Woody Harrelson explores the rot at the heart of our governing system. Documentary shows how public opinion is manipulated and people are distracted from the core agendas of the two-party behemoth. Not sure if the uploader has the rights or not, so hurry…
Published at OpedNews.
Joe Giambrone
Every time the word “bipartisan” makes it to print the world suffers. When the two rival political syndicates line up in a row in favor of something, it’s because their masters feel so strongly about the issue that all other concerns are bulldozed away. The American people are not those “masters,” not by any stretch of fantasy.
Bipartisan deals brought us the Iraq War resolution, the Patriot Act, the continuation of Guantanamo Gulag and infinite drone warfare, the naked aggression and support for terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, as well as the permission to spy on, disappear and/or execute American citizens without due process. Bipartisan handshakes erased the right to peaceably assemble and had the Occupy protests beaten, sprayed and hauled off into oblivion. Bipartisan backroom conversations arranged untold trillions of dollars to banksters, all with the promise of future payments by America’s grandchildren and their grandchildren too.
In 2006 the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) told us that, “Impeachment is off the table.” This low point in the modern history of that criminal protection racket known as the US Congress sent a clear message to the world: presidential crimes are okay in this new America 2.0. It didn’t matter if the list of criminal charges from Representative Kucinich were true or not. The Democratic leadership, in an obvious deal to ignore violations of the Constitution in violation of their own oaths of office, gave a free pass to the Bush regime to continue its policies unmolested, no matter how illegal or immoral they happened to be.
That was bipartisanship.
It was next arranged that the top Democratic contender for the presidency would share this view of presidential power, the protection of war criminals and the cover-up and classification of state crimes. Enter Barack Obama, a bipartisan wet dream for four years. Barack told us how he would “look forward” rather than back at the torture, unlawful surveillance and wars of aggression launched by his predecessor. Barack’s Justice (sic) Department wasn’t so blinkered and narrowed in scope when it came to crucial whistleblowers, however. For those leaking the evidence of state crimes, like John Kriakou (CIA), William Binney (NSA) and of course Private Bradley Manning (US ARMY), Mr. Obama has easily made exceptions to his “forward” looking posture. Documentarian Robert Greenwald is currently exposing Obama’s War on Whistleblowers.
Mr. Obama’s forward-looking zealotry applies only when it suits his imperial expansion agenda. And lo and behold, that imperial project has always been the ultimate US bipartisan endeavor. Even in the era of Harry Truman (D), we have “policy planning” at the US State Department that is clear, unequivocal and patently immoral and at odds with the lofty rhetoric of politicians at podiums.
“[The US Government] should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on.”
–Memo PPS23, George Kennan, Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff. Written February 28, 1948, (emphasis added)
America is not a democratic republic, and is blatantly not a champion of democracy around the globe, as children are indoctrinated to believe. America is a brutal, global military empire that has steadily expanded its reach and “action capabilities” since World War 2. Many millions of casualties across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America have piled up in the post WW2 period, thanks in large part to US taxpayers. With the creation of the “National Security State” in 1948 the US set out on a path of securing its insatiable roster of “interests” in every corner of the globe. Using its secretive covert capabilities, such as the CIA, Special Forces, SEAL teams and contracted mercenaries, this centuries-long project was, and remains, a clearly “bipartisan” affair.
So is Congressional Gridlock the Only Hope?
Imperial control strategy, which dates back to at least the Roman Empire, posits a divide and conquer method (“Divide et impera”). Keeping the enemies fighting amongst themselves weakens them and allows the controlling interest to strengthen. This idea may have some relevance to the current situation with the US Congress.
As complex as modern politics can be, the two sided beast can be set on itself, with resulting self-immolation. This may be the only chance the population has in the short term, as it seeks to oust the corrupt from high offices, presuming enough of the population is actually interested in doing so.
I’ve smiled more than once these past few days, now that Obama no longer gets a free pass in the media. After turning his unlawful powers on the Associated Press, he instantly alienated and struck fear into the hearts of the formerly cowed, compliant stenography corps that had ignored so much criminality for so long. If the crimes of Barack are fair game, then the world gets a reprieve. If impeachment moves forward, the spectacle will distract these Mafiosos for at least a year.
It seems the more damage these Congress Clowns can inflict on each other, the less they can harm the common people like you and I. They can only accomplish so much at a time. We may be spared the Trans Pacific Partnership, more internet censorship, more “free trade” job export deals, more bankster bailouts, more armored troop carriers in the streets and more wars of criminal aggression, at least for a little while.
If the tipping point is reached and lying becomes an impeachable offense again, as with William J. Clinton, then the gloves may come off. Each side may seek to bloody the other in an ever escalating tit for tat that leads to a flood of resignations, criminal charges and perhaps even a glimpse of that mythical Unicorn called “justice.”
No, I’m not that naïve. But it is nice to dream.
Joe Giambrone publishes Politcal Film Blog (@polfilmblog), and here’s a Hell of a Deal.
“Fracking Activists Could Face Felony Charges as “Ag-Gag” Laws Spread”
Full blown fascism coming down the tracks. The joy of living in a criminal state and surrounded by ignorant buffoon flag wavers.
U.S. Navy leaders were warned last year that a $37 billion program to build Littoral Combat Ships can’t meet its promised mission because the vessels are too lightly manned and armed, according to a confidential report.” -Bloomberg
That infinite vacuum, The Pentagon, guzzles billions like cheap beer while the assholes in Congress want to cut food and medicine to senior citizens who paid into Social Security their whole lives.
Is anyone okay with this? What is the matter with this madhouse?
Damn if this wasn’t an unexpectedly good gangster film. Unbeknownst to me, Lawless told the true story of the “wettest county in the world” under Prohibition. Three legendary brothers stand up to the corruption trying to bring them to heel. Dirty cops, dirty feds, the original drug war is even more fascinating than current films tend to be. Yet so many of those same issues keep rearing their heads. Narcs on the payroll, an intractable problem, a public that votes with their wallets, not much changes.
Tom Hardy, whom I hadn’t expected much from, delivers a twisted, believably delusional hillbilly performance that works perfectly. His character survived so many near misses that he started believing his own legend about how invincible he was. With this bit of irrational bravado he decides to draw the line against a corrupt city lawman and his enforcer, a chillingly creepy Guy Pearce.
A couple of intertwined love stories keep the testosterone from overwhelming the thing. Violence is realistic and harsh. Definitely one to check out at the Redbox.
Surprise two, the screenwriter was Nick Cave, who I thought was some kind of rock star. Lots of Aussies playing Appalachians, and pulling it off amusingly.
Shot on the Arri Alexa, which still kicks Red’s ass despite the latter having more than 4 times the resolution, the cinematography is beautiful and the locations authentic.
Bonus NSFW–
Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds – Jubilee Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
Corruption, bribery, conflicts of interest, plutocracy, Lesterland, money in politics…
PS
I debated for this same solution in journalism class and was met with blank stares and knee jerk rejectionism.
They said: “We have to get money out of politics, not in! That’s absurd.”
Me: “We have to get people’s influence INTO politics to offset the influence of what that money is buying.”
The solution is as easy as a one line box on the 1040 Income Tax form. Give everyone a piece of political money to play in the game. It doesn’t have to be a lot, just enough to empower the voices who represent common people. This is the obvious solution to empower regular people to compete in the political arena while still being fair to the entrenched upper class. Right now the elites monopolize the political funding system and control the candidates and high officials. The only sensible response is to empower the rest of us, whom they are currently fucking over, so that our voices are heard too (as they are attached to campaign contributions).
Let’s talk about the kind of “terrorism” that’s a hell of a lot more likely to affect you and your family: corporate responsibility without accountability. The “deregulation” offensive led by people like governor of Texas G.W. Bush and the right wing corporatists, including Obama, is responsible for killing large numbers of workers, a disturbingly increasing number. Miners, plant workers, the regulations to ensure worker safety are little more than a joke after decades of erosion and deal making in the slimy halls of power.
“We know that the EPA, back in 2006, cited West Fertilizer for not having an emergency risk management plan. That is, a dangerous and explosion-prone plant that was using a hazardous chemical in large quantities, and that was storing highly explosive material also in large quantities, had made little or no effort to assess the risks of what it was doing. Indeed, it has been reported that the company had assured the EPA, in response to the complaint, that there was “no risk” of an explosion at the plant! An AP article reports that the company, five years after being cited for lacking a risk plan, did file one with the EPA, but that the report claimed the company “…was not handling flammable materials and did not have sprinklers, water-deluge systems, blast walls, fire walls or other safety mechanisms in place at the plant.”
Two Acts of Terror, Only One Investigation
by DAVE LINDORFF
“After all, it was Obama’s Justice Department that in December 2011 settled the case of the April 2010 Massey Energy Upper Big Branch explosion, which killed 29 miners, with a “non prosecution agreement.”
Outrageously, the Justice Department said it would not criminally prosecute Massey even though the Labor Department concluded that Massey’s “unlawful policies and practices” were the “root cause of this tragedy.”
Corporate Terrorism in West Texas
by RUSSELL MOKHIBER
Corporate personhood on the chopping block:
“Nothing in that jurisprudence indicates that that right [of privacy] is available to business entities.”
“There are no men or woman defendants in the instant case; they are various business entities,” it wrote, saying business entities are created by the state and subject to laws, unlike people with natural rights. “In the absence of state law, business entities are nothing.” If businesses had natural rights like people, “the chattel would become the co-equal to its owners, the servant on par with its masters, the agent the peer of its principles, and the legal fabrication superior to the law that created and sustains it.”
The judge said the U.S. Constitution’s 14 th Amendment “use of the word “person’ that makes its protections applicable to business entities” does not apply to Pennsylvania’s constitution. “The exact opposite is derived from plan language of Article X of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
“Not only did our framers know how to employ the names of business entities when and where they wanted them” they used those words to subjugate business entities to the constitution,” the Court held. “The framers permitted the Commonwealth to revoke, amend, and repeal “[a]ll charters of private corporations’ and any “powers, duties or liabilities’ of corpoeations”
The Sky is Pink
“I am willing to make tough choices that may not be popular within my own party, because there can be no sacred cows for either party,” Obama wrote in a letter to Congress included in the budget, referring to the move’s repudiation of the Democrats’ traditional association with the programs of the Great Society and New Deal.
The budget proposes to slash $400 billion from Medicare spending over ten years, and would introduce a new measure of the cost of living that would mean an effective cut of $130 billion from Social Security benefits during the same period.
Cuts to these programs are overwhelmingly unpopular, with a Pew Research poll finding earlier this year that 87 percent of the population is opposed to cuts in Social Security, while 82 percent oppose cuts in Medicare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3AJwTKXFnA
Nothing has changed under Obama. Video is just as relevant right now, and in a bunch of other nations.
Where to start? How about with an observation concerning World War Z and how Hollywood muddles nearly any political point it ever tries to make in the service of maximizing viewership? “That’s how they sell the most tickets imaginable, by appealing across a broad spectrum, and combining so many ideas that everyone can walk away feeling like they got what they wanted (Anthony Kaufman).” Pretty good observation, and it also lets the perpetrators of propaganda off the hook for the more malignant ideas they push on the masses. Nolan’s Dark Knight Rises was a case in point. So what has that got to do with Tom Cruise dancing around in his underwear?
Risky Business spoke to me when I first snuck in to the multiplex through the exit door and caught it. I guess I was 16, a junior in high school. Joel (Cruise) has a debauched best friend Miles who is always prodding him to cross that next line. I had a similar real world compatriot, and so this relationship at the opening of the movie immediately grabbed my attention. And if that wasn’t enough, there are also a bevy of stunning prostitutes in the film, including Rebecca DeMornay as Lana. That’s enough to attact 90% of 16 y.o. American boys, and so where does this thing go?
It goes off into the world of business, capitalism, Yale. It’s an odd and sometimes confusing journey into supply and demand. In this case the supply is Lana and friends, the demand are the little rich boys of a Chicago suburb who are ready to put their money down.
Ah, but the competition is not going to sit still while upstarts like Joel try and pilfer a stable of high class call girls. Enter Guido the killer pimp. And then it seems Joel himself has ascended into the pimp racket. There are some strange complications however, as prostitution, pimping and competition also entail the little matter of stealing whatever’s not nailed down. In this case, the stealing is from Joel’s own house – scratch that – Joel’s parents’ house while they are away on business. The stakes for Joel keep raising, especially after his Dad’s turbo Porsche ends up in the lake.
One might try and claim a clear pro-capitalist, even libertarian slant to Joel and his pimp business. Supply, demand, profit, everyone’s happy (not Guido). But is that the ultimate point of Risky Business, or is there a larger ironic point to be gleaned? The ending, and its Yale business school tie-in leave room for contemplation.
Oh I hate giving away plot, and yet I need to stuff a sufficient amount of words into these things. See the movie, if you haven’t already. You tell me what you think.
