

In early 2002, GAO got damning evidence: that Halliburton overbills and short-ships - deliberate fraudulent acts as standard company practice, confident it can get away with it, and most often it does.

GAO has the goods to expose it from Halliburton and Pentagon invoices. They reveal a problem. They don't match, are grossly inflated, and payments exceed amounts billed - by about 35%. Arrigo met with GAO and compared notes. Halliburton has similar Pentagon and CIA-paid staff, and George Bush approved it in a secret Executive Order Arrigo has for proof. She gave it to GAO plus other documents showing national security is compromised and taxpayers cheated - hugely.

One document lists Halliburton's CIA and Pentagon staff, what little official records discloses about them, their secret office locations, and information on their private security staff. Arrigo discovered that Halliburton's top CIA man served time for felony fraud. Another at Pentagon was convicted as well - for stealing Army vehicles, then profiteering by transshipping them overseas.

Dick Cheney knew, blocked background checks to conceal it, but Arrigo found out and about the Pentagon fraud that followed. She has a handwritten Cheney memo instructing his man "to make sure that the Pentagon pays us all that it owes us and then some." CIA's forgery department verified the writing is Cheney's.

Arrigo also has a letter from Halliburton's Pentagon man to his CIA counterpart, and it's damning. He brags how he's "getting more than we bargained for (from) the Pentagon" and suggested they get together to compare notes. They did and Arrigo taped it. The evidence once more is damning - about how easy it is to scam the system; befriend accounting personnel; install company programmers; check bills supposedly behind in payments; install a special software code for higher amounts; and do all of the above at Pentagon and CIA.

Arrigo informed George Tenet so he'd stop "Halliburton from ripping off the American taxpayer via the CIA and Pentagon." Tenet hardly blinked and responded casually: "Well, you certainly have done a thorough job as usual." He then offered to inform the White House to "correct the problem." Arrigo did herself, GAO as well, and later learned that the Bush administration (likely Dick Cheney) blocked an investigation.

This article covers four of Arrigo's 12 cases. Their evidence is damning and shows systemic contractor, government, CIA and Pentagon fraud involving enormous amounts of money. One or more articles will follow if more material can be obtained. It's not what Pentagon and CIA want outed so getting it is never simple and revealing it not without risks.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9229

Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law

Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law - by Stephen Lendman

Over the weekend, Chavez showed his mettle as a democratic leader. He acknowledged "errors" in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela's Constitution.

He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It's a "mistake," said Chavez and "not a small (one)." The new intelligence services won't oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is "overstepping," and "I assume responsibility" for the error and will fix it.

He continued: "Where we make mistakes, we must accept this and not defend the indefensible....I guarantee to the country, in Venezuela (this law will assault) no one! And no one will be obliged to say more than they want to say....(We) will never attack the freedom of Venezuelans, independently of their political positions. Liberty....is one of the slogans of our socialism."

Other articles will also be amended:

-- Article 19 prohibiting non-state agencies from using spy technologies;

-- Article 20 regarding search and wiretap provisions; and

-- Article 21 regarding secret evidence.

The new law will be reviewed in its entirety. Whatever is potentially unconstitutional will be removed or amended. Chavez guarantees it. He's a man of his word, but the corporate media took full advantage of the moment to jump all over him. As usual, The New York Times' Simon Romero led the assault.

He headlined: "Chavez Suffers Military and Policy Setbacks" with the front end of his lead referring to Colombia's (unsubstantiated) claim about capturing a Venezuelan national guard officer carrying assault rifles "believed to be intended for leftist guerrillas."

Once again Romero fumbles with the facts as he always does on Venezuela. He now states: "President Hugo Chavez....said Saturday he would 'withdraw' a decree overhauling intelligence policies that he had made earlier that week." He called it "a rare act of self-criticism" while hammering on the "capture" issue and filling paragraphs with inaccuracies.

Even Al Jazeera got it wrong on intelligence law changes. It headlined: "Chavez revokes controversial law." Near the end of its report, however, it acknowledged that Chavez promised to "rewrite the law (after) listening to the criticism."

AFP also misreported by stating "Hugo Chavez on Saturday revoked a law he decreed last month creating four spy agencies and a Cuban-style national informants' network, saying the measure contained errors." Errors - yes, revocation - no, revisions - coming before the new law is implemented.

For its part, AP was more accurate but barely in its headline stating: "Chavez backtracks on Venezuela spy law." The report's lead does say: "President Hugo Chavez said....that his government will rewrite a new intelligence law to calm fears....that (it) could be used to stifle dissent."

BBC was more accurate than usual in its headline: "Chavez agrees to change 'spy' law." It continued: "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he will amend a controversial new law that would have required people to co-operate with intelligence agencies." BBC's report was mostly critical, but it ended on a high note with an accurate Chavez quote that "No one will be forced to say anything (to authorities) they don't want to."

For his part, Romero wasn't as gracious. He stressed how Chavez is "Reeling from the defeat of a constitutional reform in December (and) is facing multiple challenges as a reinvigorated opposition fields candidates in (November's) regional elections and Venezuela's economic growth slows despite record oil prices." Slower growth - yes, still impressive - very much so. Where does Romero acknowledge this - nowhere.

He and others in the dominant media never miss a chance to misreport on Venezuela and attack its model democracy. Try imagining George Bush admit an error and promise to fix it. Try imagine George Bush promise anything except continued war and maybe more of it. Try imagine if America had a leader like Hugo Chavez. Try imagine if Romero & Co. might imagine it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9229

Potential Future Hyperinflation

Potential Future Hyperinflation - by Stephen Lendman

Walter "John" Williams thinks out of the box. He makes disquieting reading, but you won't find him in the mainstream. At least not often. He runs a "Shadow Government Statistics" site with an electronic by-subscription newsletter. Anyone can access some of his data and occasional special reports. They can also assess his reasoning. In his judgment, government data are manipulated, corrupted and unreliable. He's not alone thinking that.

First, through technical changes over time in how data are collected and/or interpreted. The intent is to portray a more rosy scenario and ignore real world experiences of ordinary people. Calculating the CPI is an example:

-- in the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) switched from using house prices to their rental equivalent;

-- then a decade ago, BLS made a spurious assumption for reasons other than it stated; it was that consumers substitute cheaper products for ones that have risen in price - such as hamburger for steak or chicken for meat; the idea wasn't to reflect their buying habits; it was to artificially lower inflation and distort its calculation; and

-- BLS has long adjusted prices for quality improvements; it's called "hedonic adjustment" that, in fact, cooks the books; so if computer speed increases, its cost is lowered proportionally even if its price rises; the same is true for autos with better brakes or other assorted innovations; again the result is distortion, and it affects all sorts of products; as a result, inflation is artificially and fraudulently lowered.

Another example is how federal deficits are calculated. Beginning with Nixon in 1969, a "unified budget" was adopted to artificially lower them by offsetting expenditures with "off-budget" Social Security revenues. The idea was to hide government's true cost at a time wartime and Great Society spending was high and would later factor into the 1970s and 1980s inflation. If deficits were calculated then and now by GAAP methodology (required of all publicly-traded corporations), they'd be much higher than annually reported - since the 1970s, in multiple trillions of dollars; fiscal alchemy sweeps them under the rug.

A further example was Nixon's "core inflation" idea. More artificial rigging - to exclude volatile food and energy prices to produce a lower figure. No matter that these items account for a large portion of consumer spending, especially for lower income households.

Others like this are numerous. They all amount to manipulative rigging for political or financial market purposes, and the practice goes back decades. A recent Bush administration one is switching to monthly instead of semi-annual jobs data seasonal adjustments to make the number friendlier. Later on (too late for markets to react) they're matched against payroll figures for a once a year adjustment and more accurate jobs created or lost reading.

The Clinton administration was also manipulative. In calculating employment, it lowered its monthly household sample from 60,000 to 50,000, reducing it mainly in inner cities. The effect is to artificially lower jobless numbers among blacks, Latinos and the poor overall. The calculation is also rigged by keeping out the 2.3 million prison population. The overall effect is illusion, not reality - to erase "free market" capitalism's defects and make it look wondrous and beneficial to mankind.

Williams reverse-engineers the GDP, employment and inflation data for more accurate readings. He backs out manipulative changes to produce more valid figures. Take the 5.5% May unemployment rate for example. BLS calculates it on persons who looked for work in the last 30 days. Williams adds those who want to work but gave up in frustration plus people working part-time who want (but can't find) full-time jobs. Result: real unemployment of over 12%.

The same methodology works for economic growth. The real value of all goods and services produced is lower than official GDP numbers when adjusted for higher inflation. More of it means higher prices, not increased output. It's how Williams makes his calculation, and he's worried. He sees inflation rising and a threat of hyperinflation ahead. He highlighted his concern in a recent April 2008 report called "Hyperinflation Special Report" with three dramatic sub-headings:

-- "Inflationary Recession Is in Place;

-- Banking Solvency Crisis Has Opened First Phase Monetary Inflation;" and

-- "Hyperinflationary Depression Remains Likely As Early as 2010."

Time alone will prove him right or wrong. But given current economic conditions, the financial malpractice that precipitated them, continued mismanagement since then, and resultant dangers they created, it pays to examine his analysis. It's not for the faint-hearted and hopefully won't bear out. But it's happened before at other times in other countries, and when it hits it ruins lives and savings. Is America now headed for that type future? Williams thinks so, and here's his argument.

He sees the US economy in an "intensifying inflationary recession" heading for "a hyperinflationary great depression." He expects it as soon as 2010, maybe sooner, and "likely" no later than in a decade. Blame it on reckless monetary and fiscal policy - creating torrents of money, borrowing outsized amounts, and spending ourselves into bankruptcy by supporting short-term "big-monied special interests."

Things are so out of hand, Williams sees "no way of avoiding a financial Armageddon." We're nearly or already bankrupt; are creating money to cover our obligations; the more we print, the more we need; it's fiat currency unbacked by gold; and every new dollar created dilutes the value of all others in circulation. Double the money supply, and presto - every dollar is worth 50 cents. Double it again, and you get the point. We've been doing it for decades, especially since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

At some point, the music stops, the dollar collapses, it becomes worthless paper, and related dollar-demoninated paper assets go down with it. Williams quotes a law professor who experienced Weimar Germany's hyperinflation first hand. It was the worst by far ever recorded. "It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightening it struck. No one was prepared." Shelves in grocery stores emptied. "You could buy nothing with your paper money." At the trough in 1923, the mark plunged to an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000 to the dollar.

Can it happen here? It might, and rising world inflation is worrisome. Analyst Bob Chapman's International Forecaster reports current US inflation at 12.5%; China's 8.5%; Russia's 14%; Gulf oil producers on average 12%; India 8%; Indonesia 12%; Brazil 5%; Chile 8.3%; Venezuela 29.3% and Argentina 23%. This likely plays into the European Central Bank's (ECB) reluctance to cut rates and the Bank of England's holding off on further ones. It's also a factor affecting dollar weakness and rising gold prices that hedge against depreciating currencies and geopolitical uncertainties.

Williams is justifiably concerned as inflationary pressures build. First some definitions. Inflation results from a money supply increase that causes prices to rise. Williams refers only to goods and services, not financial assets like stocks and bonds. He also leaves out speculation and market manipulation that's key to understanding high oil and food prices. Markets don't move randomly. Big-monied speculators move them, but that's a separate topic from what Williams addresses.

He mentions various types of hyperinflation. They range from the double or triple-digit kind, several-fold that level, to what happened in Weimar Germany when it went to infinity. Once the genie is unleashed, there's no telling how bad things may get. Williams sees them getting pretty bad. So much so that dollars get dumped, holders flee to safety, and a downward spiral intensifies with no idea of a bottom.

In his view and others, the culprit is fiat currency, without gold backing. Its worth depends solely on the full faith and credit of the issuing government. Absent that and currencies crash. Print too much of it, and that's its future. Examine Fed policy under Greenspan and Bernanke, and draw your own conclusions.

They've been virtual money-creation machines unmindful of the history they should know. By issuing too much of a good thing for too many years, they fueled asset bubbles. When they burst, they made things worse and may now have headed the economy for collapse. In Williams judgment, America today is no different from other nations in other eras that followed similar policies. They all met the same fate, and today this country has already "obligated itself to liabilities well beyond its ability ever to pay off." Not a cheery assessment, and he's not alone believing it.

More definitions:

-- Deflation - a decrease in goods and services prices, generally from a money supply contraction;

-- Inflation - the reverse of the above;

-- Hyperinflation - extreme inflation, as explained above, to a level where money becomes worthless or nearly so; according to Williams, the coming hyperinflation is because of a "lack of monetary discipline formerly imposed....by the gold standard, and a (Fed) dedicated to preventing a collapse in the money supply (and preventing) the implosion of the (ongoing) extremely over-leveraged domestic financial system;"

-- Recession - officially defined as two or more consecutive (inflation-adjusted) GDP contracting quarters; many economists don't agree on this, and some gauge conditions by the relative strength or weakness of industrial production, payroll employment, retail sales, and so forth; add it up and clearly the US is in recession; how bad and for how long will only be known in time;

-- Depression - a recession "where (inflation-adjusted) peak-to-trough contraction exceeds 10%; and a

-- Great depression - one where the peak-to-trough exceeds 25%. It happened only once so far in US history in the 1930s.

Williams believes the current US contraction is about halfway to becoming a "depression," but before it ends it may become "Great Depression II" to distinguish it from the earlier one. We're now in an "inflationary recession," and available data confirm it - soaring food and oil prices, a weakened dollar, true unemployment over 12%, real inflation nearly as high, weak industrial production, and more. In his judgment, expect worse ahead when added "inflationary effects of soaring broad money growth....start" surfacing later in the year. In his judgment, by year-end 2008, "official CPI" figures should begin showing it.

Current computations cook the books, and not just for inflation. According to Williams, the economy has been in recession since late 2006 when it entered the "second down-leg" of a multiple dip contraction. It began in 1999, then showed up officially in 2001. His current outlook takes account of "further bounces and dips in economic activity." We may now be in an upward swing before reheading down. It happened during the Great Depression, only to fall to new lows.

Conditions today are hazardous. A major financial crisis precipitated them. Reckless policies caused it. It threatens the solvency of major banks and other financial institutions. It also hurts the greater economy. Solutions - massive liquidity injections, interest rate cuts and reckless deficit spending. Result - financial malpractice for a short-term fix. Consequences - "financial Armageddon" according to Williams.

M3 (the broadest money supply measure) growth is so high that the Fed no longer reports it. Economists like Williams do because it's crucial to know, and the data he reveals are disturbing - record M3 growth at a near 18% annual pace. Hyperinflationary seeds are now sown. Dollar valuation is falling, and at some point may accelerate when investors flee it for safer havens. The Fed again will respond. More debt will be monetized. It will build over time. Things will get worse and then be exacerbated when the government is less able to meet its obligations. "Therein lies the ultimate basis for the pending hyperinflation," in Williams' judgment.

He believes it will morph into a hyperinflationary depression, then a "great depression." And when it hits, it will be with "surprising speed." Already disposable income is falling in a weakened economy in crisis. As things worsen, politicians get blamed, and Williams raises an interesting possibility. If conditions get bad enough, voters may respond with their feet, declare a pox on both major parties, and turn to a third alternative around 2010 or 2012. It happened before in our history. The Republican Party is Exhibit A. It was created in 1854 at a time Democrats and Whigs were the two dominant parties. Exit Whigs, and enter Republicans with Abraham Lincoln its first elected president in 1860.

Williams shows US inflation data going back to 1665. It was fairly stable up to the Fed's 1913 creation. It then began rising and accelerated post-WW II. Government calculations mask it. Alternative ones are more revealing and accurate. Except for minor price declines in 1944 and 1955, the US hasn't had a deflationary period since the 1930s. Abandoning the gold standard is why. It imposed monetary discipline. Roosevelt went off it in 1933. He had to. The banking system collapsed, money supply imploded, and economic stimulus was needed. It released the Fed to create money freely. Therein lies the problem, and it shows up in the numbers.

Current Fed Chairman Bernanke and Alan Greenspan are students of the Great Depression. "Helicopter Ben" especially vowed never again, and his actions prove it to a fault. He knows the risks and stated them in an earlier speech. He said:

"Like gold, US dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the US government has a technology called a printing press (now its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes." By doing so, it "reduce(s) the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services" which raises their prices...."under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation."

So it has, according to Williams, and it caused a "slow-motion destruction of the US dollar's purchasing power" since 1933. It shows up in GAAP-based 2007 federal deficit figures - $4 trillion for the fiscal year, not the official $163 fiction reported. Williams estimates total outstanding federal obligations at $62.6 trillion. At least one other economist puts it over $80 trillion. There's no way to honor this debt level, so the "government effectively is bankrupt." At that point, it has three choices - default, declare a moratorium, or repudiate the entire amount.

Sooner or later, markets will react. Holders of US debt already are balking, but so far modestly and quietly. Ahead, that may change if dollar valuations plunge. It will force the Fed's hand. Greater debt monetization will follow. Dollar valuations will sink further, and so forth in a progressive downward cycle to oblivion if Williams is right.

If conditions get severe enough, the Fed can create huge amounts of currency in a few days or weeks - enough to match the dollar's lost purchasing power in the last 75 years. Combine it with fiscal irresponsibility and imagine the consequences.

Official data alone today are reason for concern - soaring food and oil prices, the dollar near historic lows, money growth at an all-time high, and off-the-charts federal deficits and debt. The trend continues, and it shows up in gold prices - topping $1000, then retreating, but nearly certain to soar way above previous highs on its way to numbers not discussed in the mainstream - $2000 an ounce, $3000? Who knows. Williams sees it "setting new historic highs."

In 1980, its price hit $850 an ounce. In CPI inflation-adjusted terms, around $2300 an ounce would match it today. But if the government hadn't cooked the CPI calculation, the number would be about $6250 an ounce. By that standard, gold today is cheap. It's way below its real 1980 top, and if inflation accelerates as Williams predicts, expect much higher prices as dollars keep deflating.

Under this scenario, the "US government cannot cover (its) existing obligations." Annual federal deficits are "careening wildly out of control, averaging $4.6 trillion per year for the six years through 2007." That's with all unfunded liabilities included like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other social services, debt service and more.

Williams says things are so out of control that "if the government (raised taxes) to seize 100% of all wages, salaries and corporate profits, it still would (show) an annual deficit using GAAP accounting" methods. At the same time, "given current revenues, if it stopped (all) spending (including defense and homeland security) other than Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would (show) an annual deficit." The hole is so deep, it's impossible to dig out, according to Williams.

But given political realities, officials spend whatever it takes to get elected and keep their jobs. That's besides foreign wars, limitless corporate subsidies and more. Things, however, won't improve. They'll worsen, and that for Williams spells hyperinflation ahead. It's happening "with the full knowledge of political Washington and the Federal Reserve." It it weren't for the US's "special position," our debt would likely be rated "below investment grade instead of triple-A." Longer term bonds are especially risky. At some point, they'll lose their full value. They also risk default, and that's besides their loss in dollar terms.

It's just a matter of time before foreign investors get worried enough to act - buying fewer Treasuries down to none, then followed by redemptions. The Fed will have to compensate. Print more currency, and the problem deepens. Its value declines and inflation accelerates.

Trade policies worsen things. We're in a global race to the bottom. The once bedrock manufacturing base eroded. It's now 10% of the economy and falling. Services currently account for around 84% of it and rising. Jobs in all categories are being offshored to low-wage countries. Average inflation-adjusted wages keep declining. Real earnings are below their early 1970s peak. Living standards are falling. Consumer debt is rising to make up the shortfall. Savings are liquidated. Before the housing decline, mortgage refinancing helped when valuations rose. It meant taking on more debt. Fed policy encouraged it. Today's dilemma "is payback" for unsustainable bubble-creation policies. Recalling a relevant quote: "Things that can't go on forever won't."

Bad policy caused enormous structural change, and trade deficits are part of it. They've "risen to the highest level for any country in history." They're one more problem for a seriously over-extended economy. It places "the federal government and Federal Reserve in untenable positions, where they cannot easily or rapidly address the underlying problems, even if standard economic stimuli were available."

Given the federal deficit and out-of-control spending, fiscal policy limits have been reached. The Fed's in the same bind. It can neither stimulate the economy or contain inflation. Rate cuts have done little. Saving the dollar may require raising them, but that won't "contain non-demand driven inflation." It shows up in high food, energy, health care, and companies like Dow Chemical announcing on May 28 that it will raise prices across the board up to 20% to offset increased costs.

More cause for worry, and Williams anticipates depression. Hyperinflation will follow, and it will sink "the economy into a great depression." It will halt commercial activity. The greater disparity in income, the more negative its consequences. "Extremes in income variance usually are followed by financial panics and economic depressions. US income variance today is higher" than in 1929 and "nearly double that of any other 'advanced' economy."

Federal bailouts have worsened things. Dollar creation exploded. Crisis has been pushed into the future. Its enormity will be far greater, and foreign investors will get stuck with a lot of it. When it arrives in strength, capital outflow will follow, and dollar valuation will plunge with it. Williams believes that "both central bank and major private investors know that the dollar is going to be a losing proposition. They either expect and/or hope that they can get of (it) in time to lock in their profits (or for central bankers) that they can forestall the ultimate global economic crisis" as long as possible.

Dollars are very vulnerable in this environment. If Treasuries are dumped, the Fed will monetize debt to make up the difference. Inflation will then accelerate, multi-trillion dollar deficits will worsen things, and a "self-feeding cycle of currency debasement and hyperinflation" will follow.

Cash as we know it will disappear. A barter system and black market will replace it or possible introduction of a new currency. Since most money today is electronic, not physical, chances of it adapting "are practically nil." With hyperinflation, electronic commerce would completely shut down and economic collapse would follow. Gold and silver will be invaluable. Holders could exchange them for goods and services.

Physical goods will also be precious for survival and as a medium of exchange. Anything with a long shelf life may be stocked in advance, and providers of essential services could barter them for goods and other services. Forewarned is forearmed. Safety and liquidity are crucial. Anything retaining value is essential. Real estate, other currencies for example. Foreign equities and debt to a small degree because US financial assets hammering will spill everywhere.

With all that to deal with, consider another dilemma - the likelihood of painful political change, civil unrest, disruptive violence, and utter chaos. If Williams is right and hyperinflation arrives, Katie bar the door on what may follow. Revolutions are possible with three notable last century ones to consider - in Russia, Weimer Germany and Nationalist China. In each case, the old order ended, everything changed, but not for the good. How does Williams advise? Evaluate one's own circumstances, use common sense, and forewarned is forearmed. That will help, but hard times hurt everyone.

Hopefully they won't arrive, at least not full-blown as Williams predicts. But make no mistake. Excess has a price. The more of it the greater. America has an ocean of it. Sooner or later comes payback. "Things that can't go on forever won't."

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9229

Chavez Revamps His Intelligence Services: The Corporate Media React

Chavez Revamps His Intelligence Services: The Corporate Media React - by Stephen Lendman

Reports keep surfacing about new threats against Hugo Chavez. Given past ones, they can't be taken lightly. Chavez is alerted and reacts accordingly. Case in point: revamping Venezuela's decades old intelligence services. It's long overdue and urgently needed given the Bush administration's tenure winding down and its determination in its remaining months to end the Bolivarian project and crush its participatory democracy.

CIA, NED, IRI, USAID and other US elements infest the country and are more active than ever. Subversion is their strategy, and it shows up everywhere. Violence is being encouraged. Opposition groups are recruited and funded. So are members of Venezuela's military. Student groups as well and anti-Chavista candidates for November's mayoral and gubernatorial elections.

The dominant media are on board in Venezuela and America. They assail Chavez relentlessly and are on the warpath again after his May 28 announced intelligence services changes. The Interior and Justice Ministries will oversee a new General Intelligence Office and Counterintelligence Office in place of the current Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP). Similar military intelligence and counterintelligence components will replace the Military Intelligence Division (DIM) and will be under the Defense Ministry. Why was it done and why now? To counter stepped up US espionage and destabilization efforts when it's most needed.

New tools will be used and current personnel retrained and vetted for their Bolivarian commitment. DISIP and DIM are outdated. They've been around since 1969 to serve the "capitalist vision" of that era. Ever since, they've been "notoriously repressive" and closely aligned with the CIA. Therein lies the problem. Chavez intends to fix it. The dominant media reacted. They're hostile to change and showed it their reports.

The New York Times' Simon Romero has trouble with his facts. He headlined "Chavez Decree Tightens Hold on Intelligence." He referred to the new Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence that passed by presidential decree under the legislatively-granted enabling law. He failed to explain that the 1969 law passed the same way, and that Venezuela's Constitution then and now permit it.

Instead, he noted a "fierce backlash here from (mostly unnamed) human rights groups and 'legal scholars' who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms....The new law requires (them) to....assist the agencies, secret police or community activist groups loyal to Mr. Chavez. Refusal can result in prison terms of two to four years (and up to) six years for government employees."

Once again, Romero falls short on credibility. Hyperbole substitutes for truth as in all his reports. No country more respects human rights than Venezuela, and Chavez is committed to them. To the rule of law as well and social justice. The country's Constitution mandates it, and government officials are bound by it. Appointed officials with other aims have no place in it. They need to be exposed and replaced but need fear no recrimination unless they violate the law.

The new one won't create "a society of informers" as one of Romero's sources stated. Nor will it imprison Venezuelan citizens or let Chavez "assert greater control over public institutions in the face of political challenges following a 'stinging' defeat in December('s) constitutional (referendum) that would have expanded his powers."

It will insure greater "national security" and protect against "imperialist attacks" as Chavez explained. It's to preserve Bolivarianism against persistent attempts to destroy it. It's to serve all Venezuelans, advance a new 21st century vision, and put people ahead of privilege. It's to counter Bush administration efforts to restore neoliberalism, return the old order, and destroy social justice in the region's most model democracy.

Without explaining Venezuelan law or its legislative process, Romero states that the "law (was drafted and passed) behind closed doors, without exposing it to....public debate (and that) contributed to the public uproar and suspicion." His "public," of course, are elitists. They target Chavez for removal, denounce all his beneficial changes, and falsely accuse him of governing dictatorially.

"They" claim "justice officials, including judges, are required to actively collaborate with the intelligence services rather than serve as a check on them." According to Americas director for Human Rights Watch (HRW), Jose Miguel Vivanco: "This is a government that simply doesn't believe in the separation of powers....(It requires) the country's judges (to) serve as spies for the government." Vivanco knows better and damages HRW's credibility with comments like these. Romero uses them with relish to aid the imperial project.

Venezuela's internal threat is unmentioned. Rogue elements infest the government and military. They oppose democracy and social justice. Washington supports them. They must be found and removed. Venezuelans demand it. Better intelligence will help. Romero won't report it. Instead, he inverts truth and sides with forces trying to destabilize and undermine a government of, by and for the people.

He quotes "a prominent legal scholar" (in fact, right wing lawyer Rocio San Miguel) saying "This is the most scandalous effort to intimidate the population in the 10 years this government has been in power. Under the new law (information I have) could be considered a threat to national security and I could be sent immediately to jail." Indeed she could if she violates the law or tries to subvert the government. Otherwise, she's entitled to all benefits and protections Venezuelan law affords everyone. No comment from Romero.

AP echoed The New Times in its headlined May 31 report: "Venezuelan intelligence law draws protests, seen as potential tool against dissent." Again, it's false and misleading and part of the imperial plot against Chavez. AP unfairly equates the new law to the USA Patriot Act, when, in fact, it's totally dissimilar. The US law violates constitutional civil liberties. Venezuela's respects them, but it's easy for protesters to claim otherwise.

Justice Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin explained the difference. US law spies on Americans and denies them legal protection. Venezuela's law enlists responsible citizen participation in preserving their government. They have a stake in "state security and resolving crimes. If (they) witness (wrongdoing and) hide it, then (they) are an accomplice to that crime." It doesn't require people to spy. It wants them to cooperate and be engaged in preserving Bolivarianism and to report threats against it. It's to make them responsible citizens united for their common self-interest.

That's not how BBC sees it as part of its anti-Chavez agenda. Its June 3 online report highlighted: "Venezuela 'spy' law draws protest....among groups who say it threatens civil liberties." One of them is HRW's Vivanco again voicing the same false and misleading statements about "judges serving as spies." Another source, with a clear anti-Chavez agenda, says the "law may be used as a weapon to silence and intimidate the opposition."

In fact, Chavez champions free expression in all forms unlike in America post-9/11. Repressive laws and presidential executive orders stifle it. Activists are targeted, harassed and imprisoned. Illegal spying is institutionalized. So are repression, torture and disdain for the rule of law. Where are BBC, AP, The New York Times and other dominant media voices? Why aren't they exposing police state justice? Instead they denounce democracy, ally with despotism, and acknowledge no hint of hypocrisy.

Chavez is mirror opposite his media critics and counters them correctly. He calls the USA Patriot Act "dictatorial law." In contrast, the new Venezuelan one upholds freedom, seeks to preserve it, and is within "a framework of great respect for human rights." It will combat US subversion that dominant media sources ignore. They blame victims instead and are willing co-conspirators against Venezuela's model democracy. Their latest efforts show why Chavez needs all the defense he can marshal against them, and for all the right reasons.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9118

Choice in November - Nader v. Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum

Choice in November - Nader v. Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum - by Stephen Lendman

Each election cycle, hope springs eternal. Candidates promise change and voters buy it. Intelligent ones. People who know better or should. The current campaign highlights it. A surge is building for Obama, not for what he is. For what people think or hope he is - a populist, progressive, man of the people, a new course for America.

After the final June 3 primaries and "rush of superdelegates," according to The New York Times, they're stuck with him. The Times reports that he crossed "over the threshold (to) the 2118 delegates needed to be nominated...." Obama marked the occasion as his chance to "bring a new and better day to America (as) the 'Democratic' nominee for president of the United States of America."

It's not how John Pilger sees him. In a recent article, he calls him America's "great liberal hope." He compares his campaign to Bobby Kennedy's in 1968 and says: "Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans." Kennedy spoke of "return(ing) government to the people" and giving "dignity and justice" to the oppressed. "Obama is his echo" with familiar promises of change, charting a new course, sweeping government reforms, addressing people needs, and "ensur(ing) that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists."

He claims to be an up from the grassroots activist. In fact, he cashed in on opportunism all the way - to the Illinois Senate in 1996. Then after failing to win a US House seat, it was up a notch to the Senate in 2005 after his November 2004 election. He promised hope but delivered betrayal. He's beholden to power and doesn't relate well to ordinary constituents who backed him, including his black community base.

If he's nominated and wins in November, Marc Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again" will apply but in this case to promises made, then broken. Miller's book refers to the stolen 2004 presidential election. Kerry won big, Bush remained president, Kerry admitted to the author he knew he'd been had, then disavowed he ever said it in reverse "profile of courage" fashion.

An Obama victory will go Lincoln one better. It'll prove that the electorate can be fooled "all of the time" - at least enough of them to matter. And that leaves out election fraud in an age when:

-- candidates are pre-selected;

-- big money owns them;

-- independents are shut out;

-- the media ignore them;

-- they keep people uninformed;

-- issues aren't addressed;

-- voter disenfranchisement is rife;

-- machines do our voting;

-- losers are declared winners; and

-- not just for president. It's democracy American-style, a long-standing tradition, and Chicagoans know it well. They remember an earlier mayor urging people to "vote early and often." They also recall the pol who "want(ed) to be buried in Chicago (when he died) so (he could) stay active in politics."

In an age of technological wonders, why not. The Democrat machine is so entrenched, it hasn't had real opposition since Republican mayor "Big Bill" Thompson lost to Democrat Anton Cermak in 1931. And the Daleys (father and son) practically own the office it's controlled for 40 of the last 53 years with no visible contender in sight and a new generation upcoming.

On the national level, it's just as bad - a one party state according to Gore Vidal: the Property or Monied Party with two wings. Ralph Nader calls them a "two-party (twiddle dee v. twiddle dum) dictatorship." So do others, yet most people buy the rhetoric and ignore the evidence. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. Democrats are interchangeable with Republicans. Differences between them are minor. Not a dime's worth to matter. Whoever wins in November, the outcome is certain. Voters again will lose. They'll get the best democracy money can buy but none of it earmarked for them.

Wars of aggression won't end. Repressive laws won't be repealed. Corruption will stay deeply embedded. Privatizing everything will be de rigueur. Monied interests will be hugely rewarded. Militarizing and annexing the continent will go forward. Voter interests will go largely unaddressed. And promises made will again prove empty. Here's a sampling from the Nader-Gonzales '08 web site. It mentions "Twelve Issues that Matter for 2008," where the candidates stand on them, and Nader, Obama/Clinton and McCain columns showing "on" or "off" the table:

-- National health insurance: Nader on; the others off; Nader favors a single-payer, government-funded, "private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public insurance system;" the need is critical at a time health care costs are soaring; many can't afford them; millions are uninsured; millions more underinsured; and Democrats and Republicans are dismissive and beholden to providers that fund them;

-- Wasteful military spending: Nader on; the others off; America spends more on defense and security than all other nations combined - a conservatively estimated annual $1.1 trillion with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and miscellaneous related allocations included at a time the country has no visible enemies; it threatens world security and the nation by heading it for fiscal insolvency or worse;

-- No to nuclear power and yes to solar: Nader on; the others off; Nader opposes Big Oil subsidies and ones for nuclear, electric, coal mining and biofuel interests; he advocates a sustainable energy policy that includes renewables like wind and solar;

-- Corporate crime and welfare: Nader on; the others off; the issue - hundreds of billions to corporate coffers; taxpayers fund them; hundreds of thousands "injured and sickened each year by preventable corporate-bred violence;" unsafe products; medical negligence; harmful pollution; public corruption and financial fraud; politicians ignore it; so will the three leading contenders; ordinary people are acutely affected;

-- Open presidential debates: Nader on; the others off; independents are shut out; free, fair, and open elections aren't possible; real democracy is denied; big money assures it; the criminal class is empowered; and people are left out;

-- A carbon pollution tax: Nader on; the others off; he fears the planet is overheating; calls the danger great; greenhouse gases must be curbed; and making them more expensive is how;

-- Changing Middle East policy; ending two illegal wars; Palestinian repression as well: Nader on; the others off; he proposes rapidly withdrawing troops from Iraq; setting a six month timetable; resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equitably; ending the Gaza siege; supporting a two-state solution; and being forthrightly committed to Middle East peace;

-- Impeaching Bush/Cheney: Nader on, the others off; he cites constitutional law experts saying the president and vice-president are guilty of at least "five categories" of "high crimes and misdemeanors;" they should be impeached and removed from office; Congress is responsible; failing to act affronts the Constitution, international law and citizenry;

-- Repealing anti-labor Taft-Hartley law: Nader on; the others off; it harmed workers for 60 years; it undermined the landmark Wagner Act of 1935 that guaranteed labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management for the first time ever; those rights no longer exist; restoring them is essential;

-- Enacting a Wall Street securities speculation tax: Nader on; the others off; speculation is rampant; multi-trillions of dollars are involved; public welfare is harmed; instability increased; the economy damaged; and "free market" deregulation allows it; it favors wealth over people;

-- Ending ballot access abstructionism: Nader on; the others off; he favors "one federal standard for federal ballot access" in all states; it must be simple and fair to all candidates; efforts to exclude independents must be stopped; current laws obstruct democratic governance; they further disenfranchise voters; and

-- Ending corporate personhood; the Supreme Court granted it in 1886; it gave corporations the same constitutional rights as people and allowed them to grow to their present size and dominance: Nader on; the others off.

Nader's site states that "these twelve issues represent the tip of the political iceberg." But they show how big money controls both parties. Without change, democratic governance is impossible, and that, for Nader (in a May 31 Wall Street Journal interview), is today's "central" political issue - "the domination of corporations over our elections, and over so many things where commercial values used to be verboten -commercializing childhood....universities (nearly everything). What's happened in the last 25 years is an overwhelming swarm of commercial supremacy (and) Obama has bought into that."

Obama's Record - The Measure of the Man

He preaches change but supports the status quo. He's beholden to power as a stealth DLC member that's essential for any Democrat aspirant. It makes him gallingly disingenuous, deceitful to voters, and "safe" for corporate supporters who back him. He says individual donors supply most of his funding, that he gets none of it from lobbyists, and that they won't crowd out working Americans if he's elected.

In fact, big money owns him. He raises over $1 million a day. Wall Street lords love him. So do corporate law firms; other finance, insurance and real estate interests; the health industry; communications and electronics firms; various other businesses; and the Center for Responsive Politics reports that his top five donors are corporate lobbyists - the same ones he claims to take no money from.

He preaches opposition to NAFTA and wants it renegotiated. It's a "charade" says Nader. "There's no way he'll touch NAFTA or WTO." His health care plan puts insurance companies in charge and lets Big Pharma price-gouge consumers. He's beholden to corporate interests. "If he wins, his appointments will give "lobbies and PACs (what they) want." He knows how Washington works; was fully briefed to be sure; and he "made his peace with that." He's a political animal like the others. Big money is comforted, and why not. No one gets top Washington jobs unless they're "safe." For president, it's practically a blood oath, and Obama qualifies.

Nader dissects his record. He's party line all the way, not a "transforming leader," and his running mate, Matt Gonzales, goes further. He calls his voting record "uninspired." Appalling would be more descriptive. While still in the Illinois legislature, he opposed the Iraq war. Then as a 2004 US Senate candidate, he switched and claimed "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's...." When elected, he proved it. He supported every defense budget and war supplemental and as president will "expand and modernize the military." He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her falsifying justification for war. There's more. He:

-- supports Homeland Security funding; like the Patriot Act, it centralizes unprecendented military and law enforcement authority under the executive; it subverts constitutional rights and furthers global dominance in the name of "national security;" it created the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) that functions like a national Gestapo;

-- backed reauthorizing the Patriot Act in July 2005 with its police state provisions;

-- campaigned in 2006 for Joe Lieberman against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont;

-- supports permanent occupation of Iraq; stops just short of saying it; refuses to back a timetable for withdrawal; and wants to add 100,000 combat troops to the military;

-- caved to Israeli Lobby pressure; receptive to attacking Iran, removing Hugo Chavez, but says he'll talk to them first; then maybe not; he's double standard on most issues - rhetoric to voters; assurances to backers;

-- in a May 23 speech, showed deference to Miami's Cuban exile community; one source described him as "electrifying;" a year ago he supported ending the embargo; no longer unless Cuba becomes a willing client state;

-- voted with Republicans for the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); it gives federal courts jurisdiction over fairer state ones for many class-action lawsuits over $5 million; corporations wanted it; Obama obliged;

-- equivocates on controversial issues like "No Child Left Behind;" it's a corporate scheme to privatize education and end a 373 year tradition; he says the law "demoralizes our teachers (but) the goals of this law were the right ones" - translation: he supports ending public education;

-- opposed an amendment capping credit card interest rates at 30%; it was wholly inadequate but would have set a precedent to lower them further;

-- acted so much like Republicans, he's one of them on most issues:

-- supporting medical providers in wrongful injury cases;

-- letting mining companies strip mine everything; practically steal government lands to do it; and cheat taxpayers out of public revenues;

-- voted for the Bush administration's 2005 Energy Policy Act in spite of criticizing it in campaign rhetoric; it was drafted in secret; provides huge industry subsidies; $6 billion to Big Oil and Gas; and a cornucopia of other industry handouts;

-- backs nuclear power; loose industry regulation; $12 billion in subsidies; and numerous other benefits to promote a dangerous technology;

-- harmful biofuels production and other agribusiness interests, including multi-billion dollar subsidies;

-- opposes universal single-payer national health care, the hundreds of billions it would save, and the huge need for it among tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured;

-- claims opposition to NAFTA, but campaigned in 2004 for more deals like it;

-- voted against a 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill amendment; it would have disfavored offshoring jobs by stopping companies doing business abroad from denying workers organizing rights, minimum wages, and other protections;

-- assured AIPAC he's uncompromisingly pro-Israel; supports continued annual funding; and backed off from earlier promises about a just end to the conflict;

-- supports the death penalty and brutish prison-industrial complex; it affects his people mostly in the world's largest gulag;

-- voted for repressive immigration legislation; it enhances border security; (selectively) penalizes employers; deploys National Guard troops to the border; and imprisons and deports undocumented workers without due process;

-- voted to confirm Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, and Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security - a deplorable roguish threesome;

-- voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 but supports kangaroo court military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees;

-- appointed billionaire Penny Pritzker as his campaign finance chairperson; she and her family were involved in predatory lending schemes, including subprime ones; she also served on the Board of the failed Pritzker family-owned Superior Bank in Hinsdale, IL; because of poor lending practices, sloppy bookkeeping and likely fraud, it cost the FDIC $700 million and depositors $65 million;

-- equivocates but his rhetoric and body language are clear; he supports the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959); it's called the "thought crimes" act; it passed the House overwhelmingly last October and awaits final resolution in the Senate;

-- firmly opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney, and

-- on June 1 matched John Kerry with his own reverse "profile of courage" act; he resigned from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ; it followed "controversy" over Reverend Jeremiah Wright's nobility; he spoke truths too "uncomfortable" for Obama to embrace; he demurred at first and now is firm; political opportunism outweighs righteousness as prime time campaign 2008 approaches;

This is the same JFK/RFK incarnate, a fresh new face, the "great liberal hope," the smooth-talking campaigner who understands who butters his bread. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. Never for Nader, and it's why he's disdained. He's beholden to people, not entrenched interests; the rarest of political candidates - an anti-politician who says what he means and means what he says and has lifetime achievements to prove it. From his web site:

-- one of the 20th century's 100 Most Influential Americans according to Time magazine;

-- over four decades of public service; organized millions of citizens; and formed over 100 public interest groups;

-- from his 1965 "Unsafe at Any Speed" book (the first of many plus numerous articles), he helped "create a framework of laws, regulatory agencies, and federal standards that have improved the quality of life for two generations of Americans;"

-- he was instrumental in enacting OSHA, the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act;

-- in 1969, he founded the Center for Study of Responsive Law; staffed mostly by students, they became known as "Nader's Raiders" - activists on numerous consumer issues;

-- he also founded the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Clean Water Action Project, Disability Rights Center, Pension Rights Center, Project for Corporate Responsibility, and Multinational Monitor on corporate practices internationally;

-- for the last decade, he's been in three presidential races for a common purpose - to empower people over privilege; and

-- his achievements are impressive - safer cars, healthier food, cleaner air and water, and safer work environments; yet he's only scratched the surface and at age 74 keeps working for the public interest and social justice.

He's what everyone in government should be, but few ever are. It's why he's shut out, largely ignored, even insulted like the Journal did on May 31. Disdainfully, it called him a "spoiler" despite its half opinion page interview - but for its low readership Saturday edition with a disparaging dour (somewhat threatening) image to highlight it.

He's denied participation in presidential debates, and in 2000 was threatened with arrest and expelled from the grounds for even showing up. He's kept off ballots, and in 2004 filed suit. He charged the DNC with conspiring to keep him from taking votes from John Kerry and trying to bankrupt his campaign by suing to deny him ballot entry in 18 states. It's how independent candidates are treated when they're prominent figures like Nader. It reflects the sorry state of democracy and tyranny of a "two-party dictatorship;" of money over people; of empowered interests over public service; of the common good nowhere in sight. It's a process begging for change, the heart of Nader's activism, and reason he's running - to spread the word at the most perilous time in world history. If not here, where? If not now, when? If not him or others like him, who?

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9118

Washington Planning to "Checkmate" Chavez

Washington Planning to "Checkmate" Chavez - by Stephen Lendman

So says Heinz Dieterich Steffan - German sociologist, economist, political analyst and Hugo Chavez consultant who claims he coined the phrase "21st century socialism" in the mid-1990s. He currently teaches at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City and writes often on Latin American issues.

In a May 21, 2008 Kaosenlared.net article and follow-up Montevideo, Uruguay debate, Dieterich was blunt. He said "Washington does not want to lose (Latin America) in competition with India, China and Europe." He called the situation "life or death" and that a military attack against Venezuela from Colombia is possible. Maybe likely, and Ecuador and Bolivia are also targeted.

He laid out a "checkmate" scenario:

-- weaken and destroy FARC-EP and ELN resistance; under Clinton in 1999, Plan Colombia was launched to do it; the Uribe government's March 1 attack against the FARC-EP camp was part of it; all regional aggression has Washington's stamp on it, especially when Alvaro Uribe is involved; he's the Bush administration's closest regional ally and willing co-conspirator;

-- neutralize Evo Morales in Bolivia as well, divide the country, and create a parallel state in its resource-rich provinces;

-- use these successes to "checkmate" Chavez and Ecuador's Raphael Correa; take further measures to do it; use Uribe's military and gunboat diplomacy after the Fourth Fleet becomes active July 1 - after a 60 year hiatus and no regional threat to warrant it;

-- since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration targeted Venezuela for regime change; it extended the timeline after its April 2002 coup failed; it made destroying Colombian resistance more urgent so Washington could use the country unimpeded as a launching platform against Chavez much like Honduras in the 1980s against Nicaragua's Sandinistas; the scheme is vintage Washington; it's still unfolding; it involves waging a "widespread offensive against Chavez and the Bolivarian forces from 2008 - 2009;"

-- regime changes in Bolivia and Ecuador will follow; in Bolivia "through separatism, the Trojan Horse of the Constituent Assembly and the 2006 formation of CONFILAR" - an International Confederation for Regional Freedom and Autonomy; in Ecuador by fostering discontent in the CONAI indigenous movement and weakening the government through destabilization; also by stoking secessionist stirrings in Guayas, the country's most affluent province.

Dieterich says Washington believes that "FARC and Evo Morales (weakening) are irreversible." Time will tell if it's so. That reasoning sets the stage for "subversion and paramilitary-military (actions) from Colombia (and) Fourth Fleet (aggression) against Venezuela and Ecuador." In his judgment, an operation may be "close" with the Bush administration's tenure winding down. He calls America a "bestial enemy" and this moment a "dangerous juncture." He hopes Chavez, Correa, Morales and other Latin American leaders are up to the challenge. The threat is that Venezuelan generals will buckle under a US incursion and not sacrifice themselves "in a war against the gringos."

He envisions a scenario much like against Cuba that led to the 1962 missile crisis - a naval blockade and sees "no cohesion" in Venezuela's military as there was in Cuba. The antidote is Latin American unity. The entire region is targeted. "It's time to seek what unites us," he says, and urges a democratic alliance among regional governments and social forces. "There is no other way because the enemy is very powerful and is made up of the alliance between the oligarchies and the gringos, and backed by Europe and Japan."

Dieterich says efforts in this direction have been proposed and rejected. Nonetheless, the need is urgent because failure is unthinkable - the end of participatory democracy and resurgence of neoliberal triumphalism throughout the hemisphere.

There's hope and opportunity to head it off. He calls the Colombian March 1 incursion "a serious political mistake," and that Bogota and Washington "underestimated the cost of this action." It will strengthen calls for negotiation and "will be capitalised on by the forces that (want) a peaceful solution to Colombia's armed conflict." It will also improve chances for "South American integration aims of progressive countries like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela." Ecuador and Bolivia as well. Uribe came out of this politically weaker. He'll "feel isolated diplomatically (and) will have to tone down his" belligerency. That remains to be seen for a hard right leader firmly in Bush's camp with "billions" in "inducements" to stay there.

The stakes for Washington and the region are huge. A rerun of the 1990s "Golden Age of Pillage" is unthinkable. So is another defeat for the Bush administration. With a scant eight months left, it may try anything to reverse its losses. It makes for very scary prospects:

-- saber rattling writ large;

-- regional gunboat diplomacy;

-- a naval blockade against Venezuela and Ecuador;

-- a ground incursion from Colombia;

-- three Latin American leaders targeted for removal;

-- Cuba also;

-- possible assassinations as well; CIA is expert at it; their agents infest the region, and Target One is Chavez; and

-- according to an unidentified retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state, a planned air attack against Iran by summer; the idea is long-standing and goes back to the Clinton years; more recently, hawkish commanders replaced more hesitant ones; Congress is supportive, and, in an election year, major contenders practically preach it, at least in their rhetoric; they're also hostile to Chavez and comfortable with his removal.

He's alerted and revamping his intelligence services accordingly. The Interior and Justice Ministries will oversee a new General Intelligence Office and Counterintelligence Office in place of the current Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP). Similar military intelligence and counterintelligence components will replace the Military Intelligence Division (DIM) and will be under the Defense Ministry. Interior Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin announced the changes on May 28, and said they're to counter US espionage and destabilization efforts. They're operative under the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence. It was passed on May 28 by presidential decree under the legislatively-granted enabling law.

They'll be needed and lots more. According to Venezuelan Popular Unity (UPV) leader Lina Ron, the Chavez government is threatened. She cites a coup d'etat scheme called "Choquinaque" to oust it. It involves economic financing, psychological manipulation, and efforts to destabilize Venezuela's economy. Senior military commanders are being enlisted and bribed and opposition candidates promoted. The aim is to influence the outcome of the November 23 regional elections for mayors and governors. Pro-Chavez officials hold most posts, and Washington-backed subversion aims to unseat enough of them to change the balance of power.

Similar schemes back secessionist movements in the most affluent parts of Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador in its Guayas province. It has regional leaders alarmed and Chavez outraged and vocal. On his weekly radio and television program, he blamed "oligarchs" and "fascists" for targeting Bolivia after its most resource-rich state (Santa Cruz) supported more autonomy in a (largely symbolic) May 4 referendum. "The CIA and its lackeys (want regional control) but we will defeat that plan through integration, political union and ideological strength."

It's vital because Venezuela is also threatened. It's oil-rich Zulia state has similar secessionist ideas. Big Oil exploits them, and their local allies in the past supported a referendum to choose independence from Caracas. Its governor is Manuel Rosales. He ran against Chavez in 2006 and lost big. He backs the idea, is close to the Bush administration, and signed the infamous "Carmona Decree" after the April 2002 coup. It dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court, erased the Constitution, and ended Bolivarianism for the people. For now, more autonomy is enough for Rosales but unthinkable if Chavistas can help it. They condemn the idea and will fight it.

Stay tuned. November approaches in both countries. The Bush administration's tenure is short. But it's got plenty of time left to incinerate two continents and end the republic if that's its plan. An inert public needs arousing. Michel Chossudovsy says we're "at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history." It's part of a "war and globalization" process. The stakes for humanity are incalculable, but rogue states don't weigh them. World communities better while there's time.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9118