Free speech is not free! It is paid for with responsibility! Rush Limbaugh, however, has made a career of "...yelling fire in a crowded theater" when, in fact, there is NO fire! Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s decision re: Eugene Debs means that Rush has routinely exceeded the limits of free speech. But the Holmes decision was fallaciously applied to Debs; Rush, by contrast, is defined by shrill cries of 'fire' when --in fact --there is no fire!
We might tolerate Rush if the Fairness Doctrine were restored. His opponents would at least be heard. They are sure to be more intelligent, articulate and even entertaining; the nation would be better for it!
How long would Rush last if he had to compete in truly free market, if he were compelled by law to be responsible as I was compelled as a working broadcast journalist in major U.S. markets? I was expected to be responsible and professional; but Rush lives down to lower expectations, lower standards. He is expected, even encouraged to be irresponsible, outrageous, dishonest and boorish!
We might tolerate Rush had he ever made a good faith effort to inform his audiences with respect to real issues as opposed to his constant demoguoguery, his fussilade of lies and ad hominem attacks, propaganda, strawmen, distortions, outright lies and --most egregiously --bigotry and/or racial slurs most notably those about black athletes and, specifically, the great quarterback Warren Moon et al.
If an intelligent man like Eugene Debs --whose only crime was that of exercising his conscience i.e, opposing the U.S. entry into WWI --could be imprisoned, then Rush, who has exhorted treason and bigotry in response to phony threats and strawmen, should be held responsible for having abused 'privileges' that the rest of us had --at one time --enjoyed responsibly as 'rights'. Why is Rush given 'license' when, in fct, the rest of us are DENIED the benefits of 'free speech' by having been denied access to what had publically owned airwaves. Rush is prescisely what the GOP had in minded when, under Ronald Reagan, the Fairness Doctrine and the Communications Act of 1934 were rescinded, media 'de-regulated', a GOP code-word for consoidating the ownership of media into very few and very corporate hands. Debs was courageous and smart --a man of integrity! Rush is slimy and stupid --a charlatan! Debs spoke truth to power! Rush misleads the poor and gullible for profit! He is a corporate kiss-up, a coward, a stooge who peddles propaganda for profit! Debs accepted responsibility for what he had made of himself and was prepared to accept the consequences. Rush is a coward who blames all on 'niggers', poor people and 'liberals, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!
“When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.” --Eugene Debs, American Activist
When the Zapruder film was, at last, released to the public, several news anchors/reporters described what was seen in these words: "back and to the left"! That refers of course to JFKs head which suffered a fatal shot from the Grassy Knoll --not the Texas School Book Depository as the Warren Commission and its counsel, Arlen Specter, would have you believe. If JFKs head moves "back and to the left", then the fatal shot was fired from in "front and to the right". In other words --the Grassy Knoll.
The significance of a shot from the grassy knoll cannot be adequately described. A shot from the knoll implies not merely a conspiracy but an official one --a coup d'etat, an act of high treason at the very highest levels, an act of high treason that --in fact --rendered the government illegitimate.
Always interested in the JFK assassination, I became more so upon meeting a witness to the the murder of our President. That witness was Rosemary Willis, often called the "little girl in the red dress". She is seen in the Zapruder film running along the south side of Elm street as the motorcade passed by. Her father --Phil Willis --was just behind her taking 35mm slides. He may have called to her. Other than the famous Zapruder film, the Willis Photos are among the most important photographs taken that day.
Rosemary Willis asked me to look at her father's slides. We put them on a light table and examined them with a photographer's loupe. One of the slides was of particular interest. It was a stunning photograph of JFK in the Limousine looking slightly to the northwest; the Pergola atop the grassy knoll was the background.
"Do you see anything unusual in the photo?" Rosemary asked me.
When I admitted that I had not, she produced an "old" copy of Look Magazine, opened to the bookmarked center spread photo. I was immediately struck by the presence of a train clearly visible between the upright columns of the Pergola. Rosemary asked me to look again at the slide. Incredibly, the train --visible in the Look 'spread' --was NOT visible in the slides! At this point I was speechless. But for the train, the photos were identical! Why was a train missing in the slide but present in the Magazine spread which was, in fact, a reproduction of that very slide?
Rosemary continued: the FBI, she said, seized her father's photos only after Look Magazine had published them. The FBI kept the pictures for years. When the original slides were at last returned, the train was missing.
Clearly --the train had been removed from the slides while the slides were in the possession of the FBI. Just as clearly --the FBI did not want you to know that a train had been on the very tracks where, earlier, Watergate figures E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis had been arrested and were henceforth referred to as the tramps who whore Gucci loafers. Both figures are notable for their involvement in Watergate and the abortive Bay of Pigs fiasco. Revenge for 'Bay of Pigs' is often cited among the top three or four motives for the murder of JFK. [ For other motives, see: Three Reasons JFK was Murdered ]
The FBI tampered with evidence --a crime! Why? Obviously, the FBI did not want it known that the train had been present behind the grassy knoll just minutes before the President would be murdered. The motives for altering evidence, tampering with evidence, destroying evidence is simply this: guilt! Only the guilty are always threatened by the truth. Only the guilty are motivated to lie about a crime or, in this case, destroy and/or tamper with evidence. In this case, the FBI proved to my satisfaction that it was guilty of the crime in question and/or had participated in some other ways to include a massive cover-up, the criminal obstruction of justice that follows. The only rational conclusion is that the FBI did not wish it known that the train had been there because the train was, in some way, associated with a "frontal shot". With its actions, the FBI made of itself "a crook".
The FBI tampered with evidence!
The removal of the train from the photos is more significant than the train itself. Otherwise --why the cover up? What was it about the presence of a train near Dealy Plaza that the FBI did not want you to know? The only explanation is that the boxcars provided a staging area for a professional team to include a professional assassin behind the picket fence. It is not difficult to imagine that this shooter, having hit his target, simply folded up his XP-100 Fireball [or an equally effective weapon], put it away in a "brief case" and calmly walked away into the area behind the fence, an area that had been secured by E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis et al --the tramps who wore Guccis!
What is the name of this shooter?
Does it really matter at this point? The bigger issue is who conceived the crime, who gave the orders, who organized the "operatives" in the field? The FBI participated in the overt cover up of what was most surely a CIA hit upon the elected President of the United States. I cannot imagine the FBI participating in a cover-up of a crime unless it is in some way complicit in the crime itself. A "cover-up" itself a crime but in this case, the cover up implicates those who participated!
The murder of JFK was a coup d'etat! It was most certainly motivated by JFK's refusal to supply air cover for an infamous CIA operation: the "Bay of Pigs" debacle; by his promise to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces"; and by his his threat to big oil, specifically, his promise to rescind the "oil depletion allowance" --a sacred cow to oil men.
Certainly all these issues --big oil, Cuba, CIA atrocities --figure prominently. There were other motives, of course. JFK was a marked man. His murder defines the day on which an American' dream died. It was a day from which this nation has not yet recovered! A day which will live in infamy!
If Oswald had been a mere patsy, as he had said he was, then the murder of JFK was a CIA hit. Set up to take the fall, Oswald, nevertheless, had to die before he could talk or raise more questions that no one on the Warren Commission seemed willing to raise or confront. The Warren Commission, in fact, is remembered for the questions that it either failed or refused to ask!
There are good reasons to suspect one George H.W. Bush of having been in Dealy Plaza that very day. There is a famous photo of him "hanging out" beside the front entrance to the Texas School Book Depository. Having known and interviewed GHWB on numerous occasions, I would testify --in court --that that is, indeed, the senior Bush who was photographed hanging around the front entrance of TSBD on the very day JFK would die. [My first meeting with GHWB was in a conference room at the Midland-Odessa Air Terminal as he was running for Senate against, as I recall, Ralph Yaborough]
Lee Harvey Oswald Had to Die!
On the other hand, there is simply no case against Oswald but that of a propaganda campaign. There was no prosecutable case against him. Any competent defense atty would have won acquittal in any honest court. A competent/honest judge would have thrown out the "magic bullet" for lacking "bona fides". Oswald would have walked. Therefore, he had to die.
CE-399, found on a gurney (possibly the wrong gurney) at Parkland hospital, cannot even be placed at the scene of the crime. A competent lawyer would have challenged it! And he would have won! An honest judge would have not admitted it into evidence. The 'real killers' would not risk that!
It is, indeed, a magic bullet. It is, to this day, in remarkable condition considering that it is said to have created numerous wounds in two men while defying gravity, Newton's laws of physics, specifically, his laws of motion and numerous principles of ballistics. It cannot be proven to have been fired. It cannot even be placed at the scene of the crime! A competent judge would have throw it out of court!
'Back and to the left'
We are often told that JFKs head only 'appears' to be thrust backward from a bullet fired from the front. That's absurd on its face. In fact, JFK's head appears to have been struck from the front and thrust backward! The backward motion of the head upon being struck from the front is consistent with first semester physics. As a kid hoping to be a big league pitcher, I used to practice a fast ball against a picket fence. One day --I "smoked" one right over 'home plate' knocking the slats right out of the fence!
Interestingly --and in accord with Newton's first law of motion --the slats did not fall forward upon being struck; instead, they fell backward upon being hit from the front. There is nothing surprising about that! It is one of the ways the world works. It is only controversial when powerful criminals try to get away with murder and numerous obstructions of justice. It's only controversial when culprits try to rewrite the laws of physics.
As a rambunctious kid, I used to target practice firing a BB gun against tin cans on a post. None of those tin cans fell forward upon being hit from the front! Later, I used to fire .22 and 30 ought 6 rounds at various targets. None ever fell toward me. The same is true of cantaloupes or watermelons. There is NO "jet effect". The same laws of physics are consistent with what honest people will see in the Zapruder film and that is the President's head struck as it was from the right front was forced back and to the left! That's --back and to the left!
Those facts --plus the pristine condition of the so-called 'magic bullet' (CE-399) --are reason enough to discount the Warren Commission summarily. The magic bullet is --we are told --the fatal bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. I doubt that the magic bullet had ever been fired but, if it had, it most certainly never struck anything. Moreover, had Lee Harvey Oswald gone to trial, the charges would have been dismissed.
Found on 'a' gurney at Parkland Hospital, the 'magic bullet' [CE-399] cannot even be placed at the scene of the crime, NOR can it be proven to have ever been IN the alleged murder weapon or, indeed, fired from any weapon whatsoever. A competent judge (had the case gone to trial) woud have dissallowed it. Of course, whomever murdered JFK never intended this 'case' to go to trial in the first place. If you had conspired to assassinate a popular President, would you want the case to go to court?
The Magic Bullet Cannot be Placed at the Scene of the Crime
"The killing shot that spread JFK’s brains all over the trunk of the limo – the pieces of which Jackie tried to crawl out to retrieve – was so obviously from the front of the car, any suggestion that the shot came from behind is ridiculous."
--Mondo Media
The fatal shot came from the front, the grassy knoll. Only those with a vested interest in the official cover story will try to convince you or intimidate you otherwise. Only the guilty lie about a crime. Only the guilty are motivated to do so. The innocent, by contrast, benefit ONLY when the truth is told!
The single bullet theory (or magic bullet theory, as it is commonly called by its critics) was introduced by the Warren Commission in their investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to explain what happened to the bullet which struck Kennedy in the back and exited through his throat. Given the lack of damage to the presidential limousine consistent with it having been struck by a high-velocity bullet and the fact that Texas Governor John Connally was wounded and was seated directly in front of the president, the Commission concluded they were likely struck by the same bullet.
--Wikipedia
I cite wikipedia only because it summarizes the so-called "Magic Bullet" theory as it survives in the Warren Commission report. The theory itself is an elaborate ex post facto fallacy cooked-up to paper over a bald-faced lie, a lame theory, an official position that is intended to obstruct justice and hide the truth from the American people. Warren Specter, I believe, intended or was, perhaps, recruited to protect the coup d'etat which benefited from this 'high crime', this callous act of bloody treason!
said official about the murder of JFK is untrue. So --as we have asked about 911 --who lies about a crime? Who is most motivated to lie about a crime but those who have committed the crime? At the very least, the authors of the 'Magic Bullet Theory' are guilty of obstruction of justice by virtue of their lies; at worst --they should be tried for their complicity in the murder itself. Lying about a crime in order to protect the guilty is a crime and there is an enormous body of case law about it. Are you reading this Arlen Specter?
If it Does Not Fit
As Lee Harvey Oswald himself said --he was a patsy. There was no case against him. Secondly, the sixth floor is most certainly the worst place from which to try to kill a sitting, legitimate President of the United States. It offers a very small window of opportunity. The distance to target is about three times that of a knoll shooter.
No intelligent sniper, no experienced 'hit man' would have considered trying to murder a President from the sixth floor of the TSBD. There is no hope of escape from the sixth floor. It is said that, upon firing the fatal shot (the magic bullet) LHO ditched the Mannlicher-Carcano behind some boxes and fled down six stories by way of the staircase. Witnesses, however, say he was spotted on the third floor (as I recall) having a soft-drink! Are we to believed that he stopped there to have coke on the way down? If he were suspected, why was he not arrested then and there? Would a sane man, a man of just normal intelligence have risked such a stupid move? No wonder the real criminals would not risk, would not even try to get a conviction against their 'patsy'. Simply --he had to die! Dead men tell no tales.
An experienced hit man would not have considered the sixth floor, knowing that he might get off the fatal shot, rush down some six flights of stairs and into the waiting arms of the 'man'! The 'real killers' thought the TSBD to be a great place to set up a patsy. It worked because people are gullible, the press was under control and the FBI --as we know --would seize and tamper with real evidence. The real killers and their co-conspirators ---Bush Sr, E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, et al --had secured the area behind the knoll. It was a simple case of mis-direction.
The train --which the FBI so carefully removed from Phil Willis' slides --would make a great staging area. Anyone wishing to get to the train and/or hang around in a box car would be harassed! Cops? It would appear that a fix was in! In any case, does anyone believe that a gang to include Bush Sr and E. Howard Hunt is going to allow their plans to be screwed up by a foot patrolman or an underpaid detective? The CIA pros --simply --'secured' the area.
There are NO discernable missing fragments. Where did the other fragments comes from? I suggest they be weighed and an estimate made of how many bullets were fired that day. That just might put the lone gun man 'theory to rest forever!
"Back and to the Left"
As the film depicts, JFK was struck by a bullet fired from the front! His head was driven 'back and to the left'. Some (notably Gerald Posner) have said that a 'jet effect' explains backward motion of the head. That is --at least --a concession that the head moves 'back and to the left'! The flaw in that reasoning is that 'jet effect' was invented for the purpose of 'explaining away' a shot from the front! I know of no other instance in which a jet effect has ever been observed or documented. There is no reason to believe that the laws of biology and physics were alterred radically on Nov 22, 1963 and restored the following day --Nov 23rd!
As lies become more outrageous in support of a 'theory', the more suspicious one becomes of them. I had not yet concluded that the fatal shot came from the knoll until Posner's ludicrous ex post facto fallacy cinched it. Like the 'official conspiracy theory of 911', one is justified in asking: if the official theory were true, then why is it necessary to lie about it? If the Warren Commission were true, why is it necessary to invent psuedo science ex post facto ? Ask yourslef --who is most motivated to lie about crime? Who is most motivated to cover up a crime? Who is most eager to cover up the truth? That's easy! Who lies about a crime?
THE GUILTY
Early lies about the JFK murder said that two bullets were fired from the direction the TSBD. Those lies were "starkly contradicted" by testimony of doctors and nurses who attempted to save Kennedy’s life at Parkland. Two groups of doctors saw a head wound in the back or back-right of the head as a result of a bullet that came from the front. That conclusion is supported by Zapruder and by the fact that a position in front was --from an assassin's point of view --the very best chance of getting off a fatal shot.
Much has been said of 'method'. But what of 'motive'? There were many motives, three of which I dealt with in a previous article. In summary, however, JFK was a revolutionary. The target of his 'revolution' we now call the 'New World Order' i.e, NEOCONS, militarists with a stake in the Military-Industrial Complex! It was JFK who told us how to beat them: 1) abolish the FED 2) Smash the CIA 3) Rescind the Oil Depletion. I believe that JFK intended to tax them and might have abolished 'corporate person-hood' and other dodges that have, over the years, placed this elite, this corporate class above the law!
Most importantly, Sen. Arlen Specter et al are wrong about frame Z313; STABILIZED FOOTAGE confirms Police Chief Curry who stated flatly -- In 1978-- that the fatal shot came from the front. The Zapruder film confirms him --the head is driven backward by a shot from the front.
Why Was JFK Murdered and who benefited?
George H.W. Bush --who was in Dealy Plaza that very day --benefited from the JFK murder as President of Zapata Corporation, a holding company based in Rochester, New York. Many have alleged that there existed many links between Zapata and the CIA. Certainly, GHWB would become Director of the CIA.
That, in itself, is a significant connection. Among many motives three are major motives and are related in many ways to George H.W. Bush: 1) JFK had threatened to repeal the OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE; Big Oil was not happy and one would not have expected the President of Zapata to have been pleased with JFKs plans. 2) JFK tried to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest 3) JFK Threatened to 'smash the CIA into a thousand pieces'. Now --recall that BUSH SR who was, at the time, at the very nexus of the AXIS of CIA-BIG OIL --would later become the Director of the CIA and, eventually, 'President' of the United States.
It's always been about the 'price of oil' at the wellhead and the profits that accrue to 'big oil'! Having grown up in Texas, I can vouch for the following very short, illustrative history:
Ross Sterling, the former owner of Humble Oil, was elected governor of Texas and took office on 20th January, 1931. The Texas Railroad Commission, under the control of the large oil producers, attempted to limit the production of oil (prorationing) in the new fields of East Texas. On 31st July, 1931, the federal court in Houston sided with a group of independent oil producers and ruled that the Texas Railroad Commission had no right to impose prorationing.
Large oil companies in Texas such as Humble Oil were in favour of prorationing and Sterling came under great pressure to intervene. On 16th August, 1931, Sterling declared martial law in Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. In his proclamation Sterling declared that the independent oil producers in these counties were "in a state of insurrection" and that the "reckless and illegal exploitation of (oil) must be stopped until such time as the said resources may be properly conserved and developed under the protection of the civil authorities".Sterling now ordered the commander of the Texas National Guard, Jacob F. Wolters, to "without delay shut down each and every producing crude oil well and/or producing well of natural gas". Wolters who was the chief lobbyist of several major oil companies in Texas, readily agreed to this action. Wolters used more than a thousand troops to make sure that the oil wells in East Texas ceased production. The Texas Railroad Commission was now in firm control of the world's most prolific oil fields. It now controlled the supply of the oil in the United States. As a result, the price of oil began to increase.
Humble later became "Exxon". It is not only prices but profits that are of considerable if not irrational concern. Big oil had been, in effect, guaranteed huge profits by another bit of accounting legerdemain: the oil depletion allowance. The 'oil depletion allowance' is like depreciation but more abstract. Depreciation is often visible. Machines wear out, the loss of utility is real. From an accounting standpoint, the 'oil depletion allowance' is just a whopping write off, literally a pay off for the oil you won't find later! Now --how would like to be paid NOW for the money you WON'T make LATER when the business you're in NOW is no longer profitable?
Sweet deal --perhaps even better than the 'sweet deal' the FED got. I can think of no other industry that has managed to so effectively shake down the government. I can think of few businesses in which you are paid upfront the money you will not earn at some point in the future. If there should be such a scheme, I would like to sign up for it right now!
By 1962, JFK had sealed his fate. He had decided to take on the Texas oil industry. He persuaded Congress to 'remove the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad'. The law applied to all industries but affected the oil industry particularly. Texas oil fat cats watched earnings from foreign investments fall by one half --or from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.
As President, LBJ, abandoned plans to abolish the oil industry's sacred cow, the cow it regularly milked. The oil depletion allowance was not disallowed until the Presidency of Jimmy Carter still reviled in Texas though he is among the nation's best Presidents in terms of GDP growth and job creation. One would never suspect it --given the campaign of lies that he still inspires. At that, Carter is among the fortunate; it is only his 'record' that has been assassinated.
Moreover, I knew Bush SR and would testify under oath that the pic of a man in front of the TSBD just prior to the fatal shooting of JFK is --in fact --Bush sr. I know that slouch, that unmistakable hairline and jaw. It's him. I believe Bush Sr was in a position to supervise the 'hit'; in the field. The tramps had secured the area behind the picket fence for an 'egress'. One of those tramps was E. Howard Hunt; another was Frank Sturgis.
In our lifetimes, the best and brightest have been snuffed before our very eyes by the cowardly, unseen, shadowy exercise of pure evil and rotten ambition. The most prominent victims are John F. Kennedy who was, at the time, President of the United States, Robert Kennedy, a former U.S. Attorney General and candidate for his party's Presidential nomination, Dr,. Martin Luther Kr whose 'dream' while liberating to right thinking persons was, in fact, a gauntlet thrown down in front of those who dare to enslave us. Those benefiting most from JFKs murder are most certainly guilty of it. It's a question of motive, method and opportunity. The American right wing had all three. An analysis of the motives reveal a pattern, a constituency supporting murder as a means of achieving 'regime change'.
JFK tried to strip the power of the FED, abolish the Oil Depletion Allowance, and 'smash the CIA into a thousand pieces'. No President since has dared piss off so many powerful and ruthless people.
JFK tried to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest
The move would have bypassed the Fed by restoring to the government the power and authority to issue currency. Executive Order 11110 gave the US government the ability to create its own money --backed by silver! It just might have put the FED out of business.
Some background and basic economics: to pay it's bills, the US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Federal Reserve Notes are not backed up by anything. 'Silver certificates' issued under the authority of JFKs order would have been backed up by government owned silver. The government would no longer borrow from the FED to pay its obligations. It would have done so with 'silver certificates' issued by the government itself.
Like any commodity, Federal Reserve notes are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The demand for Federal Reserve notes might have collapsed altogether and the FED itself might have been forced out of business.
Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level. It would have would have made it possible for the government to repay its debt without having to borrow worthless 'notes' from the Fed and having to repay them later at interest.
Executive Order 11110 was never repealed. One wonders why no other President ever bothered to utilize it. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that JFKs order made him very, very unpopular throughout the banking establishment? In fact, JFK was brutally murdered in Dallas just five months after issuing the order. No more silver certificates were issued. The FED's gravy train was still intact.
The 'scheme' preferred by the Fed allows the Fed to create money which it loans to the government at interest.
The private Federal Reserve owners don’t have a trillion dollars to lend the Government, nor do they need it. All they do is create it, via a bookkeeping entry, and write a check to the U.S. Government as the loan in exchange for the U.S. Bonds. The U.S. Government banks at the Federal Reserve Bank so cashing this check is very easy.
It's a scheme, possibly a scam. Certainly --no hard currency is exchanged. Government agents are never seen walking out of the FED offices --under armed guard --carrying bullion, coins, or, indeed, anything of real value. The Fed makes an 'entry' in the books! The government makes an entry in its books! And you thought you had to work hard to make money!
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
--variously attributed to Thomas Jefferson [editor note: if it is confirmed that he did not say it, it is, in the opinion of the author of this article, true! And, if he did not say it, someone should have! h/t Warren Aide-Riley]
JFK Threatened to 'smash the CIA into a thousand pieces'
The CIA had conspired with 'cuban exiles' in Florida to assist in the invasion of Cuba. Both entities acted without authorization from the government, without a declaration of war from Congress which alone has the power to declare war --or so says that 'goddamned piece of paper', the US constitution.
Certainly, because of Cuba, the CIA was more motivated to murder JFK than was Lee Harvey Oswald. The CIA saw Kennedy as a threat to "national security" and, from the CIA/Cuban exile perspective, he proved it when he refused to order air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion. The axis of CIA/Cuban exiles never forgave JFK this 'act of betrayal'.
It is at this time in our history that the name George Bush comes up. It was in 1959 --the year that Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba--that George Bush set up Zapata Offshore in a Houston headquarters.
George must have been a frequent visitor to New Orleans. Because of his family's estate on Jupiter Island, he would also have been a frequent visitor to the Hobe Sound area. And then, there were Zapata Offshore drilling operations in the Florida Strait. On all of these activities, the official "red Studebaker" biographical material and the Zapata Offshore annual reports are extremely cryptic.
...
According to Joseph McBride of The Nation, "a source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities." 1 By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency," and despite official disclaimers there is every reason to think that this is indeed the man in the White House today. The mystery of George Bush as a possible covert operator hinges on four points, each one of which represents one of the great political and espionage scandals of postwar American history. These four cardinal points are:
The abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, launched on April 16-17, 1961, prepared with the assistance of the CIA's "Miami Station" (also known under the code name JM/WAVE). After the failure of the amphibious landings of Brigade 2506, Miami station, under the leadership of Theodore Shackley, became the focus for Operation Mongoose, a series of covert operations directed against Castro, Cuba, and possibly other targets.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the coverup of those responsible for this crime.
The Watergate scandal, beginning with an April, 1971 visit to Miami, Florida by E. Howard Hunt on the tenth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion to recruit operatives for the White House Special Investigations Unit (the "Plumbers" and later Watergate burglars) from among Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veterans.
The Iran-contra affair, which became a public scandal during October-November 1986, several of whose central figures, such as Felix Rodriguez, were also veterans of the Bay of Pigs.
George Bush's role in both Watergate and the October surprise/Iran-contra complex will be treated in detail at later points in this book. Right now it is important to see that thirty years of covert operations, in many respects, form a single continuous whole. This is especially true in regard to the dramatis personae. Georgie Anne Geyer points to the obvious in a recent book: "...an entire new Cuban cadre now emerged from the Bay of Pigs.
The names Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Rolando Martinez, Felix Rodriguez and Eugenio Martinez would, in the next quarter century, pop up, often decisively, over and over again in the most dangerous American foreign policy crises.
There were Cubans flying missions for the CIA in the Congo and even for the Portuguese in Africa; Cubans were the burglars of Watergate; Cubans played key roles in Nicaragua, in Irangate, in the American move into the Persian Gulf." 2 Felix Rodriguez tells us that he was infiltrated into Cuba with the other members of the "Grey Team" in conjunction with the Bay of Pigs landings; this is the same man we will find directing the contra supply effort in central American during the 1980's, working under the direct supervision of Don Gregg and George Bush. 3 Theodore Shackley, the JM/WAVE station chief, will later show up in Bush's 1979-80 presidential campaign....This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA."
I recently quoted Albert Speer's summation of the Third Reich which, for so long, he served admirably with the best fascist architecture Reichsmarks could buy! Speer summed up the Third Reich. He said that it had been built upon hollow, meaningless platitudes. The same can be said of the GOP in America:
George Bush's inaugural address of January 21, 1989, was on the whole an eminently colorless and forgettable oration. The speech was for the most part a rehash of the tired demagogy of Bush's election campaign, with the ritual references to "a thousand points of light" and the hollow pledge that when it came to the drug inundation which Bush had supposedly been fighting for most of the decade...Bush's performance during the Panama crisis was especially ominous because of the president's clearly emerging mental imbalance.
Several outbursts during the Noriega press conferences had resembled genuine public fits. Racist and sexual obsessions were reaching critical mass in Bush's subconscious. These gross phenomena did not receive the attention they would have merited from journalists, television commentators, and pundits, who rather preferred studiously to ignore them. It was during these waning days of 1989 that Bush's mental disintegration became unmistakeable, foreshadowing the greater furors yet to come.
How will we remember the 'presidency' since the murder of JFK? I will remember these years for what was not accomplished because JFK was murdered --the dreams that are still unfulfilled, the hopes that were dashed! I will remember an era of GOP dominance distinguished by its celebration of mediocrity. I will remember a GOP that rewarded crookery and made of evil a banality. It took a horrible war and millions of deaths to crush the Third Reich! What will it take to crush the oppressive GOP dominion of some fifty years? Please tell me! We have work to do.
Zapruder Film Stablized: The fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll
America, we have a problem --the Supreme Court! The Supreme Court, under Scalia's evil influence, has decided that 'legal abstractions' --corporations --are people. In fact, people are defined by consciousness, volition, and responsibility. Corporations have none of those attributes.
Corporations are: 1) not conscious as consciousness is understood by scientists and philosophers; 2) utterly without volition but that of numerous 'individual decisions' by real persons; 3) those persons making decisions are, in fact, responsible under the law had not SCOTUS intervened. Therefore, one is inclined to conclude that five ideologues on the court had precisely that outcome in mind. Certainly, this infamous decision must take its place among Dredd-Scott and Bush v Gore.
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
--U.S. constitution, 14th Amendment
The courts are empowered to enforce that principle if the United State government should violate it! Even more significant is the fact that subsequent SCOTUS decisions have obligated the various state governments as well. In other words, Texas nor Kansas nor Lousiana nor any state may violate your rights under the 14th Amendment.
The ONLY exception, it seems, has been the corporate 'community'. Corporations have been placed above the law and for no other reason than the fact that A. Scalia and the other 'Republicans' on the court are biased if not bought and paid for! Clearly, the Supreme Court under A. Scalia, is crooked, handing down gibberish instead of law, circumlocutions instead of reasoned arguments based upon the Constitution or precedent!
Scalia is credibly reported to have said: "I am too smart for the court!" Fine! I suggest he seek employment elsewhere! Fine! Scalia --you're fired! Take your over-rated IQ and your bloated mid-section to the personnel department of any IT department in the nation. Ask them to give you an IQ test! Let's see how 'smart' you really are! Let me know how you make out!
I have news for Scalia: if corporations are 'people', then they should be tried for murder when they murder people. Check the history of Dow Chemical, DuPont and Union Carbide at Bhopal. If corporations are 'people' every one on the board and among decision making executives are culpable and should be prosecuted for the crimes that were committed.
The U.S. Supreme Court, under Scalia, cannot be respected! These have been the very worst years for the Supreme Court. Such a court does not command or deserve our respect. A nation without a court deserving of our respect is a lawless nation.
Why is the GOP where it is? Simply --GOP fascists turned out!! Why are the Democrats where they are? Don't ask a Democrat! You are likely to get a denial that he/she is a Democrat --rather, a 'progressive'! Don't bother asking what a 'progressive' is. But if you want to know the truth, here goes: a 'progressive' is a Democrat who does not want or dare to admit that he/she is a Democrat! This deplorable situation has resulted because a critical mass of 'Dems' committed what in politics is the unpardonable sin: they allowed the opposition [GOP] to define them! That's why Clinton found it necessary to 'triangulate' a center. Definition of a center in politics: something that is neither here nor there nor sharp but blurry in the middle!
Bottom line: 'progressive' does not mean a thing and will not result in a net gain of votes! The word owes is very existence to the fact that 'liberals' let the GOP get away with branding the word 'liberal'. Liberal is a perfectly good word! It means FREE! Again --LIBERAL means free! Anyone who runs away from 'freedom' deserves to lose an election and until progressives regain the courage of their convictions, they will continue to get 'ass whuppins' at the hands of ruthless and well-financed right wing nuts!
Things can change but only if Democrats regain their party by turning out. The PRIMARIES are more important than the general election. Sadly --the process itself is designed to REDUCE your choices to only two. I don't like it --but that's the way it is! Whining about it on FB will not change a thing. It's a SOP; someone threw us a BONE!
If you want to change America, so-called 'progressives' must --first --take back the Democratic party. But NO ONE is going to tolerate a long lecture on the kinds of reforms that are necessary AFTER the primaries are over!
[Condorcet] He divided the decision process into three stages. In the first stage, one “discusses the principles that will serve as the basis for decision in a general issue; one examines the various aspects of this issue and the consequences of different ways to make the decision.” At this stage, the opinions are personal, and no attempts are made to form a majority. After this follows a second discussion in which “the question is clarified, opinions approach and combine with each other to a small number of more general opinions.” In this way the decision is reduced to a choice between a manageable set of alternatives. The third stage consists of the actual choice between these alternatives. --Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction, Condorcet, [1793], pp. 342-343)
Condorcet's distinction between the "first and second discussion" seems to me to be analagous to the U.S. primary process. In the first case, Democrats (for example) choose between other Democratic hopefuls. Invariably --enough to skew the validity of the primary as a barometer of public opinion --decisions will turn upon which candidate is perceived to have a better chance of winning in the general election.
Seen on FB: "ALL PARTIES SUCK" Well, that's an excuse to sit out the primaries! If you don't like the DEMS, then organize to take them back. That requires that you get involved. Taking back a party begins in the neighborhoods. It is done precinct by precinct. Sorry --there are no magic wands. There is NO INSTANT GRATIFICATION! That's the way it is. That's the system we inherited.
The French waged a real revolution shortly after 'we' separated from England. I can tell you this --no one was sitting at home pissing and moaning about "...oh golly gee...all the parties are the same...oh woe is me..." They MANNED THE BARRICADES.
I have not merely blogged. I would like to think that I spoke 'truth to power'. I literally petitioned, perhaps harassed, my congressman --John Culberson, representing the 7th District. To his credit, Culberson responded though nothing he said was true, accurate or relevant. Most of the time he (or his staffers) just rewrote the official Bush 'line'. It requires K-street size money to get real and/or effective access to your elected representatives.
Having put into place numerous Draconian measures, George W. Bush, it was feared, would not leave the White House. He had, after all, declared the Constitution to be 'just a worthless piece of paper'; he had already begun a war against Iraq upon a pack of bald-faced lies!
§ 2441. War crimes(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. --U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441">TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441
Not only Americans but much of the world were suckered by 911 cited by Bush as justification to attack and invade Iraq! An attack on Iraq might have been justified if Iraq had attacked the United States or, if it had posed a clear and present danger. Iraq had posed no threat! In fact, during the administration of George H.W. Bush, Saddam consulted with American diplomats before lowering the price of oil! For his efforts, he was misled --perhaps deliberately ---by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Upon a nod, Saddam lowered the price of oil but later paid the price for having done so: Persian Gulf War I.
911 was not nearly so subtle! In fact, George W. Bush committed heinous crimes for which U.S. Codes prescribe the penalty of death! It remains beyond logic, commonsense, fact or psychotic delusion to consider for a moment that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of911! Yet --Bush would puke up 911 to umbrella a panoply of capital crimes, atrocities, and heinous crimes against humanity not seen since A. Hitler or Pol Pot! As long as the rich and powerful remain above those laws applying to everyone else, then justice does not exist! As long a elites are exempted, the phrase 'rule of law' is hollow. As long as Bush is 'free' no one else is!
Not even Bush or his corrupt administration dared to claim that Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with 911!
Stiglitz received renewed attention for a paper [PDF], co-written with Harvard professor of public finance Linda Bilmes that projected that the total economic costs of the Iraq War would exceed a trillion dollars. The hundreds of billions Congress has already approved for the war, they argued, tells only half the story. It doesn't account for, among other things, increases in defense spending, the long-term costs for veterans' health care and disabilities, the lost earning potential of the Americans killed and wounded, and increases in the price of oil.Once considered provocatively high, Stiglitz's estimates now appear conservative in light of escalating sectarian violence and the American troop surge in Iraq. The president's latest budget proposal, while calling for deep cuts to Medicare and other domestic programs, dramatically ramps up funding for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also adds another $44 billion to the Pentagon's budget, which has already expanded nearly 50 percent since Bush took office. On the same day the administration sent its latest budget proposal to Congress, Mother Jones spoke with the iconoclastic economist about myopic Iraq War accounting, the need for a military draft, and the task of putting a price tag on human life.--Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell, MotherJones, Iraq War Sticker Shock: The Trillion Dollar War that Will Bankrupt America?
Bush had been warned ---but, upon a pack of lies, he marched this nation off to war and ruin! After repudiating the very sovereignty of the people by way of our Constitution, after abrogating the guarantees of Due Process of Law, having repudiated habeas corpus, and arrogating unto himself the powers of a dictator --why did Bush leave willingly?
It is not as if the disaster had not or could not have been predicted. Following (everything below the line) is the text of my letter to my congressman. For 'readability' issues, I have not 'blockquoted' it. I was remiss not to record the date of the letter.John Culberson Member of Congress 7th District
Honorable Member of Congress:
Thank you for your reply to my concerns about the Bush administration's case for War in Iraq. I have considered your points --in block-quotes --followed by my reply:
I believe that the Bush administration made the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate Iraq after Saddam continue to disobey numerous United Nations resolutions and refuse diplomatic offers.
No one disagrees that Saddam was a "bad man". With all due respect, that is not the issue. The world is full of "bad men" and, in most cases, the United States does not invade and occupy their countries. One wonders: what is the compelling difference in Iraq? That it has oil?Secondly, it is unclear and most certainly not proven by anything available in the public record that Saddam was not in compliance with United Nations resolutions when he was attacked and invaded. U.N. inspectors had, in fact, asked for a reasonable amount of time in which to complete their tasks.Only if they had been allowed to complete their responsibilities could it have been known conclusively whether or not Saddam was or was not in compliance with specific U.N. Resolutions. Moreover, U.N. resolution 1441 orders Iraq to comply with said resolutions – but does not sanction the use of force by the United States --specifically invasion of a sovereign nation and occupation of same by U.S. Forces.Lacking the "cover" of International law or sanction, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles. [Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal]
Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people many times, and since the end of hostilities dozens of mass graves and torture rooms have been discovered.
Saddam's use of chemical weapons "...on his own people" is a reference to a well-publicized gassing of Kurds in 1988 – some 15 years ago. If this were a pressing issue, why has it taken the US so long to go to war. Obviously --Saddam was not a priority and most certainly not a 'clear and present danger'.
Persian Gulf I was fought since that time and the U.N.'s Hans Blix raised the credible possibility that Hussein's weapons were destroyed either by the Persian Gulf War itself or voluntarily by Saddam in its wake --or both! In any case, no weapons have been found since U.S. troops have occupied Iraq.
Moreover, former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere argued persuasively that Saddam's alleged gassing of Kurds in the waning months of the Iran-Iraq war may have been perpetrated by Iran --not Iraq! If that is the case, then none of the arguments with regard to Saddam's alleged gassing of the Kurds is relevant.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Saddam indeed used gas some 15 years ago! At that time, the Saddam regime was nothing more than a U.S. puppet regime. What was the source of his weapons if not the United States? That question has not been answered by either our elected officials or the mass media.
References to the "gassing" incident in the Bush case for war is really this subtle argument: because Saddam used gas on his own people, if he should obtain nuclear weapons, he will use them. In fact, Saddam had many opportunities to use poison gas and biological agents on the Coalition forces and Israel during the Persian Gulf I. But not even Bush partisans have alleged that he did so. UN arms inspectors later found warheads capable of delivering these weapons that could have been used by Iraq -- but were not!
More recently, it was widely reported and speculated in the Bush administration's run up to war that in the event, Saddam Hussein would be most likely to use biochemical weapons if he felt under mortal threat. He was most certainly under mortal threat --yet there is no evidence that he used such weapons --either on his own people who were expected to rise in up revolt against Saddam or against the invading U.S. army or against U.S. troops.Most speculation [and 'speculation' is, in fact, all that it is] about why he did not involves complex violations of Occam's Razor and other logical legerdemain. The simplest explanation for Hussein's failure to use such weapons is that he, in fact, did not have any.
He never offered any evidence that he had ceased his chemical, biological, and nuclear programs.
That such weapons were never found confirms Hussein's version. It does not support Bush. By that time, the burden of proof was on Bush to prove his assertions. Those who assert must prove. This is true in any legitimate courtroom; it is true in 'debate'; it should be true of propaganda! That is it not is a defining characteristic of propaganda! Negatives cannot be proven.
Nevertheless – U.N. inspectors had been and were doing their jobs in Iraq! This was true even as Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations. The mechanism by which Saddam's claims could have been proven or disproved was in place. Clearly – the Bush administration had nothing to gain by allowing the truth to be discovered and heard! The truth would have undermined the plans that were already in place, perhaps, even before Bush v Gore would award the election to Bush.
But the search for WMD continues as it had before the invasion. But now the American people are picking up a huge tab. The cost of the war and the occupation must be added to the cost of a weapons search. U.N. inspectors could have been allowed to complete their jobs at much less cost. It is increasingly difficult to see what has been gained. Yet --the American people are expected to pick up the tab.
We have learnt from September 11 that we cannot afford to ignore those who hate us and are willing to use weapons of mass destruction.
Our current policies --if continued --are guaranteed to multiply the number of people who hate us. We are --in fact --less safe!
The search team led by Dr. David Kay has already discovered troubling evidence about Saddam's intentions.
Here is the thesis sentence from Dr. David Kay's report which I have read in its entirety:
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
David Kay also cautioned: "It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal." It his this sentence which you failed to mention in your reply.
George Bush and Colin Powell, however, have most certainly reached definite and firm conclusions --conclusions which together made up their case for war and Colin Powell's presentation of ten year old, black and white satellite photos to the United Nations.
Again --with all due respect: the American people were not "sold" war with Iraq on the basis of Saddam's intentions; we were told repeatedly that Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction --not that he was merely --and not surprisingly intending --to develop them or that he had merely a "programme". This focus on "intent" is new to administration rhetoric and nothing less than an ex post facto case for war! It is the Bush administration (and GOP) attempt to re-write the record, to 'spin' history.
What is said about Bush's case now was not the case that Bush and Colin Powell had, in fact, made in the run up to war nor is it the case that Colin Powell had made to the United Nations. The GOP rewrite of history is 'Orwellian'.
It has uncovered papers showing Saddam recently attempted to purchase missile parts from North Korea.
That's hardly surprising! It does, however, point up the hypocritical differences in the way Bush treats North Korea and Iraq. North Korea is a nation which openly pursues the development of Nuclear Weaponry. Your letter raises the question of whether or not U.S. rhetoric has motivated other nations to seek not only missile parts but also "yellow cake".
Besides --Iraq was cheated. According to the Washington Post, North Korea never made good on the deal and refused to refund some $10 million to Iraq.
Investigators have also discovered new research on biological agents and unmanned aerial vehicles that could disperse chemical or biological weapons. The team has repeatedly found evidence of deception, from burned computers to recently scrubbed missiles trailers.
Intentions! If Bush and Powell had made only this case, how deep would have been the support for war?
Two Iraqi weapons scientists cooperating with Dr. Kay were shot to prevent them from telling what they know.
Every media report that I have read concerning this incident attributed it to solely to Dr. Kay. There is, so far, no independent corroboration of the motive to which you refer. What is your source? Secondly, the fact that two scientists who were most probably involved in a weapons program of some sort does not prove that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and occupation. Nor does it change the fact that there is no authorization under International Law for the U.S. attack.
Iraqi roughly the size of California, and Dr. Kay noted that the yet unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction could be stored in a space the size of a two car garage.
We are paying a high price in lives and dollars if the U.S. case for war has been reduced to a search for a two-car garage --a search that might have been conducted less expensively and more efficiently under the cover of International Law by U.N. inspectors.
Additionally, it does not follow that because WMD were "unaccounted" for that they, in fact, existed. The term "unaccounted for" implies that there is a mysterious "inventory" somewhere against which existing reports are measured. Where is that inventory, who compiled it --and how?
Until those questions are answered, any statement about "unaccounted for" weapons is meaningless. Furthermore --Kay's report made no claim that Hussein had actual weapons of mass destruction although, selectively, Bush read a passage from the report that indicated that Saddam was determined to get them. That was to be expected but it hardly justifies a war of aggression.
Significantly, a different tact is taken in the case of North Korea, and perhaps in the cases of other nations that have escaped the glare of administration assisted publicity. I am not sure what this proves --other than an uneven, inconsistent, and impractical policy of pre-emption cannot possibly form the cornerstone of a viable foreign policy in a civilized and rational nation.
Finally, there is no compelling reason to believe that Dr. Kay, however professional he may be, will find weapons when in fact there is dubious probable cause that they existed during the run up to war. Good money --billions --after bad. No one can find that which does not exist!
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing in the Kay report that supports Bush's original case for war. The Kay report, however, was expertly used to divert attention from Bush's original case --best summed up by Sen. Robert Byrd:
We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.
We were told that the throngs of Iraqi's would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.
We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.
We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy "yellow cake" from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air. We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.
We were told that major combat was over but 101 [as of October 17] Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own Emperor in his new clothes.
--Sen Robert Byrd
Bush himself had stated that Saddam had tried to buy "yellow cake" in Niger. That this statement may have lead to "leaks" which imperiled the CIA's search for WMD world wide is reason enough in and of itself for Congress to investigate the entire case for war, how the case was presented, how intelligence and evidence contrary to the Bush case were handled.
America is safer now that Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, and I support building a stable and prosperous Iraqi democracy that can lead by example in the Middle East.
Everyone supports a stable and prosperous Iraq. The question is: is invading and occupying a sovereign nation in violation of the Nuremberg principles a prudent way to accomplish that aim?
It is easy enough to assert that America is safer --but unless and until WMD are found in Iraq, it is simply fallacious to ascribe that "safety" to Bush administration policies in Iraq. My neighbor may sprinkle salt on his lawn to keep elephants out of his front yard; but the fact that there is not an elephant within 5,000 miles of his house is hardly proof that it works.
A more compelling case can be made, however, that the world as a whole is less safe as a direct result of the Bush "doctrine" of pre-emption.
Clearly, Bush has made no "aggressive" attempts to disarm nuclear powers Pakistan and India. North Korea, meanwhile, clearly seems to have accelerated its nuclear program as a direct result of the perceived "Bush" threat.
Furthermore, there is documentary evidence from the FBI (published by the Brookings Institution) that as Ronald Reagan waged a similar "war on terrorism" with similar rhetoric ("...you can run but you can't hide") terrorist attacks on the United States increased. There were, in fact, three times as many such attacks during the Reagan years as during the Clinton years. I doubt seriously that America, indeed, the world, is safer under the Bush administration.
I sincerely hope that you would give my views serious consideration. At a time when most Americans have become convinced that politicians of both parties are merely pawns of big money, big lobbies, and/or the Military/Industrial complex, it would signal a triumph for Democracy itself if – just once – a political issue might be won upon verifiable facts and the merits of a real debate as opposed to various transparent and/or stupid labels and slogans.
Those who defend the GOP/right wing assault on media and free speech defend media consolidation with an irrelevant 'factoid'. Before 'deregulation', they say, there were only three huge networks --CBS, NBC, ABC. This may be true on the surface but misses the point that throughout the nation there were several thousand locally owned television and radio stations; all of them were required by the FCC to 'serve local interests'. As a result, many radio stations in small and large 'market's maintained viable 'News' and/or 'Public Affairs Departments'. These stations had a finger on the pulse of the listening community like few if any have today.
The record refutes right wing spin. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most or all news media operating in the U.S. Nevertheless, Ben Bagdikian was labeled "alarmist" when he pointed out that fact in his book -- The Media Monopoly. He was no alarmist! His 4th edition [1992] stated: "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures' own and operate 90% of the mass media"! He was right. These 'extraordinary creatures' dominate and/or control almost all of America's media to include newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.
Before the GOP attacked the media, a 'network' was precisely that -- a network of locally owned radio or TV stations. A CBS or ABC affiliate station, for example, was 'affiliated' with ABC --not owned by it! For such an outlet, ABC was just a source of news. Many of these stations maintained very large and impressive news organizations. Early in my career, as I worked in a small radio station in Odessa, TX., I was given a tour of KRLD AM-TV, the CBS affiliate in Dallas, TX. KRLD was made famous world wide for its local coverage of the assassination of JFK. As large and as impressive were KRLD's facilities --both radio and TV --it was local!
It was not until the late sixties that many 'stations' began to automate; it was not until Ronald Reagan attacked the Fairness Doctrine that locally-owned outlets were no longer required to provide 'public affairs' airtime to local groups. In other words, they were no longer required to be responsible to a 'service' area. Interestingly, the term 'service' area is no longer used, replaced recently with the the term: 'coverage'. Ergo: you --as a person --are no longer 'served'. You are 'covered'!
The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers — which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate — face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.
The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until FCC chairman Mark Fowler began rolling it back during Reagan's second term — despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.
It was not until Ronald Reagan waged war on a 'liberal media' (in fact, a 'local' media) that smaller stations were routinely bought out and or merged with increasingly larger media conglomerates, in other words, huge corporations. By the early 90s, some six or seven huge corporations were reported to have acquired some 90 percent or more of all broadcast and/or cable programming in the United States.
It was not until Ronald Reagan and the GOP gave 'license' to big corporations, that the corporate owners began to 'clone' their programming among their properties. It was not until the Fairness Doctrine was trashed that ilk like Rush Limbaugh were given license to flout responsibility, public service, the pursuit of truth or, if not truth, accuracy in reporting. Ilk like Limbaugh were given a license to lie, propagandize, proselytize on behalf of the increasingly rabid, ideological and utterly absurd GOP and the rabid right wing in general.
It is interesting to note that the rising costs of electronic 'advertising' was concurrent with the rise of Ronald Reagan and the GOP. It was hard to tell which is the dog and which is the tale. In any case, one hand washed the other. Less politely --it was a right-wing circle-jerk!
A candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from a district in metropolitan Chicago would find the economics of TV advertising impossible without heavy financial backing. The typical House district has 150,000 households. A Chicago-based television station that reaches a typical district also reaches three million households in thirty-five counties in four states. The candidate either pays for the 2,850,000 unwanted households or loses the television access to his or her district that a richer candidate can buy. (A prime-time, thirty-second commercial for a major sponsor can cost more than $250,000 to produce. Few political commercials cost as much, but the cost even for less elaborate political ads on television is so high that it has created an ominous barrier to entry into American politics.) Thirty-second commercials must be repeated to be effective. The thirty-second political ad on a Chicago station, repeated ten times, would cost more than $50,000 just for air time. The ad would then be broadcast over a station that reaches so large an audience that 95 percent do not vote in the candidate's district.--Ben H. Bagdikian, Democracy and the Media: The Media Monopoly
'Reagan Revolution' is a misnomer. It was, rather, a reactionary counter-revolution which succeeded in undoing FDR's 'New Deal'. The broadcast industry in which I cut my teeth may be traced to the Federal Radio Act of 1927, an act which nationalized the airwaves, establishing the fact that the 'airwaves' are owned by the people collectively. A Federal Communications Act created the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to whom fell the task of allocating broadcast frequencies to those wishing to own and operate a radio or television facility.
The Communications Act of 1934 'refined' and 'expanded' this authority and empowered the FCC to administer the issuing of broadcast licenses to persons or entities wishing to broadcast on the 'airwaves' that the law had said belonged to the people collectively. The measure required that the FCC act responsibly in the 'public convenience, interest or necessity'. There are no such requirements today, thus the horror stories about small towns hit by tornadoes or worse because the so-called 'local' radio station had not issued warnings. In fact, most of those so-called radio stations are automated and/or owned by absentee owners or, worse, a huge corporation based hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles away. Such an owner feels no obligation to serve his/her/its 'coverage' area. They are in it for the bucks! They have no interest in tornadoes but for the loss of ad revenues they represent.
Most repugnant to the huge corporations which are now placed above the law was a 'fairness doctrine' which required broadcast licensees to provide equal time to citizens believing that their positions or groups had been neglected. Not surprisingly, the largest broadcast companies --ABC, NBC for example --had lobbied Congress to establish very high fees for broadcast licenses. Interestingly, Congress deemed this a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech.
Media democracy is founded on two important notions: one, that public forums such as radio and television airwaves are public property, and two, that everyone has a right both to have their voice heard and to access a variety of viewpoints and information . Currently there is much debate over the benefits and downsides to media regulation. The FCC's proposed deregulations of media ownership laws are inciting this fiery debate between proponents and opponents of deregulation.
Proponents argue that deregulating current media ownership laws would increase media outlets by promoting more competition, while opponents argue that similar deregulations in the past which were supposed to increase competition (such as the 1996 Telecommunications Act) in fact had the opposite effect. These previous deregulations caused a surge of mergers that discouraged competition. Without competition, the two founding notions of media democracy have been significantly marginalized in recent years as the diversity of media sources shrink at an alarming rate.
The loss of diversity in media ownership is a concern for democracy in the U.S., as citizens need a variety of information on all sides of the spectrum in order to make educated, informed decisions that will affect both their lives and the future of democracy. It is essential to provide media forums in which people can speak for themselves and communicate with one another. This paper will explore the impending FCC decision, the history of communication regulations and the ramifications of potential deregulation.--Kristin Lee, The FCC and Media Democcracy, WIFP Associate
I don't believe that 'consolidated media' are serving or can serve 'public interests'. Nor can they be 'fully accountable and dependable'. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates dominate in a single market it is doubtful that a diversity of opinions will ever see the light of day. In fact, as research reveals increasing levels of consolidation, it likewise reveals that fewer issues are covered from increasingly narrow points of view.
The most notable effects are local. Reporters say their stories are often edited and worse --refused! 'Exposes' in which advertisers are threatened by 'potentially damaging information', are routinely re-written to ameliorate potential damage to advertisers' reputations. At the very worst the 'offending' material is re-written, edited or censored outright.
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation. In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.--Media Consolidation -- a Historical Perspective
The term "media consolidation" is clearly detrimental and problematic. There are numerous reports of networks refusing to air 'anti-war' ads though they were 'paid'. Routinely, news stories may be revised or dumped should they offend a sponsor. Money itself is allowed to slant the news --wealth as propaganda!
Over the past several years, NOW has consistently reported on the topic of media ownership. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations? The FCC continues to face such questions. Get background information on some of the FCC's more recent decisions below:
UPDATES: Since the FCC voted on the rule changes there have been developments in the courts and in Congress.
October 8, 2003: NBC said it would purchase the entertainment arm of Vivendi Universal for $3.8 billion.
September 3, 2003: a federal appeals court in Philadelphia issued an order blocking the rule changes from taking effect. (Read the ruling.)
September 4, 2003: The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill that contained a provision that would effectively block the ownership rule changes.
July 23, 2003: The House voted 400-21 to approve a spending bill that included a provision to block the FCC decision to allow major television networks to own up to 45% of the country's viewers. The Bush administration has voiced opposition to the attempt to rescind the FCC ruling.
Ada Byron, daughter of the English Romantic poet Lord Byron is – arguably --the world's first computer programmer. She is otherwise known to history as Lady Lovelace. The case on her behalf is so strong that the Department of Defense developed a programming language in her honor: ADA. It was among the first so-called "Object-Oriented Languages," a set of languages dominated by C++, Java, etc. But that gets ahead of the story by some one hundred years or more.
Ada Byron was born in 1815. Divorced from Lord Byron, Lady Byron brought up her daughter, Ada, fearful that she might suffer Romanticist, "poetical" tendencies as did her father. Her education, therefore, consisted of mathematics and science. Predictably, Ada's understanding of mathematics –though profound –was influenced by simile, analogy, and metaphor.
It is not surprising that Ada was fascinated and intrigued when, in 1834, she encountered Charles Babbage's idea for a "calculating machine" about which Babbage offered a daring conjecture: a machine acting upon foresight. Most of what we know of Babbage's "differential engine" we have learned from Ada Byron. Inspired by the "universality" of Babbage's ideas, Ada proceeded to write more notes on Babbage than Babbage wrote at all. Her fascination with Babbage's "engine" is noteworthy for at least two outstanding developments.
It was Ada, inspired by Babbage's calculating machine, who first articulated, if not invented, the very concept of "software" –a set of instructions to be carried out by a "universal" machine – a machine capable of acting meaningfully upon those instructions. The obvious progeny of this concept is the multitude of software packages that now drive everything from desktops to mainframes.
Of even greater interest to physicists and cosmologists is that Ada's ideas and hopes for the 'computing machine' lead inexorably to Claude Shannon's concept of information as the inverse of entropy – a western version of the yin and yang. Entropy is or is associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a general principle constraining the 'direction' of 'heat transfer'; in the vernacular: things run down. Chaos increases. Organization becomes dis-organization and disorder. Hot things cool down in the absence of new infusions of energy. Eventually all movement ceases entirely. Some have called it the 'heat death' of the Universe –a final and eternal 'thermodynamic state' in which there no longer exists sufficient 'free energy' to sustain motion or life.
Shannon then spent 31 years at Bell Labs, starting in 1941. Among the many things Shannon worked on there, one great conceptual leap stands out. In 1948, Shannon published "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" in the Bell System Technical Journal, along with Warren Weaver. This surprisingly readable (for a technical paper) document is the basis for what we now call information theory--a field that has made all modern electronic communications possible, and could lead to astounding insights about the physical world and ourselves.
Names like Einstein, Heisenberg, or even Kurt Goedel are better known among the people who have led twentieth-century science into the limits of knowledge, but Shannon's information theory makes him at least as important as they were, if not as famous. Yet when he started out, his simple goal was just to find a way to clear up noisy telephone connections.
Shannon wrote A Mathematical Theory of Communication [PDF] for Bell Labs in 1948 –more than a hundred years after Ada wrote what is considered to be the world's first computer program, a plan that she shared with Babbage. In it, Ada suggested how his machine might calculate Bernoulli numbers. This was the world's first computer program.
The second development began the debate about Artificial Intelligence. In his paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Alan Turing, devoted several paragraphs to "Lady Lovelace's Objection" to the very concept of A.I. It was a concept which Ada discounted in her notes:
The analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to [do]. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any...truths. Its province is to assist us in making available what we're already acquainted with.
Some 100 years later Turing ascribes to her a cautious "logical positivism:"
It will be noticed that he [ D. R. Hartree ] does not assert that the machines in question had not got the property [ A.I.], but rather that the evidence available to Lady Lovelace did not encourage her to believe that they had it.
The point is not whether Lady Lovelace or Turing is correct with regard to A.I., but rather that it was Ada who foresaw the playing field and terrain, the scope of the debate. It was Turing, however, who defined 'artificial intelligence'. By his definition, computers have already achieved consciousness. Turing had said that we may consider a machine intelligent if, in a blind test, we cannot differentiate the computer's response from that of a living, breathing person. By that standard, computers are now conscious and intelligent. IBM's 'Big Blue' defeated Chess champion Boris Spasky who charged that human beings had directed the machine. I often share that attitude with my own computer's chess program. It actually seems to learn from its mistakes.
Ada understood that the meaning of a machine is what it does. Her contribution is that this meaning may be shaped by what are now call 'programmers' who literally instruct the machine, providing it a well-planned list of discrete tasks, a program –in other words: software.
Computer technologists speak of "state". Each state is particular, analogous in some way, to a particular task that may be accomplished while in that "state." Before computers, machines may have processed information –but in a crude way. The instructions had been built-in. Consider the lever –a simple machine that nevertheless may be said to have two "states" –up or down. The meaning of either state is to be found in the work done by (or in) that state. As a general principle, the meaning of a given state is the utility it creates, the work that it does.
In Ada's wake, early computers were mere assemblages of electrically controlled "levers" called "relays." The origin of binary languages may be found in relays which are either 'on' or 'off' . Mechanical relays would be replaced by vacuum tubes and, later, by transistors. Simple circuits were called either "and-gates," or "or-gates", or, generally –'flip/flop' circuits. Even now, the largest supercomputers, reduced to their smallest components, are capable only of processing just two states: 0 and 1. But upon this basic alphabet, patterns of increasing complexity have grown exponentially. The computer has become an electronic loom in which each pattern represents a "state."
That Ada glimpsed this future almost a century and a half ago is remarkable.
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Debs was courageous and smart --a man of integrity! Rush is slimy and stupid --a charlatan! Debs spoke truth to power! Rush misleads the poor and gullible for profit! He is a corporate kiss-up, a coward, a stooge who peddles propaganda for profit! Debs accepted responsibility for what he had made of himself and was prepared to accept the consequences. Rush is a coward who blames all on 'niggers', poor people and 'liberals, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!
