A German Name More Inconvenient Than Mine!!!

Ludwig Schytte

9:44 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

White House Propaganda Goes Into Overdrive Regarding Georgia-Russia Conflict

Not since the Invasion into Iraq have I seen the mainstream media so completely complicit in pushing White House propaganda down the throats of Americans.  I was getting an oil change yesterday and watched CNN for an hour.  Their reporting was so biased and based on emotional garbage that I was astonished. 

There are 3 important facts which all Americans need  to understand about the conflict in Georgia right now, and which the American media is largely ignoring in their biased reporting.  Any of these facts can easily be verified.

1.  South Ossetia is roughly 90% Russian, and the majority of its citizens speak Russian and hold Russian passports.  This province has been occupied by Russian Peace Keepers for over a decade, as the conflict over this land is heavily rooted in history.  This territory has been in dispute ever since Georgia declared its independence in 1992.  When the Russian tanks "invaded Georgia" by coming into South Ossetia, they were really coming to the rescue of people holding Russian passports (the majority of citizens) who were being attacked by Georgian forces.

2.  Georgia attacked South Ossetia first on August 8, kicking off this conflict.  Prior to that attack, there was no act of military aggression from Russia.  Georgia killed over a 1000 Ossetian civilians, and over a dozen Russian Peacekeepers.  How was Russia supposed to respond to this?  Were they supposed to send a Thank You card to the Georgian government?   This current conflict was not initiated by the Russians.  Georgia threw the first punch, and warranted or not, Russia views all of its following actions as a "response" to that initial act of aggression.

3.  The United States has provided arms to the Georgian military and has trained their soldiers.   It is absolutely clear that the US was directly involved in the initial attack on South Ossetia, which killed over 1000 "Russian" civilians.  Considering that the US is currently involved in a de facto war against Russia, I believe they are showing a considerable amount of diplomatic restraint toward the United States.  Can you imagine if Cuban forces trained and led by Russians killed American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay in an act of aggression?  Our entire country would be up in arms!

The American mainstream press is vilifying Russia, and claiming that they invaded Georgia unprovoked, but be aware you are being lied to.  The US government supported an act of aggression against Russian citizens in South Ossetia that killed over a 1000 people.  Whether Russia's military response is heavy handed or whether they are capitalizing on this conflict to extend their territory is definitely up for debate. I am not saying that Russia is without fault, or that their intentions are completely noble.
But everybody needs to understand that Georgian forces, poorly advised by the US, have largely brought this upon themselves by their deliberate and calculated act of military aggression against civilians in South Ossetia.  
I have not heard one ounce of criticism in the American media about the initial attack on South Ossetia by Georgia on August 8th.  Barack Obama, pointing an angry and accusing finger at Russia today said, "It doesn't matter how this conflict started."  Why...yes it does! 
Those who throw the first punch are the aggressors, and the people responding to that punch are defending themselves.  THAT'S the difference.
Until the United States condemns Georgia for their act of military aggression against civilians in South Ossetia, they have absolutely no right to condemn any military response to that act of aggression.  Period.

The United States also brought this upon themselves by their recognition of the independence of Kosovo.  Russia warned us that it would adopt the United States' rules of conduct regarding recognition of breakaway territories back in February of this year.  If Russia chooses to recognize and support the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and offers to protect them militarily from Georgia, it is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than how we recognized Kosovo and offered to protect them militarily from Serbia.
Once again, the United States is experiencing the consequences of their poor choices in foreign policy.   We have lowered the bar of international conduct.  We have sent a message to the world that the pursuit of national interests is above the goal of preserving territorial integrity of sovereign nations.  We have lost any moral position to criticize other countries for following in our footsteps.
Every action of our foreign policy which attempts to pursue "strategic American interests" around the world almost invariably comes back to bite us in some form or another, and this is no exception.

3:53 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

John McCain Speaks For YOU

Forget that John McCain has not yet been elected president, or that he wasn't even the first choice to represent the Republican Party in most states.
He speaks for you.
All of you.
He knows what you think, even if you don't.
Look, he's even telling the world what YOU think.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_georgia;_ylt=A9G_R3G68qFIOzIAwAes0NUE

If you don't like McCain speaking for you, I suggest you call his offices and let him know that he is welcome to speak for himself, and maybe he can even speak on behalf of Americans if he's elected as president, but currently as the Republican nominee he has NO RIGHT to tell the world press that all Americans back Georgia, and that "we are all Georgians."

I'll speak for myself, since I don't presume the arrogance to speak for 300 million people.  I am not a Georgian.  I am an American!

8:37 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Some Thoughts On The Russia-Georgia/US Conflict

Perhaps somebody needs to let the Bush Administration know that the Cold War is over, and that our meddling in the affairs of Russia's neighbors will force it to forcibly extend its influence in response. 

The US has absolutely no moral high ground in this matter, considering that just a mere few generations ago, we readily ceded  the breakaway provinces of Mexico and went to war with a much weaker country to expand our territory to include Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado, and Wyoming.  Mexico lost 55% of its territory.
 
Our country feels entitled to meddle in international disputes such as recognizing the breakaway of provinces from sovereign countries, such as Kosovo from Serbia.  We somehow arrogantly think that we can force a double standard on the world, and threaten Serbia with military force if it tries to protect its historical territory in Kosovo, yet we arm the Georgians against their own separatist movement because the separtists want to join the Russians?

Check out this video of an American citizen who is over in South Ossetia right now and what he thinks about the US role in all this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOwP_d9aLT4

This has the potential to escalate into something very, very bad for the United States.  The last thing we need to do is kick off another arms race with Russia, or worse yet, create a Cuban Missile Crisis-type event,  which is much more likely to occur with our aggressive construction of military bases and missile defense systems in Russia's backyard.
Even as I write this, Russian television is airing unconfirmed reports of American mercenaries that have been killed in conflict with the Russian military.
If these reports are substantiated and these mercenaries are somehow linked to the US military or US corporations such as Blackwater, this could erupt into a foreign relations nightmare for the US. 
We should not be over there meddling in their affairs.  We need to stop being the policeman of the world!

3:50 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

We Must Protect the Future of the Internet

As I was going through various political videos on YouTube today, I couldn't help but notice how some of them had been viewed millions of times.  People discussed and debated the merits of these videos in the comments section, and it was refreshing to see so many points of view.
Where else could any regular citizen find an audience of thousands or even millions except for online.  And perhaps the greatest thing of all is these YouTube videos owe most of their success not to corporate promotion, but rather simply to people personally sharing the links with others.  For the first time in decades, average people are determining what is funny, clever, or enlightening. 
Politicians are now finding their words coming back to haunt them, as historical footage is spliced to the new, showing changed positions or outright lies.  The alternative media is ballooning online as bloggers provide deeper critical analysis and discussion instead of clipped soundbytes and endless blathering banter.  Corporations are struggling as orchestrated trends and fads are more difficult to engineer from the top down, and people's interests are diversifying.  Rather than telling people what they want, corporations are now forced to track individuals and bombard them with customized advertising. 
It is getting more difficult to tell people what to like and what to buy.
Something else is cropping up amongst this vast tangled vine of wildly differing points of view, especially amongst the younger generation.
Critical thinking.
You see, the Internet differs from the traditional mainstream media in the fact that it contains content that is blatant unpolished bullshit.  Governmental and corporate social engineers don't create unpolished bullshit.  They at least make an effort to conceal their bullshit in the guise of respectability and expertise.  They have a broad repertoire of tricks to deceive the public.  Thankfully, there are plenty of less refined bullshitters online who slip up enough to activate the critical thinking of even the least critical people.  Everybody who spends enough time online eventually will stop forwarding promises that Bill Gates will send money for testing out a BETA email tracking program.  The massive amount of fraud and garbage that festers online has served as a stumbling block to force people to watch their step.  This differs greatly from the glossy mainstream media bullshit.  You can swallow theirs with a smile, and while it may lead to wars and a lower standard of living, it does not have immediate clear personal consequences like somebody stealing your credit card number, or finding yourself with a stalker.  Viruses, scams, identity theft, sexual predators, people putting up false fronts on dating sites and in chatrooms...you name it.  The Internet is tapestry of interwoven bullshit and legitimacy, and lacks any type of corporate or governmental guidance for how to pick it apart. 
Most people are forced to think for themselves every time they turn on a computer and go online.
Reasonable people, even opinionated ones, will at some point encounter information online that will challenge their beliefs, and which can potentially lead to a more complex belief system.
When a reasonable person is subjected to so many differing points of view and so much conflicting information, they actually are forced to weigh the merits of the content on their own.   This proves quite a threat to existing power structures because it encourages thinking.  Both Congress and Bush have the lowest approval rating in history, and the majority of people polled today say they don't believe what they hear on cable news.  Much of this phenomenon is driven by the free flow of critical information online.  American citizens are becoming increasingly more "unmanageable."  The presidential campaign of Ron Paul, which attracted a very large grassroots following, despite a mainstream media blackout, is proof that the influence of alternative media is growing and that dissatisfied online "communities" are developing the power to organize. 

Television created the greatest propaganda tool ever imagined and has allowed corporations and the government to exert strict control over what the majority is allowed to see or hear.  A handful of academics, journalists, and critical thinking rebels have always sought to ask hard questions and inform the public, but their numbers were few and their influence largely prevented from reaching the mainstream public airwaves.
The Internet, however, has opened a floodgate of people who are subversive to existing power structures, and whose views have become more acceptable as their message reaches broader audiences through word of mouth.  Leaks that could formerly be controlled before they went to press, can now go viral online in a matter of minutes through alternative media.  As the American standard of living deteriorates, people are more open to differing explanations as to why this is happening.
In response, corporate and governmental censorship is also growing.  Major news outlets such as Yahoo! News, which used to allow comments on the stories disabled the feature.  Fox News heavily moderates its comment section and censors anything that might derail the content in the original article.  MySpace has numerous examples of censorship.  There are growing cases of alternative blogs being blacklisted at public computer labs, filtered out as "hate sites" even though these blogs do not advocate violence, but focus rather on corruption and exposing illegal or dishonest governmental/corporate activities.  Much of the existing traffic to these alternative websites was originally generated by links on mainstream web discussion boards that no longer exist precisely because these corporations realized they were sending "customers" to competitive alternative news sites.

Perhaps the most alarming development is the effort of corporations and the government to create Internet 2, which will be sold to the public as a vast upgrade to this one.  The catch?  It will be designed to allow 24/7 governmental surveillance, will gather and store all your personal data, and will completely eliminate open and free discussion as we know it.

See Alex Jones' interview with Paul Watson on this subject (5 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b2kBleDxOc&feature=related
While Alex's somewhat worked-up "Steve Irwinish" presentation of the material and self-promotion of his websites might put you off, he is right about efforts to target his sites.  Over two years ago, I personally had a blog on MySpace mysteriously deleted with a link to this article:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/myspace_trojan_horse_of_internet_censorship.htm
Interestingly enough, the article is on the same topic that I'm writing about today.

If you find Alex's rants about a New World Order hard to swallow, read the Internet2 Strategic Plan for yourself.  It was released last month.

 https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/download/attachments/19833/Internet2+Strategic+Plan0708.pdf?version=1

This entire document contains smug talk about "member benefits," namely corporations and how they will "own" Internet2 (See Strategy 8).  Note in Strategy 2 where they put "customers" in quotation marks.  This is obviously a tongue in cheek joke to other power brokers.  These people are setting up an Internet Cartel that will restore complete control of the Internet back to the corporations. Currently, they are seeing their profits and ability to control public opinion slip away due to the freedom and competition of our existing Internet.

The destruction of our existing Internet will not happen overnight, but I urge everybody to think deeply about the future of this precious democratic institution, and what we can do to protect it.
The free and open discussion of ideas is essential to the lifeblood of democracy.  Without it, we are destined to lose our right to self-determination, and will surely become the victims of authoritarian rule.

3:29 PM - 5 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

What 4th Amendment?

The Department of Homeland Security recently publicly disclosed its policy that allows it to seize the laptops and other electronic devices of American citizens at the border without probable cause and to keep them "for a reasonable amount of time" and to basically do whatever the hell they want with the information they copy "as they see fit."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25960741/

I want to know what part of the 4th Amendment (which they took an oath to protect) they do not understand.

4th Amendment of the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does anybody who is reading this really believe that a dangerous terrorist or child pornographer would risk bringing incriminating material on their person across a physical border, when that same information could easily be encrypted and transferred anonymously across the internet with almost no risk? 

8:20 AM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Regarding Right Wing Xenophobia and Those Who Poured Gasoline On It

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080728/ts_nm/tennessee_shooting_dc;_ylt=Ar_PRVWgeec3qpoPVJO9NzOs0NUE

I bet Ann Coulter is beaming with pride.   Look, the shooters is even wearing a red,white, and blue T-shirt.  How patriotic.

Hatred of "liberals" and "conservatives" is not your average breed of cultural hatred, but rather is one manufactured by people who seek control.  While these labels have been present and used negatively for a long time, it is only really in the last decade and a half  (and more especially right after 9/11) where the effort to load these terms has risen to a fever pitch.  Republicans have completely succeeded in making "liberal" a dirty word. 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6823.html
The loading of these labels is designed to condition people and provoke emotional reactions when they hear the word, so as to close their minds to different points of view.  It is easy to command complete party loyalty when many people can be turned off like a switch with a single word.  It's a whole lot easier than persuading somebody with an open mind on complex issues.  Most Democrats and Republicans alike rely heavily on cultivating this knee-jerk reaction to keep voters in their camp.  They deliberately kindle broad hatred and distrust for the other party.
This political strategy of fear and division has worked marvelously in the last decade, polarizing us perhaps more than ever.  Of course it good for both Democrats and Republicans because it protects the two party power structure.  Now, we talk about red states and blue states instead of the United States.  We say a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain, because there IS no room for a third point of view.  It's either my way or the highway.  You're either with us or against us.  You're liberal or you're conservative.  LESS FILLING!  TASTES GREAT!  And THAT is what democracy in most powerful country in the world has boiled down to.
Instead of modeling real civilized discourse, the majority of pundits have degenerated into aggressive shouting matches and name calling.  "Inteviews" on cable news consist of spewing opinions at your guest and not letting them get a word in edgewise.  Even some fringe extremists like Ann Coulter were welcomed into the mainstream and allowed to cheer for the death of liberals with only a few isolated cries of objection.  Does anybody believe you can spew such hatred and contempt for an extended period of time and come out in the end with a nation of individuals who demonstrate respect and goodwill toward each other despite their differences?
This decade of fear and divisiveness is coming to a head.

This church shooting is nothing more than the fruit of Republican engineers who led a concerted effort to manufacture a "liberal boogeyman" responsible for all the world's ills. 
As the political pendulum swings sharply left in response to these Bush years, I would not be surprised at more holdout nutjobs like this who will not sit helplessly and let "liberal traitors" overrun "their" country, and we will see just how deeply the seeds of hatred have been sown.
While these extremists were welcomed amongst the majority after 9/11, they enjoyed a position of legitimacy for the first time,  wrapping themselves in the flag and trumpeting their xenophobic message to every group of people on the planet who were not white, American, Christian, heterosexual, and Republican. 
Now, this intolerant extremism has fallen out of vogue and these people are in danger of slipping back into the marginalized cracks from which they were vacuumed up by the GOP.

I certainly hope they'll go more quietly than this guy.

9:04 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Ron Paul Congressional Hearings on Iran

Call your Representatives and Senators today and tell them you do not want war with Iran.  The US escalation toward this conflict is very real, despite the fact that it is pure and absolute insanity.  Some analysts predict a military strike against Iran by either the US or Israel would result in gasoline here that is $12 a gallon. 

Watch Ron Paul in Iran Policy hearings in the links at the end, and here are his statements from the floor of the House yesterday:

 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. PAUL. A couple of weeks ago, there was a resolution introduced in the Congress, H. Con. Res. 362, that quickly got 220 cosponsors. I want to talk a little bit more about that resolution because there are some Members of Congress now having second thoughts about invoking a blockade on Iran.

   Take, for instance, here's a quote from Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. He says, ....Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a U.S. blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs Committee for a vote.''

   The chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, had this to say: ....I am all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far. I am going to call the sponsors and tell them I am changing my vote.''

   I would like all Members of Congress to reconsider, because this I consider a very dangerous sense of congress resolution and that it is going to lead to trouble.

   There is a new pro-Israeli lobby established called J Street, and they had some comments about this legislation as well. Their comments are this: ....We as a group oppose preemptive military action by either the United States or Israel and we support stronger U.S. diplomacy. To us, it is common sense that saber rattling and constant threats are counterproductive. What better way to unite Iran behind its most hawkish leaders than threatening to attack? What better way to empower the Iranian hardliners' case for nuclear weapons development than to talk of a military attack?''

[Page: H6389]  GPO's PDF

   Today, I had three young Iranians in my office, and they verified that next year there will be an election and Ahmadinejad, who is in political trouble over there, is being enhanced by our militant conversation we have here, threatening of blockades, and with this plan or possible plan to actually bomb Iran. But the other side argues, well, no it is all the Iranians' fault. They are testing missiles.

   The testing of missiles came after there were war games by Israel testing whether or not they had the manpower and the airplanes to travel that particular distance. So the saber rattling is not one-sided, and we cannot say that it is all the Iranians' fault.

   This H. Con. Res. 362, the authors claim it is not a blockade. But what it does, it demands inspection of all imports of petroleum products, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo. They use word ....prohibit'' and impose stringent inspection on all of these items.

   Now, the question I would like to pose here for our Members is this: How would we as Americans and how would we as a government react if a strong government came and did that to us? What if another government came and said we are going to restrict the importation of petroleum products and we are going to inspect all vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo? We wouldn't know what that would mean. How could they do that without an embargo? This is militant language, it is just looking for trouble, and it will not help solve the situation.

   There is nothing wrong with talking to people. We talked to the Soviets in the midst of the Cold War. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now they are talking about, well, maybe the Iranians might get a weapon later on.

   Quite frankly, this talk about this violation, the Iranians were asked by IAEA not to resume enrichment. They had voluntarily stopped enrichment for peaceful purposes. They have every right under the Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich for peaceful purposes. In the last year, there have been nine unannounced inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites. They have never once been found in violation.

   This does not make them angels. This does not make them not want to desire to defend their country. But think about it: How many countries have nukes around them? Pakistan has nukes, India has them, Israel has them, the United States has them, China has them, the Soviets have them. And they are being threatened. War games are being practiced, with the potentiality of us being a participant in bombing them.

9:23 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

FBI Defines Constitutionalists as "Terrorists"

Look at this flyer released by the Phoenix FBI under the column "Right-wing extremists."  It defines "defenders of the Constitution against federal government and the UN" as TERRORISTS.

http://reliableanswers.com/patriot/2001/11/fbi-flyer-constitutional-adherents.asp


When I joined the Peace Corps I swore an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.  So, because I condemn the Federal Government's deliberate destruction of our Bill of Rights, I am not a "patriot" but rather a "terrorist?"  Professors of Constitutional Law across the nation of both liberal and conservative persuasion are REELING from yesterday's historic destruction of the 4th Amendment.  You can bet that many capable and deeply patriotic Americans will not lay down and accept this.   However, the Federal Government is ready to label those activists who don't meekly accept the destruction of our rights as "terrorists."
Does anybody else see a problem with this?

7:34 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

1 Down 9 To Go

Today the Senate triumphantly tore the 4th Amendment from the Bill of Rights.  Americans are 1/10 less free today thanks to the majority in the Senate.  This includes our likely future Traitor in Chief, Barack Obama who will be protected at the DNC in Denver with millions of dollars worth of hi-tech crowd control weapons, including microwave rays capable of cooking people alive.   Mind you, these weapons aren't to protect against terrorists.  They are to control crowds of dissenting Americans.  Not that you'll find many, since they'll be too busy sitting on their apathetic asses watching American Idol, or too afraid to show up and get zapped like a frankfurter.

But back to our rush in embracing dictatorship.  I like the title of this story.  "Senate bows to Bush."   The only thing missing is a crown to top Bush's head in the picture.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_go_co/terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=AjSUXMmpw3TRUn4sTz7_Iaus0NUE

I urge everybody to visit this site StrangeBedfellows, where activists on right (including many Ron Paul people) and activists on the left (Glenn Greenwald, writer at Salon.com) have joined together to stand ground against this.

http://accountabilitynowpac.com/

I also urge you to read these articles by Glenn Greenwald to understand why Barack Obama does not deserve your vote.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/08/accountability/index.html

At this point, we have two mainstream candidates who are both moving in the same direction.  They will take away essential liberties, give more power to corporations, expand the power of the federal government, and will continue a campaign of perpetual war destroying the middle class. 
There is no lesser evil.   McCain is a  violent madman, and Obama is silver tongued snake. 
Personally, I'm not going to vote for either.

8:52 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment