Middle East Uprisings and the Media

Enthralled with the wave of successful protests sweeping across north Africa and the middle east, I've been following as much as I can via daily visits to BBC with their continuously updating live feeds. Western media may be "losing the propaganda information war" as Hillary so boldly put it recently, but compared to the state of American media today, the Beeb is providing exceptional real-time world news coverage that would make McLuhan proud.

They've created thorough in-depth backgrounders on all the players in the region, both good and bad, going the extra mile with demographics and stability/corruption indices for each country presented in one of the many clickable maps on the subject.


But take a closer look at that map. What do you see? Or rather, what don't you see? It seems there is a sizable country comprised of a contented people brimming with peace, love, and tranquility caught right betwixt a hostile Syria and Iran. In the Middle East? Gee, what country could that be? Well, according to the Beeb, it's none other than that latest triumph of the west, Iraq.

Except it's not. You may not find alot of coverage in our western media concerning daily protests throughout Iraq, including the BBC. But it's boiling over just like its neighbors. And its government's tortuous repression tactics make the first days of Mubarik's ouster seem divine in comparison. I wonder, why aren't the aspirations of the Iraqi people being given the same respect by global leaders and their mouthpieces as say the people of Morocco? Do you even need an answer to that question?

On to Libya. Libyans were in full rebel mode a full week before the US had anything of substance to say about it. And our first official words were "we're waiting for other countries to say how they feel first, then we'll say something." I believe a more descriptive term for the administration's reaction would be impotence, and don't think for one minute this won't be thrown back at Obama come next summer. Who remembers GWBush's dogwhistle "we don't need no UN permission slip" targeting Clinton's dismal record of empire underachievement during his administration? Round and round we go.

But speaking of impotence, how about those British special forces, huh? British SAS captured by teenage malcontents! So much FAIL in that little episode. Who would have thought they're just a bunch of halfassed students of Klaatu? So, they set down in a strange land, disembark and promptly state, "take me to your leader?" It may look like failure to the average layperson, and of course it does, but come on, they accomplished their goal of establishing contact with rebel forces didn't they? Maybe they planned perceptions of failure into the mission to throw a wrench in Gaddafi's propaganda machine.

Tonight I was looking around to find out more information about the uprisings in Iraq and stumbled across this little gem. I have no idea who the author is, but I must say even if it's a complete work of fiction despite all the sources provided, it's an exceptionally captivating writeup. And well worth the eyestrain to read it all the way through.

What do you think?

End of America lecture by Naomi Wolf (video)

Video Link

Read the book, The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf

Next step: Take it to the Streets - coordinated action to restore the Constitution.

And vote for Ron Paul in your state's primary, the only candidate who respects the founding ideals of America and lives true to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

--

eh, About those media "polls"

There's been a lot of discussion on why Ron Paul, with all of his obvious Internet popularity, is only polling in the single digits nationwide. Various theories have been presented, such as "pollsters don't call cell phones, and Ron Paul's followers don't use landlines," and "much of Ron Paul's support comes from first-time voters."

The mainstream uses the single-digit poll results to support their claim that "Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance," and use them as ammunition for excluding him from debates or coverage. But just how "scientific" are those polling methods?

...

..[these] polls use only "Republicans who voted in the last Presidential Primary." (link)

Well, how about that. How many republicans do you know who went and voted in the 2004 GOP presidential primaries, since the only candidate running for the GOP nomination was incumbent President Bush? Hmmmm? According to USAToday, Republican turnout in the 2004 primary was a whopping 6.6%! These scientific, professional media polls are based on a sampling of people taken from only 6.6% of the registered republicans from 2004!

As the original author says,

Think about that. The mainstream press is using this handful of people who voted for George W. Bush--when he was running unopposed!--as their "statistically significant" sample of concerned American voters. The political analysts are basing their election predictions, and their professional careers, on a random and biased telephone survey of a few hundred people who bothered to show up when their "fearless leader" wasn't being challenged by anyone.

Suddenly the media plays nice..

Ron Paul pushed on CNN by Charles Goyette


CAFFERTY FILE: SHOULD PEOPLE LISTEN TO RON PAUL?

They are terrified of Ron Paul

For Dr. Herndon, a candidate to watch is Ron Paul.

"Ron Paul is striking a phenomenal emotional chord with voters -- when they have access to his message. The mainstream political and media machines are terrified. And global financial controllers are in an outright panic. Every effort is being made -- and will be made -- to marginalize him.

Link

--

Fighting back

Howard Dean used to say, "You have the power!" Once that chant sunk into the consciences of lethargic voters, they got off their butts and starting doing something on their own to make things happen. Well, for a while anyway. But this post is not about Dean's March 2004 implosion. It's about people waking up and realizing the "power" to change the world is entirely in their hands. No longer content to sit around waiting for the official powers that be to make enough improvements in our social atmosphere to have a positive effect on individual lives, they've started taking matters into their own hands. And coming up for 2008, we're about to see how motivating their levels of discontent really are.

Let's take the corporate "mainstream" media as a solid source of this discontent. They've selected the frontrunners of the presidential campaign and annointed them as the only viable choices for the voters. But after repeatedly being discredited for broadcasting their falsehoods all the way back to the beginning of George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, the people seem to have finally had enough.

And now they, the corporate media, find themselves the topic in more and more discussion about what's wrong with our society. Certainly media-controlled censorship is not a new phenomena by any means, but the extent of it lately appears to be reaching critical mass.

Let's start here with an article about their roles as democratically-subversive kingmakers: Corporate Media Won't Let the Public Pick the Next President.

This example of reality's absence in mainstream media best illustrates the extent of the bias in their coverage of the presidential campaigns: Ron Paul Wins Five Straw Polls, Mainstream Media Remains Silent

Next, Prof. Paul Levinson analyzes the blatant media bias against Ron Paul as a central theme in his recent lectures and interviews:

We discussed the problem of media bias in general - easy to find, it's pervasive - and I even offered my view that the FCC, in daily violating the First Amendment to our Constitution, is treasonous.

(Podcast here, Levinson's blog here)

Now these two fellas have taken a more aggressive approach to hold the media accountable, accusing corporate media of conspiring to censor Ron Paul's campaign to the point of launching RICO criminal charges in their sworn affidavits. Best of luck to them, but after the recent court ruling that says TV news stations can lie with impunity, I'm not going to hold my breath on this one.

The point here is that with the internet's end-run around media's censorship, and by the power of the internet's equalizing effect as Dr. Paul would say, more than a few grains of sand are starting to shift underneath the monolithic establishment's foundation.

---

Debunking the "Ron Paul can't win" Myths

-Updated July 6, 2007-

It's become a standard component of all discussion surrounding Ron Paul's presidential candidacy: "..but he won't win the nomination." Stop saying it, because it's not true. I'll tell you why, without even mentioning his unshakable voluminous internet support mob (well, except to say his avid supporters have completely taken over Digg and Youtube, and he consistently wins every online poll that's offered - see how this internet support translates to actual feet on the ground here).

First off, how much does the media establishment really control the message? Let's look at a little recent electoral history: at this point in 1975, Jimmy Carter was at 1% in the national polls and went on to win the Presidency. In 1980, amidst a crowded field of GOP contenders, Ronald Reagan was flat out told he couldn't win, but he did. In mid-1987, Dukakis was at 1% in the polls and went on to win the Democratic nomination. In 1991, Clinton was at 2% in the polls and went on to become President.

How will it happen for Ron Paul?
Two years ago, Republicans made up 50% of the electorate. Indisputably, Bush's bungling of the war has shrunk that number down to 30%. Did that 20% just vanish, was it absorbed into the Democratic party, or did they drop off the radar as disenchanted conservatives because there was no one in leadership representing their views?

Who are these people that make up the missing 20%? From my own observations, about half of them are what is known as paleo-conservatives, small-government traditionalists who opposed the war from the start, but opposed Democrats even more, whose votes in 2004 were primarily anti-Kerry votes. Another quarter of them are Christian conservatives who've painfully recognized the liberal nature of this administration's policies and failures of its execution of the war in Iraq, the Birchers and Buchananists. Some of them are the free-trade libertarian-minded conservatives who've grown tired of government interference in matters of the economy. A small handful of them are anti-immigration conservatives seething from Bush and the GOP leaders' refusal to protect the borders. All of these groups are primed to embrace Ron Paul's message with enthusiasm, and together they comprise a full 20% of the electorate.

The Voting Electorate
Roughly 35% of the electorate self-identify as Democrats, and a dwindling 30% call themselves Republicans (see chart below). Media polling organizations often limit themselves to voters in these two groups, leaving out the voices of the 35% who claim neither party as their own.

Using the latest polling data, Giuliani has the support of 18% of self-identified Republicans, or about 5.4% of the overall electorate. McCain has 14% support from Republicans, or 4.2% of the electorate. Further, a full 30% of republicans (and 30% of democrats) are undecided, expressing great dissatisfaction with the media-anointed frontrunners. That figure alone equals a whopping 18% of the electorate (9% Republicans, 9% Democrats).

Now let's take that 20% of the electorate that is comprised of traditional conservatives who've abandoned the GOP since 2004 for various reasons. Combine that with the 9% of undecideds from the republican base and what you have is vast potential - 29% of the electorate - for Ron Paul. This gap between the dwindling base and mass of conservatives as a whole poses insurmountable odds to the likes of Giuliani's puny 5.4% or McCain's 4.2%, provided Paul's message is able to penetrate the media din of celebrity frontrunners.

In addition to this obvious GOP chasm (which is intensifying steadily over current immigration issues), we have another layer of influence to consider in how the country will vote. With nearly 3/4 of the country now opposed to the war in Iraq, and only one candidate offering to end it conclusively and expeditiously, odds overwhelmingly favor that very candidate. And there are lots more anti-war conservatives than the media give you privy to.

Remember, Paul consistently ranks very high in conservative credentials as determined by major conservative organizations and pundits alike. Early on, conservative support for Paul was vocalized, while some of these conservatives have already formally endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination.

Disenchanted Liberals
Coming straight out of left field, a third level of opportunity emerges from liberals writhing in their perceived betrayal of the newly elected Democratic majorities. Recent actions by the Democratic congress concerning war and trade issues have party activists livid, as a cursory scan of the liberal blogs will reveal. An undercurrent of Paul's common sense policy proposals already flows through these environs, and can easily separate the more frustrated liberals from the party, motivating them to vote for Paul in the primaries. The reasons are varied in their explanations, but more and more liberals are mentioning Paul in a surprisingly favorable light. Here's one liberal who believes that a Paul nomination will greatly improve the quality of discourse in today's acrid political environment. And another who embraces the taboo amongst liberal peers that comes from supporting Paul.

His common sense message of freedom, liberty, small government, non-intervention and reduced taxation, so deeply devoted to the Constitution, is uniting people across the political spectrum. Birchers and liberals united in common cause? Yes, it's happening. Despite pundit attempts to discredit Paul with the "he can't win" disclaimer, the vast pool of voters across the landscape who are hungry for strong, proven, Constitutional leadership is Ron Paul's for the taking.



Now say it with me: He can win.

No it will not be an easy task, and no you cannot sit back and relax and just watch it happen. Paul needs our support every minute of every day to carry his campaign into top tier status to help introduce him to the uninspired, quasi-apolitical conservative masses.

One more time: He can win. But only with our unequivocal enthusiasm and support.

Once Paul becomes the Republican presidential nominee, how do you think he'll fair against big government Hillary and billionaire corporatist Bloomberg? In this matchup, I predict a landslide victory for Paul. Though to become the 44th President of the United States, he only needs 33% + 1. It's no longer looking so impossible now, is it?


Update July 6, 2007:
For those still not convinced Ron Paul is the people's only choice for the 44th President of the United States, consider these points:

51% of this country voted for Ron Paul's message when they elected George Bush as president in 2000, because Bush ran on the traditional conservative platform of small-government, states rights, lower taxes and a humble foreign policy. And now for 2008, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate in a crowded field who is bravely carrying the torch for that philosophy. The difference between Paul and Bush is that Paul has the solid record of 20 years of conservative, Constitutional leadership to back up every single thing he's saying. The people voted for this message just 7 years ago, and with a candidate of impeccable character like Paul leading the way, they'll vote for it again.

Also,
70% of Americans want the war in Iraq to be over, and our troops home. Only one candidate has the temerity to initiate that process on the first day of his presidency, Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been against this illegitimate war since it was first conceived in 1998, and has bravely spoken against it in his writings, in his speeches on the floor of the House, and in his public speaking engagements. There is no doubt where he stands regarding the war in Iraq, and the subsequent build-up of aggression towards Iran. He brings forth the leadership that a full 70% of this country wants.

81% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and in the same poll, 72% believe our Founding Fathers would be disappointed with the state of our nation today. Our current course is set for perpetual war, imminent bankruptcy, the continued weakening of our borders, our sovereignty, and our individual liberties, regardless of which party's media-designated "frontrunner" takes the helm in 2008. Only one candidate is offering to put us back on the course our Founding Fathers designed. That candidate is Ron Paul.

A new Zogby Poll has found that 9 in 10 Americans - 90% - believe the U.S. Constitution is still relevant in today's world. Only one candidate has adhered strictly to the Constitution throughout his entire political career. That candidate is Ron Paul. When God-fearing patriotic Americans listen to him speak, they know in their hearts that he's right because the language of liberty touches an inalienable instinct in all red-blooded Americans. We know that both the GOP and our government have lost their way and only one man, with the strength of his convictions, as well as our own, can return them both to the correct path.

There is absolutely no mistake: this country wants Ron Paul as its next president. What have you done today to help make that happen?