"I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States.”
--President Barack Obama, speaking in Russia on Friday; image from
VIDEO
How to Spot a Communist Using Literary Criticism: A 1955 Manual from the U.S. Military - openculture.com. Via KY on Facebook
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Kristol Urges GOP To Authorize War With Iran After Syria Measure Passes - Ben Armbruster, thinkprogress.org: "The Iranians ... have surprised the American foreign policy establishment in recent days with a series of tweets sending Rosh Hashanah greetings to Jews celebrating the new year and distancing
The Real Reason We Need Declarations of War - John Sides, themonkeycage.org: "[Comment by] Eric September 5, 2013 at 5:58 am [P]residential addresses (esp. the address to Congress asking for a declaration of war)
or other forms of public diplomacy count as fulfilling the function of making reasoned, conditional statements. The crucial concern is meeting moral burdens and not the form meeting those burdens takes." Image from entry
The Gospels of Public Diplomacy - Paul Rockower, Levantine: "From The Blog of Paul: The Gospels of Public Diplomacy [:] Let all who are tired come rest in the hostel of many nations. Let all who are hungry come eat at the table of many lands (Warning: you may have to eat stinky tofu to gain entry into the gastrodiplomacy kingdom of heaven)[.] Let all who are thirsty come drink from the ambrosia of French wines, Belgian beer, Brazilian caiprinhas and all other nectars that slake the thirst. Let all who love music come dance and sing in the pale moon light, and till the sun rises over the fecund day. This holy church we build is on the foundations of cultural diplomacy. There is nothing new to offer: connecting people through music, food and culture is as old as the hills. Come engage. This is the last temptation of public diplomacy."
RELATED ITEMS
White House website launches propaganda page for Syria attack - Cheryl Carpenter Klimek, bizpacreview.com: While the debate ramps up over what to do about
On Aug 30, the administration released the report, “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013,” which begins this way: [‘]The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence – but what follows is an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s analysis of what took place. [‘] The unclassified assessment provides background and a detailed account supporting the belief that the Syrian regime is behind the chemical weapons attack. A statement from the press secretary notes that the administration “will continue to work with Congress to build on this bipartisan support for a military response,” but there is no mention of other countries supporting Obama’s position or planning to join the military action. Image from entry
On Syria, Egypt and propaganda - James Lemons, theupcoming.co.uk: The drums of war beat in Washington and London. Cameron abandoned his holiday (he is always on holiday when something’s afoot), and Obama has led the call for action to bomb Syria. Yet various polls conducted show that the majority of the British and American public is sensibly opposed to another US-led intervention in the Middle East. An American-European attack on Syria will supposedly “send a message.” Exactly what sort of message will it send? No one can claim to know the extent to which any attack will have, nor of its ultimate consequence.
The Syrian Army is large and well-trained and could exact further terrible massacres of its own people, and, given the chance, Western intervention will be the catalyst for this, do absolutely nothing for the Syrian public, and cause untold damage to Syrian posterity. Image from article, with caption: The West must prove Syria’s president Assad (pictured) is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before action should be taken.
Propaganda Alert: Peace with Syria Will Crash the U.S. Economy: Moronic Drivel from Clueless Warmonger - washingtonsblog.com: Former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission – and now Kyocera copier salesman – Peter Morici argues that failure to attack Syria will destroy the American economy. In reality, it is the threat of yet another unnecessary, counterproductive war in the Middle East – and not any delay in approving such a boondoggle – which is destabilizing the economy. Moreover, far better-known and more impressive economists than Morici have shown that – contrary to long-standing myths – war is horrible for the economy.
To strike, or not to strike, Syria? Three arguments for and three against taking military action - Doyle McManus, latimes.com: First, the case for intervention. The most basic reason to attack is the one advanced from the beginning by President Obama and his aides: to deter Syrian leader Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons again. The second major argument for a military strike involves a broader principle: shoring up the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. The third chief reason for acting is that America's credibility is at stake, especially since Obama declared large-scale use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces a "red line" that would compel a U.S. response. Good arguments against: First, as even Kerry has acknowledged, there's no guarantee that a single round of U.S. strikes would succeed in stopping Assad from using chemical weapons; second, military action almost always produces unintended consequences; third and most compelling -- the prospect that even limited military action could be a slippery slope to another war.
A dilemma for Syria's minorities: The mostly Sunni Muslim rebels' inability to win over the country's Kurds, Alawites and Christians raises the question of whether their victory is even desirable - Peter Galbraith, latimes.com: The United States should be cautious about a strategy involving military support, including airstrikes and arms supplies, to a Syrian opposition that has neither the ability nor the inclination to reach out to Syria's minorities.
Such a strategy is not likely to succeed and, more important, we may not want it to succeed. Image from article, with caption: Mourners attend a Kurdish funeral in northern Syria, where the Kurds declared their own autonomous region in July
Barry’s War Within - Maureen Dowd, New York Times: As commander in chief, Obama knows that if he doesn’t punish Bashar al-Assad, America and his presidency will be forever reduced. He thinks a limited strike — not a war, as some are calling it — is the right thing to do. But as Barry talked to the press in St. Petersburg, his lack of enthusiasm came across. He was not thundering from the top of the moral ramparts. He made his usual nuanced, lawyerly presentation, talking about the breach of international “norms.” It’s a weak, wonk word.
Same War, Different Country - Thomas L. Friedman, Washington Times: Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting since the 7th century over who is the rightful heir to the Prophet Muhammad’s spiritual and political leadership, and our credibility is on the line regarding Syria?
Pulling the Curtain Back on Syria - Nicholas D. Kristoff, New York Times: "I favor a limited cruise missile strike against Syrian military targets (as well as the arming of moderate rebels)."
Syria’s al-Qaeda threat - Editorial, Washington Post: The way to counter the threat posed by the jihadists is not to leave the Assad regime in power, but to empower the moderate and secular majority. The U.S. failure to support moderate forces one and two years ago helped to pave the way for al-Qaeda in Syria. A congressional decision not to act now will make the jihadists stronger still.
Does the United States have a ‘responsibility to protect’ the Syrian people? - Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post: Our best chance to rid the world of genocide and other forms of mass atrocity will be in trying to make sure they don’t begin.
Obama's Syria push stymied by Iraq fatigue - Aamer Madhani, USA Today: Obama, whose opposition to the Iraq War was a cornerstone of his 2008 campaign, now finds himself in a somewhat ironic position of fighting back against perceptions that his call for a limited military strike will be the war in Iraq redux.
Grassroots pressure surges against Syria attack - Dave Nalle, Washington Times: There is a contrast between the increasingly vocal masses opposing intervention and the more widely reported politicians taking the other side.
Who is a member of Congress more likely to listen to — thousands of irate constituents posting angry comments on their Facebook walls, or party leaders on television? As members of Congress become more media savy, and as social network activism becomes more sophisticated, the balance is moving in the constituents’ favor. Image from article
All Gov’t lies Stem From The Mother of all Lies ~ The 9/11 Official Story - Allen L. Roland, veteranstoday.com: “Trust me” attitude by Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama towards the flimsy evidence that Assad and Syria were responsible for chemical attacks on their own people is reminiscent of the charlatans Bush, Cheney, Rice, Tenant and Powell as they pushed their Weapons of Mass Destruction lies and deceptions on the American public with the same “trust me” attitude which masked their obvious goal of Regime Change in Iraq, at any cost.
Bomb Scare [Review of UNTHINKABLE: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy By Kenneth M. Pollack] - Leslie H. Gelb, New York Times: Pollack doesn’t desire a nuclear-armed Iran, but at bottom he feels a war would only temporarily delay Iran’s weapons program, while stirring up a host of other terrible problems in the Muslim world. And so he stumps for living with a nuclear Iran and trying to contain it. By playing down the chance of negotiations in favor of containment, Pollack ends up proposing too little, rather than too much.
How the CIA Secretly Funded Abstract Expressionism During the Cold War - Josh Jones, openculture.com: The work of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Willem de Kooning wound up as part of a secret CIA program during the height of the Cold War, aimed at promoting American ideals abroad. The artists themselves were completely unaware that their work was being used as propaganda. On what agents called a “long leash,” they participated in several exhibitions secretly organized by the CIA, such as “The New American Painting” which visited major European cities in 1958-59 and included such modern primitive works as surrealist William Baziotes’ 1947 Dwarf (below).
The one-way relationship between modernist painters and the CIA—confirmed by former case officer Donald Jameson—supposedly enabled the agency to make the work of Soviet Socialist Realists appear, in Jameson’s words, “even more stylized and more rigid and confined than it was.” (See Evdokiya Usikova’s 1959 Lenin with Villagers below, for example).
How to Spot a Communist Using Literary Criticism: A 1955 Manual from the U.S. Military - openculture.com: How to find those hidden communists? Not to worry, the US military had that covered. In 1955, the U.S. First Army Headquarters prepared a manual called How to Spot a Communist. Later published in popular American magazines, the propaganda piece warned readers, “there is no fool-proof system in spotting a Communist.” “U.S. Communists come from all walks of life, profess all faiths, and exercise all trades and professions. In addition, the Communist Party, USA, has made concerted efforts to go underground for the purpose of infiltration.” And yet the pamphlet adds, letting readers breathe a sigh of relief, “there are, fortunately, indications that may give him away. These indications are often subtle but always present, for the Communist, by reason of his “faith” must act and talk along certain lines.” In short, you’ll know a Communist not by how he walks, but how he talks. Asking citizens to become literary critics for the sake of national security, the publication told readers to watch out for the following: [']While a preference for long sentences is common to most Communist writing, a distinct vocabulary provides the more easily recognized feature of the “Communist Language.” Even a superficial reading of an article written by a Communist or a conversation with one will probably reveal the use of some of the following expressions: integrative thinking, vanguard, comrade, hootenanny, chauvinism, book-burning, syncretistic faith, bourgeois-nationalism, jingoism, colonialism, hooliganism, ruling class, progressive, demagogy, dialectical, witch-hunt, reactionary, exploitation, oppressive, materialist. ['] This list, selected at random, could be extended almost indefinitely. While all of the above expressions are part of the English language, their use by Communists is infinitely more frequent than by the general public. Rather chillingly, the pamphlet also warned that Communists revealed themselves if and when they talked about “McCarthyism,” “violation of civil rights,” “racial or religious discrimination” or “peace.” In other words, they were guilty if they suggested that the government was overstepping its bounds.Via KY on Facebook
From stamps to social media, the history of propaganda - Dan Hancox, The National: Propaganda has acquired a pretty terrible reputation over the years, and it's not hard to see why. This summer's exhibition at the British Library in London, entitled Propaganda: Power and Persuasion, seeks to explore this most maligned of concepts, its roots, differing manifestations and future. The exhibition has been a great success because it rejects any narrow, uncritical definition of the word. "Propaganda is ethically neutral," says Professor David Welch, who wrote the exhibition's accompanying book and advised the British Library on curation - it is not intrinsically good or bad, for it is simply the communication of a message; what is important is to spot persuasion, bias and untruth when it occurs, and to think about who might have a monopoly on its dissemination, and thus on power.
Historically, it's almost always been a pejorative word: "our side" produces information, "your side" produces propaganda. Our government tells the truth, yours tells lies. Propaganda has been compelled to change in recent decades, not least in that governments naming their output as such has become entirely unfashionable since the Second World War; in recent years citizens have instead become sceptical of "spin" and "public relations", and they are right to be, for it serves the exact same purpose: to shape information in the interests of those holding the megaphone. Propaganda has had to adapt to meet its audience in much the same way as commercial advertising has done: the human brain in the consumer age has evolved to become much more resistant to the simplistic messages of the 1930s. Political communications must now drive at the heart of an individual's desire and aspiration, as modern advertising does, rather than simply and plainly stating the merits and specifics of a particular politician, policy or party, as they would've done in the past. This is in part thanks to the work of Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, the so-called "father of PR", who is quoted in the exhibition - the dovetailing of sophisticated commercial messaging and political messaging is no coincidence. Whatever we call it, propaganda is everywhere in our lives. Image from article
Update: More Patriotic 'Captain America' Propaganda Posters - Michael Arbeiter, More Captain America propaganda art is here, in the form of a "Support Our Troops"
poster that highlights Captain America as the ultimate soldier. On the other side of the fight is a poster that insists obedience
MORE VIDEOS
Official releases video showing Syria victims - USA Today
Obama's Propaganda Blitz: More False Flags Need Before WW3 - youtube.com
VIDEO- Fat Libertarian Loses It Over Syrian War Propaganda - youtube.com
AMERICANA
Iowa grants gun permits to the blind - Jason Clayworth, USA Today. Image from article, with caption: Michael Barber and his wife Kim shop for a gun in August 2013.
Kim is showing him how the gun lock fits on the gun. "I think it's perfectly within the realm of possibility and within our rights that a blind person can safely carry a weapon if he or she decide they want to do that," Barber said.
Marine Corps retreats on court-martial charges in Taliban urination case - Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times: The Marine Corps has suddenly dropped criminal charges against an officer in the infamous Taliban urination video case, heading off what promised to be an embarrassing pre-trial hearing for the commandant on Wednesday.
Image from article
"115,109"
--The number of the largest crowd in college football history, for the recent Michigan-Notre Dame game; image from
No comments:
Post a Comment