Thursday, November 30, 2006

Distorting Public Opinion

The Iranian president’s letter to the American people had hardly been released when MSNBC online, among other opinion formers, was telling us what to think about it. The first
paragraph of the MSNBC “report”
of reader reactions sets the tone:

“When we asked readers to respond to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s open letter to the American public, your responses ranged from outrage ("Drop dead, we don't take advice from an evil dictator and terrorist") to fashion-conscious ("I would tell him to please put some hair color in his beard. The gray is bad").” MSNBC added, “most readers told Ahmadinejad to take a long walk off a short dock (if not in so many words).”

We don’t need the acumen of George Orwell (who wrote the best analyses of dishonest use of language) to detect that there is persuasion going on here. In fact the pre-chewed version of what readers said is probably no more truthful than the newspaper reporter’s ancient trick for slipping his or her opinions into a “objective” report: “A bystander was heard to say.”

MSNBC’s selective and possibly fanciful summary also resembles what I read almost every day about “Western nations” opposing this or that (e.g. Iranian nuclear development) or favoring this or that. As with “coalition forces”, we can substitute the words “United States” for “Western nations” to get past the biased reporting.

Why should the American media meet the president of Iran’s courteous plea for mutual understanding and non-interference in the affairs of nations with loaded propaganda guns? His country (unlike the U.S. and Israel) has been at peace for many years, and there is no reason to believe that Iran will ever be a threat to the U.S. unless it is first attacked, or threatened with attack, by the U.S./Israel axis.

For the answer, just read President Ahmadinejad’s letter and notice its heavy emphasis on the crimes of Israel against its subject people, made possible largely by U.S. money, arms, and political support. That is enough to explain not only MSNBC’s twisted version of public reaction but also the very selective descriptions of what the letter contains, as almost always happens when a national leader points to Israel as the root cause of terrorism.

(I'm sure you've noticed that whenever a "terrorist” makes a courtroom statement at the end of his trial explaining that his motives were reprisal for evil deeds by Israel, and for U.S. complicity in those acts, the content of his statement is always reported in some such way as this: “The defendant made a rambling and incoherent speech until he was told by the judge to sit down.” The American public is thus denied an opportunity to learn what really causes terrorism from the mouths of terrorists, and so is deprived of knowledge it requires in order to stop terrorism.)

I’ll conclude with this excerpt from President Ahmadinejad’s letter, which will no doubt prove to be its least-quoted passage:

“We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.”

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Omissions and Admissions

Missing in Inaction:

1. Space Tourist: On the first day of this blog I mentioned that the “Malaysia Star” reported that Anousheh Ansari, the first female space tourist, would appear on “CNN Future Summit: World in Motion” on November 23. I’ve searched for that program on CNN television but have not been able to find it – although if you Google the name of the show you’ll find that CNN promotes it. I’m all too aware that one person can’t follow as many things on television for the sake of this blog as I’d like to, and so I can easily miss things. If anyone reading this knows if the show has aired, and when and where, please post a Comment. Naturally my inability to find the program reinforced my belief that the U.S. media are trying to keep the attractive Iranian-born Anousheh from public view. Maybe “CNN Future Summit” can be seen only outside the Fifty States. Maybe it can be viewed only from the Moon.

2. Al Jazeera English TV: Shortly before this blog was born, Al Jazeera began its worldwide English television service. There is no better place to get an intelligent and professionally presented viewpoint different from U.S. news coverage – which explains why Al Jazeera English, with its Middle Eastern perspective, can be easily seen almost everywhere except in the U.S., where as of last report all cable or satellite television providers had refused to carry it. I had to subscribe to VDC in order to watch it. Thank you, VDC.

Admission in Action:

I was impressed with an admission I heard on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Nov. 27, 2006. Mr. Olbermann was discussing the new label for the Iraq war, “civil war”. Speaking of media companies which had not yet adopted the term, he asked, “Do you not have to just let enough time pass, and then adopt the language, ‘civil war’ too, or you wind up looking like shills for the government?”
CRAIG CRAWFORD (MSNBC and “Congressional Quarterly”): “I think so. I mean, at some point. Someone argued the mainstream media‘s been very slow at doing this. But they bent over backwards for a long time to try to give the administration its due in how they wanted things characterized. And, you know, even on things like the “coalition”, calling it a coalition instead of U.S. forces in Iraq. You know, there are so many, so many things (INAUDIBLE) the media‘s tried to do to give the administration what they wanted, and I think now it‘s just changing, and it‘s long overdue. At some point, you know, the media has to remember, we serve the, you know, the reading and viewing public, and not the politicians.“

Isn’t that remarkable? An insider points out that the mainstream media bend over backwards to use the slanted terms the government wants them to use, and “to give the administration what they wanted”. I was taught that an independent free press was an essential pillar of democracy, but here we hear of media which lick the boots of the politicians rather than honestly serving the reading and viewing public.
How did we arrive at a government controlled press? What leverage does the Bush or any other administration have on reporters and editors to make them more interested in pleasing the politicians than in being truthful?

The answer would be very easy if we were talking specifically about pleasing the Israel Lobby or the Holocaust Industry. Any journalist who goes up against them is butting heads with the equivalent of the Mafia, a bigger and richer Mafia, and knows in advance whose head will get cracked. On the other hand, if he glorifies Israel and piously promotes the Holocaust Industry he’ll not only keep his job but also receive public praise and awards from various Jewish groups, and perhaps retire with the honorary title, “dean” of something.

Of course the government in Washington mirrors the Israel Lobby, but it isn’t in the Lobby’s vital interests to maintain a particular label for the war they instigated now that they’ve achieved the crushed Iraq they wanted. So the general question remains, “Why should journalists want to please the politicians?”

At the moment I have only my own common sense answer: A lot of “news” emanates from a presidential administration and politicians generally. If a journalist is in the good graces of the administration, doors open, audiences and interviews are granted, leaks are made available. A reporter who angers a president may not get her name called at a press conference, or may not even get into the press conference. If a compliant journalist like Barbara Walters or Larry King wants to interview a Secretary of State or the First Lady they will stand a much better chance than a reporter who has made himself an outspoken nuisance to the administration.

If the politicians approve of you, and you use the terminology they like, you will make money, money, money. Take a different tack, and you may wish you still worked in the mail room.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

New Name for an Old War

As I wrote recently in my other blog, FLIGHTS OF PEGASUS , we live in a time when euphemisms are substitutes for solutions -- “issue” instead of “problem”, “challenged” instead of what my grandmother called “afflicted”, “food insecure” instead of “hungry”, and “tough interrogation” instead of torture.

Now the Bush administration is scurrying about looking for a new word to make something sound better than it is. As we all know, the flurry of the moment is NBC’s decision to describe the slaughter in Iraq as a “civil war”.

This war has already had more names than there have been sequels to “Halloween.” First it was “The War to Eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Whoops – no WMDs. Well, it must be “The War to Topple an Evil Dictator”, and then “A War to Bring Freedom and Democracy to Iraq”. Hmm, no sign of freedom or democracy yet. It must be part of the “The War on Terror”. As President Bush explained, his war in Iraq is now the leading edge of the “War on Terror”, without which the Iraqis would soon be lobbing mortar shells into malls in Minnesota. Never mind that Iraqis are fighting Americans only because we invaded their country. If Bush makes them mad enough that they actually attack Minnesota, he’ll need to run a contest for a new war name.

And now the journalists have re-christened it “The Iraq Civil War”. Same war, different name, but names can make a lot of difference. The nightly flapping jaws suggest that Bush is going to be very unhappy about the term “civil war” because it goes against his optimistic predictions as well as, incidentally, showing that he has completely failed in Iraq. But the wagging TV tongues also suggest that it will now be easier to get out of Iraq because the American people won’t stand for our soldiers to be killed intervening in a civil war – even if they did open the Pandora’s Box that had contained the civil war.

Actually, the American people will stand for whatever they’re told to stand for because the majority will think whatever they’re told to think. Noam Chomsky has eloquently described the situation in the U.S. in which Big Brother simply writes off 80 percent of the population as too stupid or too uninterested to be counted as significant. A few simple slogans are all they can absorb in addition to their sports, sitcoms, music, movies, actors and actresses, sex scandals, and medical and nutritional and fashion and crime and accident news. Bread and circuses. Anything to keep their minds off what their masters are up to.

Ironically, wouldn’t it serve Bush’s most pressing needs if Americans, sold on the semantics of “civil war”, really did demand swift military withdrawal from Iraq? The shame of “cut and run” becomes, “It’s not our war!" "Those people are nuts." "It’s a way of life over there.”

So, maybe Bush will bow out more quickly than we might have expected, saying as he shakes the dust of Iraq off his feet (or rather, as the Americans who actually fought there shake the dust off their feet), “We tried to bomb them into democracy, but if they’re going to act this way they can just stew in their own juice.”

Monday, November 27, 2006

We Fight for Israel. Why?

A premise of this blog is that pro-Israel influence on the U.S. government is the most important story missing from American news coverage.

It’s very rare to hear something like this in the U.S.:

“Jordan’s King Abdullah said Sunday [on ABC, November 26, 2006], the problems in the Middle East go beyond the war in Iraq and that much of the region soon could become engulfed in violence unless the central issues are addressed quickly. King Abdullah said it is natural that Americans, with troops fighting in Iraq, view that war as the major problem in the Middle East. “But, for the majority of us living in this part of the world, it has always been the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab problem."

(I have to comment that Americans wouldn’t have the war problem if they hadn’t started the war.)

A few courageous souls have spoken out.

Pat Buchanan, in the March 24, 2003 issue of the "American Conservative”, wrote under the title “Whose War?”:

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
“They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a ‘passionate attachment’ to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.”

An elected official who speaks out against pro-Israel pressure is rarest of all.

Under the title ”Bush wanted to invade Iraq to help Israel” , U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings wrote, more than two years ago, in May 2004,

“The president’s war has backfired, and we’re creating more terrorism than we’re stopping. . . . Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. . . . Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. . . . They have to know. . . . Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. . . .
“With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. . . . Bush felt . . . spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9-11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq.”
Hollings named columnist Charles Krauthammer; Richard Perle, the former chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy secretary of defense, as leaders of the push for U.S. wars which would benefit Israel.
“With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting ‘Terrorism War.’ Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily.”
Various Jewish organizations attacked Senator Hollings. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) sent him a letter:

"This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government. We urge you . . . to reconsider these comments and reject public debate that invokes stereotypes or intolerance of any kind."

(You can always spot the ADL by its use of the word “canard”. It’s almost a trademark, like calling any criticism of the Israel Lobby the equivalent of some insanely inflated theory of a Jewish conspiracy. See, Reductio ad absurdum.)

In response to the charges of anti-Semitism, Senator Hollings spoke in the Senate on May 20, 2004. I haven’t yet been able to find a transcript of that speech, but a report in the ”JTA Global News Service of the Jewish People” offered some excerpts:

“I don’t apologize for this column,” Hollings said. “I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism.” And he reiterated his view that the Iraq war was fought for Israel. “That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy, Everybody knows it . . . You can’t have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) gives you around here,”
The JTA article went on to report that some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Hollings was on the mark about AIPAC.
“Sen. Hollings eloquently stated what many members of Congress believe but are too afraid to say,” said one senior Democratic Hill staffer. . . The staffer said lawmakers fear they’ll lose elections if they don’t support AIPAC. “More likely, they’ll lose key fund-raising support or be deluged with calls and appearances from pro-Israel lobbyists and constituents. Sometimes it’s just easier to sign the letter.”

And sometimes it’s just easier to start the war.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

We're Losing Patience!

One of the most grotesque features of the current attitude of the Bush maladministration toward its Iraq war – as the situation tumbles deeper and deeper into chaos and carnage -- is to bluster to the Iraqi puppet government, ludicrously cooped up in the American “Green Zone”: “It’s your mess. Fix it, and hurry up about it. President Bush is losing patience!”

The great missing piece in this nonsense is that Bush & Co., including Paul Wolfowitz (who has been kicked upstairs), and Richard Perle (who has lately turned to blaming the U.S. government for botching the lovely war he planned and promoted with lies), refuse to recognize their responsibility for the hideous mess.

Until George II invaded, Iraq was a remarkably stable, prosperous, and orderly country, considering its underlying religious and ethnic tensions and the murderous effects of years of U.S. “sanctions” begun under the reign of George I. One might say that Saddam Hussein demonstrated great leadership in preventing just the kind of civil war which has now broken out.

After invading Iraq and waffling, clueless, over the barbaric rape of Iraq’s antiquities, unique remnants of the first great civilization on Earth, the Bush gang has presided over ever-accelerating violence against both Americans and Iraqis.

Surprise, Mr. Bush! When you attack a country for no reason after starving thousands of its children, bomb its cities, shoot people indiscriminately, render most of population unemployed, make torture national policy, arrest and humiliate the country’s president and murder him via a kangaroo court, how can it be that the people don’t want the Americans in Iraq? It must come as a terrible shock that instead of dancing and singing for the invaders, the Iraqis want to kill them.

To be fair, how could even Bush’s brilliant Brains Trust have predicted that these ungrateful Iraqis, deprived of their leaders, their economy, their jobs, their accustomed supplies of gas and electricity, and their army and police forces, would become increasingly violent not only toward Americans but also toward traditionally conflicting factions. (On the subject of brilliant brains, Richard Perle has been associated with several of those propaganda generators which the press calls “Think Tanks”; a more appropriate name in this case would be “Dumb Tanks”, or more flatteringly, “Fib Vats”.) After all, says Mr. Bush, we’ve done all we can to bring the blessings of democracy to your benighted land, and our marines and army are blasting away at you day and night. What else do you expect from us? Start doing your part! I’m losing patience!

So, says Bush, let’s set some deadlines – er, milestones – for you so you can take the blame for what we’ve caused and we can high-tail it out of here.

However the U.S. gets out, what Israel wanted when it said to Bush through such people as Perle and Wolfowitz, “Let’s you and him fight”, was a helpless, impotent Iraq, and that’s what the Israel got. Democracy and freedom had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

The Israeli goals of eliminating competition in its region are obviously more important to President Bush than the interests of his own country, and he may bask in
approval as long as Iraq remains one less Middle Eastern rival of the Jewish state. . . unless he balks at attacking Iran on Israel’s behalf.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Lunar Perspective

Why “View from the Moon”?

This blog’s name is meant to imply a view of earthly events from a very long distance rather than from the limited perspective of one nation or people or ideology.

When I was a child the idea of viewing the Earth from the Moon was the stuff of science fiction. I used to hope I would live long enough to see humans actually reach the Moon. When they finally got there, and I saw the first photographs of our beautiful blue sphere festooned with clouds, I was overwhelmed with excitement.

I even thought of having the blog written by an imaginary alien, something like this: “I come from the vicinity of Aldeberon. I’ve lived on your Moon for almost 75 of your Earth years, with the means to observe you in many ways – as close as your bedrooms or in the sky above your battlefields and atomic bombs. Not exactly an assignment I’d have chosen, but . . . Never mind, I’m here, depressing as it may be, and I must watch and learn and interpret and do a good job of it if I ever hope to get back home.”

On my wife’s advice that unimaginative people would think I was insane if I claimed to be a native of Aldeberon living on the Moon, I decided to keep the long-distance view but lose the persona.

From that point of view I’ll continue tomorrow to comment on what what the wire services won’t say.

Friday, November 24, 2006



With Definitions According to the G.W. Bush, Jr. Presidency
The Communications Media of the United States

2006 Edition

Compiled by Fleming Lee

Dedicated to G.W. Bush, Jr. for his distinguished contributions to world peace, linguistics, and general improvement of the Amurrican language.

ANTI-SEMITISM 1. Any criticism of Jews, Zionism, or Israel.

2. A fact or statement depicting Jews, Zionists, or Israel as anything but weak and powerless. E.g., the following statements are demonstrably true but “anti-semitic”: “Jews dominate Hollywood.” “Jews have the power to destroy the careers of actors or television personalities accused of anti-semitism.” “Jews have tremendous economic power and can, for example, put even Japanese magazines out of business.” “Zionist lobbying organizations are able to get virtually anything they want from the U.S. Congress.”

3. Any fact or statement implying or demonstrating that Jews are not the most victimized people in history, or that their persecution has not been greater than all other persecutions combined, or that the degree if their suffering is not unique in world history. Such statements as the following have been called anti-semitic because they “diluted” Jewish suffering: “Stalin’s massacres were greater in scale than Nazi massacres.” “Other peoples have suffered as much as the Jews.” A film about the American Revolution was criticized by Jewish “watchdog groups” for depicting British atrocities against the colonists which might be interpreted as resembling alleged Nazi atrocities against Jews.

AXIS A straight line about which a body rotates, as a wheel rotates on an axle.

AXIS OF EVIL A geometrical figure considered impossible until G.W. Bush, Jr. invented a straight line with three ends. Bush stated that the three ends of the straight line were Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Like all nations in the same neighborhood with Israel, Iran and Iraq were “sponsors of terrorism” and inherently evil because of their geographic location. Bush promoted North Korea from “rogue state” to “evil” in order to distract attention from the odd coincidence that all the evil countries of the world were clustered around Israel. Bush is working to develop a straight line with enough ends to accommodate all Arab countries.

COALITION 1. The United States.

2. The United States and Britain.

3. A term used to mislead people into believing that the U.S. has allies.

COALITION FORCES A largely fictional handful of representatives of such world powers as Tonga, Estonia, Latvia, Nicaragua, Moldova, and Macedonia, whose names are invoked by the U.S. for the purpose of lending an appearance of group-approval to U.S. military aggression against other countries.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE Deliberate targeting by U.S. and Zionist bombs and missiles of civilians and non-military facilities, in particular journalists and television facilities which might report the truth.

DEMOCRACY 1. Theoretically a system in which a group elects its leaders by majority vote based on accurate information.

2. In the United States, a system in which a population reacts in puppet fashion to carefully managed news and then votes on candidates all of whom will behave in exactly the same way on important issues if elected.

3. A condition of violent anarchy which follows U.S. invasion and occupation of any country.

4. A meaningless term with Utopian connotations used to explain the goal of U.S. and Zionist invasions or bombings of other countries and to justify U.S. and Zionist massacres referred to by the U.S. Secretary of State in 2006 as “birth pangs ”.

DEMOCRAT See “Republican”.

DIPLOMACY 1. Insincere play-acting by American representatives which takes place between the time the U.S. has scheduled a violent action such as an invasion, and the time the U.S. carries out the violent action. The purpose of the farcical theatrics is to make it appear that “diplomacy is being given a chance” to resolve an international issue peacefully when in fact the outcome is already decided.

ELECTIONS, FREE (See “Democracy”.) 1. In the U.S., elections limited to the two parties which are controlled in all significant respects by Zionists, armaments manufacturers, and international oil companies. (See “Third Party”.)

2. In “emerging democracies”, free elections whose results will be nullified by U.S. and Zionist economic and military force if the outcome of the elections does not suit their purposes – as in the free Palestinian election of Hamas party leadership in 2006, which was quickly followed by a U.S. economic stranglehold and Zionist kidnapping of elected members of the legitimate Hamas government.

EVIL An adjective applied to any nation, or to any person, which does not support U.S. and Zionist policies.

EVILDOER 1. Anyone who attacks the United States or Israel.

2. A meaningless pejorative term used by G.W. Bush, Jr. to avoid mentioning the real motivation for Muslim attacks on the United States, e.g., U.S. political, financial, and military support of Zionism and Israel.

EXPERT Any Jew who is interviewed on U.S. television or quoted in a magazine article. (See also “Genius”.)

EXTREMIST 1. A patriot.

2. Any person who does not passively accept U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of his country.

3. Any person who resists or speaks out against U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of any country, or who openly opposes U.S. or Zionist interference in the internal affairs of any country.

FREEDOM 1. An indefinably vague term of positive connotation used

(a) to describe the condition of violent anarchy and repression which follows U.S. overthrow of a government; (See also “Democracy”.)

(b) to describe the goal of any U.S. or Zionist military aggression (e.g. bringing freedom to Lebanon by killing most of the Lebanese, or bringing freedom to Iraq by destroying the country and imposing a military dictatorship decorated with a puppet government);

(c) in the United States to describe the uniquely blissful condition of the people of the United States as contrasted with the peoples of the rest of the world;

(d) in countries other than the United States to describe the uniquely blissful condition of the peoples of those countries.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH Freedom to say or publish anything as long as it is within a narrow range of opinion approved by Jewish “watchdog” groups. The illusion of actual freedom of speech is enhanced by the allowance of “free for all” topics which have no particular effect on the Jews – e.g. abortion, health care, women’s clothing, pollution, hair styles, global warming, homosexuality, and endangered species (other than Palestinians). The qualified U.S. approval of “freedom of speech” does not extend to Arab media such as Al Jazeera or any other media not controlled by Zionists.

GENIUS Any Jew of average intelligence. (See also “Expert”)

HOLOCAUST 1. In general, the fiction that six million Jews were systematically killed in “death camps” by the National Socialists in the most lamentable tragedy the world has ever seen. Originally conceived by wartime propagandists as a way to distract attention from wholesale American and British and Russian slaughter of the civilian populations of German cities, the later named “Holocaust” was then expanded and promoted by the Zionists, particularly through Hollywood, as justification for the theft and colonization of Palestine by European and American Jews. Photographs of large piles of German civilians killed in bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and other cities are still misrepresented to be pictures of Jews killed in concentration camps.

2. In particular, the myth that six million Jews were gassed to death and burned in “ovens”, primarily at Auschwitz, Poland. Originally the gassing of Jews was said to have occurred at numerous concentration camps all over Germany – as at Dachau, where for years the internees’ shower room was shown to tourists as a “gas chamber” -- but as the impossibility of such occurrences was proved in camp after camp, the myth sought final refuge at Auschwitz despite American aerial photographs proving that no such activities were occurring even at the times when the gassing and burning of Jews was said by “eye witnesses” to have darkened the sky over Auschwitz with the smoke of burning bodies.

INSURGENT (See also “Militant”.) 1. A freedom fighter.

2. One who resists U.S. or Zionist aggression and occupation of his or her country.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 1. A fantasy kingdom conjured up by U.S. presidents to create the illusion that there is an international consensus in favor of U.S. or Zionist interference in the affairs of other countries. E.g., “The international community is outraged by Iran’s development of peaceful uses of atomic energy,” or “The international community fully supports Israel’s fight against terrorism.”


MAVERICK STATE See “Rogue State”.

MILITANT A term of negative connotation to describe one who is aggressively active in opposing U.S. or Zionist invasion and occupation of his land.

MODERATE One who, while nominally disagreeing with U.S. and Zionist policies, nevertheless does nothing to oppose them. Generally used in reference to politicians, monarchs, or dictators. E.g., “Moderate Arab leaders” refers to Arab leaders in countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Libya who are paid or otherwise rewarded by the United States for not taking action against Israel and not harboring anti-Zionist activists.

PEACE PROCESS 1. Indefinitely prolonged Zionist genocide against Palestinians.

2. A term used by the U.S. and Israel to create the false impression that those entities are doing something to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians and neighboring states. The inclusion of the word “process” is intended to allow the fictitious “peace process” to last forever without peace ever being achieved.

REPUBLICAN (U.S.) See “Democrat”.

RETALIATION Any destructive action taken by Israel against Arabs or Arab property under any circumstances.

ROGUE STATE Any nation which refuses to kowtow to the United States. Such nations are not included in the “international community”.

SELF-HATING JEW A label applied by certain influential Jews to any Jew who does not support Zionism and Israel, or who questions the “Holocaust”, or who otherwise refuses to cooperate with “mainstream” Jewish leadership and policies.

SETTLER (Israel) A Zionist who occupies and lives on property belonging to Palestinians or other rightful owners. The term is chosen for Zionist propaganda purposes in the U.S. because in American usage the word “settler” has favorable nostalgic connotations related to the Old West frontier as depicted in cowboy movies.

SURVIVOR Any living Jew who was anywhere in Europe at any time between 1933 and 1946.

TERRORISM Acts of violence carried out by persons who do not have airplanes, tanks, warships, submarines, or other advanced weapons. Conversely, acts of violence carried out with the use of airplanes, tanks, warships, submarines, and other advanced weapons are “national defense”, or “war on terror” or “a fight for freedom and democracy”.

TERRORIST One who must use relatively low grade and ineffective weapons in combat against a power which possesses warplanes, tanks, and other advanced weapons. E.g., a Palestinian with a hoe who defends his orchard from Zionist invaders (see “Settler”) is a “terrorist”, while a Zionist dropping American bombs on the farmer and his wife and children from an U.S.-supplied plane is conducting “a counter-terrorism operation”.

THIRD PARTY In the U.S., a political party which puts up candidates (particularly presidential candidates) to run against Republicans and Democrats. The candidates of any third party are routinely subjected to ridicule and allegations of mental instability by the American (i.e. Zionist) press. If a third party presidential candidate shows a chance of actually winning and the public cannot be persuaded that he is a clown or crazy, he risks assassination. Only closely controlled candidates within the two controlled parties may be safely elected.

UNITED NATIONS A powerless international entity whose resolutions are habitually ignored by the United States and Israel but whose name is occasionally invoked by the U.S. as window dressing, or as justification for taking violent action through deliberately misinterpreting a United Nations resolution.

WAR ON TERROR In the name of “making Americans safe”, a planet-wide campaign of bombings, invasions, kidnappings, torture, unlawful imprisonment, and illegal interference in banking operations conducted by the United States against Muslims as an ineffective substitute for making Americans safe by simply withdrawing U.S. support for Israel.

ZIONISM 1. A word not used by G.W. Bush, Jr. because he does not know what it means even though he supports the concept.

2. The theory originated by certain Jews in the 19th and 20th Centuries that because Jews do not wish to be assimilated by their host nations and can never live among non-Jews without arousing anti-semitism, and because the Jews of the world constitute a nation without a territory, all Jews should move to a state of their own. The most commonly proposed location of the Jewish state was Palestine, which inconveniently has been almost entirely owned by the Palestinians for two thousand years and more.

3. Support for “Israel”, the Zionist entity established by force and violence in Palestine on real estate stolen from its owners, many of whom still live in refugee camps while Jewish colonists occupy their homes and farms.

ZIONIST 1. A word not known to G.W. Bush, Jr. even though he is one.

2. One who advocates Zionism and supports the establishment and maintenance of “Israel” on land belonging to Palestinians. Not all Jews are Zionists, but those who oppose Zionism or condemn Zionist actions in the Middle East are likely to be shunned as “self-hating Jews”.

Thursday, November 23, 2006


I just saw this quotation, attributed to Jon Stewart: “I celebrated Thanksgiving in an old-fashioned way. I invited everyone in my neighborhood to my house, we had an enormous feast, and then I killed them and took their land.“

At least the Pilgrims invited the Indians to share a feast, unlike the Zionists before they began killing the Palestinians and taking their land. Mr. Stewart is a very bright man, and he mentions on almost every “Daily Show” that he is a Jew -- Leibowitz. With those attributes, could he have missed the irony in his mockery of the first Thanksgiving (after which, incidentally, the Pilgrims did not kill their guests)? One of those conspicuous absences of the kind I mentioned yesterday is the absence of Israel as a butt of Jon Stewart’s biting wit.

Come to think of it, how many comedians on American TV have you heard making jokes about Israel in the past month? The past six months? The past six years? “Hmmm” as Jon Stewart would say, stroking his chin . . . something else is conspicuously missing.

Israelis on land privately owned by Palestinians

Let’s conclude with thoughts of some things to be thankful for:

The Sun.

The Earth.


That Donald Rumsfeld is gone.


That Paul Wolfowitz may possibly do less damage to America as President of the World Bank than he did as Deputy Secretary of Defense.


The oceans.

The Richard Perle is no longer on television almost every night explaining why the U.S. has to invade Iraq.


That Google News has finally stopped featuring Sacha Baron Cohen on its website every day.


That Madonna can't adopt a new child every week.

Pecan pie.



Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Missing Space Tourist

What is missing from daily news coverage in the United States is often more important than what is in it, especially since the big news media are designed to be more opinion-forming than informative.

That is largely what this blog will be about: What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there? When you look at the jigsaw puzzle assembled for you by the TV news editors, why is there a piece conspicuously missing from the middle of the picture? What was the motive for leaving a hole in the picture? Who benefits from the omission? Who would have been displeased if the information had not been left out?

Here’s what might seem a harmless recent example, but I don’t think it’s trivial: The first female space tourist, Anousheh Ansari, is a very attractive and photogenic woman, a charming speaker, an American citizen, an inspiring example of a successful and wealthy entrepreneur. She provides all the ingredients of the ideal television personality: Beauty, brains, bravery, outer space, endearing chatter . . . what else would be needed to give her a prominent place on our glowing screens for days?

Oops. I forgot to mention one thing: She was born in Iran and is outspokenly proud of her Iranian heritage. Result: Almost no television appearances in the U.S. as far as I know; almost no mention of her in prime time. I was able to see some video of her while she was in Russia before and after her stay at the International Space Station, and the NASA Channel was some help, but there was certainly no television equivalent of a ticker tape parade when she got back home. Almost total blackout.

Add the fact that before her space trip she was forced by unnamed Americans to remove the Iranian flag from her space suit and leave only the American flag, and the pattern is painfully clear. (Someone asked, “Would that have happened if that had been an Israeli flag?”) Anousheh Ansari was an embarrassment to persons who were powerful enough to exercise censorship in the U.S.. President Bush had placed her birth country on his “Axis of Evil” list and was trying to prevent Iran from developing civilian nuclear power plants such as exist in other countries around the world. Israeli leaders growled frequent threats to commit aggression against Iran by bombing her nuclear development centers, thus tacitly explaining why Bush put Iran on his hit list in the first place.

You could almost feel the fear emanating from the Israel Lobby and the Bush mis-administration: “She’s cute, and she’s putting an appealing human face on a country we’re trying to demonize.” “God only knows what she might say.” “What if the people love her?” “Sweep her under the rug and keep her there.” Of course the “mainstream” media, which is where most Americans get most of their news, obediently complied.

I managed to Google up some news about Ms. Ansari today . . . in the “Malaysia Star”. It seems that she and astronaut Buzz Aldrin, among many others, are going to appear in a CNN television discussion being filmed in Singapore. The “Malaysia Star” says the show is called “CNN Future Summit: World in Motion”, “which airs tomorrow [Nov. 23] at 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.” Not exactly prime time (assuming that’s U.S. and not Malay time), and it will be interesting to see how our news managers make sure Ms. Ansari is otherwise safely contained.