By introducing a new vaccine, the United States scored a key victory today in the war against prostate cancer. With the win, the U.S. secured a bronze medal in the World Warfare Cup. Here are the standings:

1. Drugs (beat U.S. 11-0, continuing a winning streak that dates back to the 1980’s)
2. Terror (beat U.S. 4-0 with three own goals)
3. United States
4. Prostate cancer

Note: earlier reports of a decisive U.S. victory over Terror in a poorly attended match held in Afghanistan turned out to be incorrect. The winner of that match was, in fact, Drugs.

See this video starting at 5 minutes 43 seconds, or this interview, for more information.

The international NGO Reporters Without Borders, which advocates freedom of the press, releases an annual worldwide press freedom index. Countries are ranked on the basis of surveys designed to record any kind of harassment of journalists and state violence against them that forces them to flee or abandon their work. In 2002, under Saddam Hussein and his draconian control of the media, Iraq ranked a dismal 130. In 2006, after three years of U.S. occupation, Iraq fell to 154. The NGO has also declared Iraq to be among the world’s worst hostage market, with 38 journalist kidnappings in three years.

–Dahr Jamail, from “Another Casualty: Coverage of the Iraq War” (emphasis mine)

You got that right…according to Reporters Without Borders, press freedom is WORSE today in Iraq that it was under Hussein. Partly this is just because the situation is so violent there that no one is safe, especially not people who have to gather information in different parts of town. Anything you can say will offend somebody, and somebody probably has a gun. But it’s also the consequence of direct suppression, such as the 2004 shutdown of al-Jazeera. It’s remarkable how many self-described freedom-loving Americans see nothing wrong with that. I mean, supposing Clinton had shut down Fox News for their negative coverage and endless, anti-government hit-pieces? It strikes me there would have been some ruckus about that. But it’s really only Americans whose freedom of speech counts; for everyone else, freedom means being Americanized. That’s the premise of American imperialism, and it always has been, ever since the days of disease-carrying blankets and prairie missionaries. If you self-consciously, articulately disagree with that, you’re considered disloyal…which, considering what you’re supposed to be loyal to, YOU ARE.

The U.S. directly manipulates and controls media in Iraq, planting stories partly to affect public opinion there, partly to affect it back here. The American government does not hesitate to censor. For example, according to Jamail’s article, Iraq’s Media High Commission sent a letter on the prime minister’s letterhead warning reporters to, “Stick to the government line on the U.S. led offensive in Fallujah or face legal action,” and “set aside space in your news coverage to make the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis, clear.”

Before anyone gets mad over the title of my post, let me state explicitly that it’s meant in a sarcastic spirit, and of course Hussein’s suffocating dictatorship was anything but “anything goes” for journalists. That makes this report, if it’s even remotely justified, all the sadder.

The only thing I would take issue with in the paragraph I quoted above is the last sentence, in which Reporters Without Borders calls Iraq “among the world’s worst hostage markets, with 38 journalist kidnappings in three years.” It seems to me that would make it among the world’s best hostage markets. Let’s face it: if you going to plunk down some good money to get a hostage, the thing you want is SELECTION.

Fake news…it’s not just Jon Stewart and The Onion, but the regular news that’s full of shit. Here is a fascinating history of fake news in America…it goes back much further than you might think!

_____________________________________________________

Another clueless corporate media reporter falsifies Reagan’s atrocious record on — well, pretty much everything, but in this case Central America. The pretense that he supported human rights there is particularly nauseating.

Let me state for the record: any “historian” who considers Reagan a great, a good, or even an acceptable president, I have no respect for. He was much like W, except that he operated under more restraints. He took a right wing, usually quite unpopular position on every significant issue. He was an enemy of the poor and of civil liberties, he undermined the working class majority every way he could, and with Iran-Contra he made a mockery of constitutional government. He brutalized Central America under the pretense of fighting communism, although the movements “we” were fighting weren’t even Communist. He manufactured the first ever super-sized peacetime budget deficits by combining humongous tax cuts for the rich with massive military spending increases, which his administration justified by slanting intelligence to exaggerate Soviet strength. And he brought down Communism in the same sense that Nixon brought down acid rock.

The “great communicator”? On TV, Reagan was known mostly for his use of simple-minded anecdotes to “prove” sweeping points, for his inability or unwillingness to make elementary distinctions between truth and falsehood, and for his frequent, politically costly gaffes. Widely considered the least electable major Republican candidate in 1980, he unsurprisingly won anyway against the highly unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter after a campaign in which Reagan’s own team admitted he performed poorly, endangering his once-massive lead with risky statements until, on the eve of the election, the race was too close to call. In the end Reagan won big, but only because he dominated the last-minute, “hold your nose” vote; dissatisfaction with the incumbent was, as usual, simply more important to voters than doubts about the challenger.

Once Reagan took office, his approval ratings shot up and down like a roller coaster; as with most presidents, they primarily reflected the state of the economy. Among all the presidents since Gallup started polling in the 1930’s, Reagan’s average approval ratings were, well, average — smack dab in the middle of the pack. (The same goes for his “personal likability” ratings, for whatever little that may be worth.) He did have the good fortune to have his popularity at its peak just in time for the 1984 and 1988 elections — and the nation consequently had the bad fortune of having eight more years with Republican presidents.

On the other hand, for any readers too young to remember the old goat, if you haven’t learned your history, I can’t blame you if you think he was some sort of demigod. After all, isn’t that exactly what you’ve always been told?

_____________________________________________________

Huge story from Seymour Hersh, completely ignored by the corporate media, showing that some of the people “we” are supposed to be fighting may well be directed from Cheney’s office:

THE REDIRECTION:
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

Now, I don’t buy into his subtitle at all. There’ s no such thing as a war on terror, any more than there’s such a thing as a war on tanks. You cannot fight a tactic, only specific users of it. But although Hersh more or less accepts Acting President Bush’s account of what happened on 9/11, and doesn’t cleanly break with the cause of American imperalism, he is nevertheless an effective critic of it — within his limits — and an excellent journalist.

If this is a post, then what is a pole?

I don’t know, but polls show most Americans don’t like Poles.