EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hold Onto Your Underwear: This Is NOT a National Emergency
Let me put American life in the Age of Terror into some kind of context, and then tell me you're not ready to get on the nearest plane heading anywhere, even toward Yemen.
In 2008, 14,180 Americans were murdered, according to the FBI. In that year, there were 34,017 fatal vehicle crashes in the U.S. and, so the U.S. Fire Administration tells us, 3,320 deaths by fire. More than 11,000 Americans died of the swine flu between April and mid-December 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; on average, a staggering 443,600 Americans die yearly of illnesses related to tobacco use, reports the American Cancer Society; 5,000 Americans die annually from food-borne diseases; an estimated 1,760 children died from abuse or neglect in 2007; and the next year, 560 Americans died of weather-related conditions, according to the National Weather Service, including 126 from tornadoes, 67 from rip tides, 58 from flash floods, 27 from lightning, 27 from avalanches, and 1 from a dust devil.
As for airplane fatalities, no American died in a crash of a U.S. carrier in either 2007 or 2008, despite 1.5 billion passengers transported. In 2009, planes certainly went down and people died. In June, for instance, a French flight on its way from Rio de Janeiro to Paris disappeared in bad weather over the Atlantic, killing 226. Continental Connection Flight 3407, a regional commuter flight, crashed into a house near Buffalo, New York, that February killing 50, the first fatal crash of a U.S. commercial flight since August 2006. And in January 2009, US Airways Flight 1549, assaulted by a flock of birds, managed a brilliant landing in New York's Hudson River when disaster might have ensued. In none of these years did an airplane go down anywhere due to terrorism, though in 2007 two terrorists smashed a Jeep Cherokee loaded with propane tanks into the terminal of Glasgow International Airport. (No one was killed.)
The now-infamous Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and his bomb-laden underwear toward Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, had 290 passengers and crew, all of whom survived. Had the inept Abdulmutallab actually succeeded, the death toll would not have equaled the 324 traffic fatalities in Nevada in 2008; while the destruction of four Flight 253s from terrorism would not have equaled New York State's 2008 traffic death toll of 1,231, 341 of whom, or 51 more than those on Flight 253, were classified as "alcohol-impaired fatalities."
Had the 23-year-old Nigerian set off his bomb, it would have been a nightmare for the people on board, and a tragedy for those who knew them. It would certainly have represented a safety and security issue that needed to be dealt with. But it would not have been a national emergency, nor a national-security crisis. It would have been nothing more than a single plane knocked out of the sky, something that happens from time to time without the intervention of terrorists.
And yet here's the strange thing: thanks to what didn't happen on Flight 253, the media essentially went mad, 24/7. Newspaper coverage of the failed plot and its ramifications actually grew for two full weeks after the incident until it had achieved something like full-spectrum dominance, according to the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. In the days after Christmas, more than half the news links in blogs related to Flight 253. At the same time, the Republican criticism machine (and the media universe that goes with it) ramped up on the subject of the Obama administration's terror wimpiness; the global air transport system plunked down millions of dollars on new technology which will not find underwear bombs; the homeland security-industrial-complex had a field day; and fear, that adrenaline rush from hell, was further embedded in the American way of life.
Under the circumstances, you would never know that Americans living in the United States were in vanishingly little danger from terrorism, but in significant danger driving to the mall; or that alcohol, tobacco, E. coli bacteria, fire, domestic abuse, murder, and the weather present the sort of potentially fatal problems that might be worth worrying about, or even changing your behavior over, or perhaps investing some money in. Terrorism, not so much.The few Americans who, since 2001, have died from anything that could be called a terror attack in the U.S. -- whether the 13 killed at Fort Hood or the soldier murdered outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas -- were far outnumbered by the 32 dead in a 2007 mass killing at Virginia Tech University, not to speak of the relatively regular moments when workers or former workers "go postal." Since September 11th, terror in the U.S. has rated above fatalities from shark attacks and not much else. Since the economic meltdown of 2008, it has, in fact, been left in the shade by violent deaths that stem from reactions to job loss, foreclosure, inability to pay the rent, and so on.
This is seldom highlighted in a country perversely convulsed by, and that can't seem to get enough of, fantasies about being besieged by terrorists.
Institutionalizing Fear Inc.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, which had the look of the apocalyptic, brought the fear of terrorism into the American bedroom via the TV screen. That fear was used with remarkable effectiveness by the Bush administration, which color-coded terror for its own ends. A domestic version of shock-and-awe -- Americans were indeed shocked and awed by 9/11 -- helped drive the country into two disastrous wars and occupations, each still ongoing, and into George W. Bush's Global War on Terror, a term now persona non grata in Washington, even if the "war " itself goes on and on.
Today, any possible or actual terror attack, any threat no matter how far-fetched, amateurish, poorly executed, or ineffective, raises a national alarm, always seeming to add to the power of the imperial presidency and threatening to open new "fronts" in the now-unnamed global war. The latest is, of course, in Yemen, thanks in part to that young Nigerian who was evidently armed with explosives by a home-grown organization of a few hundred men that goes by the name al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The fear of terrorism has, by now, been institutionalized in our society -- quite literally so -- even if the thing we're afraid of has, on the scale of human problems, something of the will o' the wisp about it. For those who remember their Cold War fiction, it's more specter than SPECTRE.
That fear has been embedded in what once was an un-American word, more easily associated with Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany: "homeland." It has replaced "country," "land," and "nation" in the language of the terror-mongers. "The homeland" is the place which terrorism, and nothing but terrorism, can violate. In 2002, that terror-embedded word got its own official government agency: the Department of Homeland Security, our second "defense" department, which has a 2010 budget of $39.4 billion (while overall "homeland security" spending in the 2010 budget reached $70.2 billion). Around it has grown up a little-attended-to homeland-security complex with its own interests, businesses, associations, and lobbyists (including jostling crowds of ex-politicians and ex-government bureaucrats).
As a result, more than eight years after 9/11, an amorphous state of mind has manifested itself in the actual state as a kind of Fear Inc. A number of factors have clearly gone into the creation of Fear Inc. and now insure that fear is the drug constantly shot into the American body politic. These would include:
The imperial presidency: The Bush administration used fear not only to promote its wars and its Global War on Terror, but also to unchain the commander-in-chief of an already imperial presidency from a host of restraints. The dangers of terror and of al-Qaeda, which became the global bogeyman, and the various proposed responses to it, including kidnapping ("extraordinary rendition"), secret imprisonment, and torture, turned out to be the royal road to the American unconscious and so to a presidency determined, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others liked to say, to take the gloves off. It remains so and, as a result, under Barack Obama, the imperial presidency only seems to gain ground. Recently, for instance, we learned that, under the pressure of the Flight 253 incident, the Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration position that a president, under certain circumstances, has the authority to order the assassination of an American citizen abroad. (In this case, New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar Aulaqi, who has been linked to the 9/11 plotters, the Fort Hood killer, and Abdulmutallab.) The Bush administration opened the door to this possibility and now, it seems, a Democratic president may be stepping through.
The 24/7 media moment: 24/7 blitz coverage was once reserved for the deaths of presidents (as in the assassination of John F. Kennedy) and public events of agreed-upon import. In 1994, however, it became the coin of the media realm for any event bizarre enough, sensational enough, celebrity-based enough to glue eyeballs. That June, O.J. Simpson engaged in his infamous low-speed car "chase" through Orange County followed by more than 20 news helicopters while 95 million viewers tuned in and thousands more gathered at highway overpasses to watch. No one's ever looked back. Of course, in a traditional media world that's shedding foreign and domestic bureaus and axing hordes of reporters, radically downsizing news rooms and shrinking papers to next to nothing, the advantages of focusing reportorial energies on just one thing at a time are obvious. Those 24/7 energies are now regularly focused on the fear of terrorism and events which contribute to it, like the plot to down Flight 253.
The Republican criticism machine and the media that go with it: Once upon a time, even successful Republican administrations didn't have their own megaphone. That's why, in the Vietnam era, the Nixon administration battled the New York Times so fiercely (and -- my own guess -- that played a part in forcing the creation of the first "op-ed" page in 1970, which allowed administration figures like Vice President Spiro Agnew and ex-Nixon speechwriter William Safire to gain a voice at the paper). By the George W. Bush era, the struggle had abated. The Times and papers like it only had to be pacified or cut out of the loop, since from TV to talk radio, publishing to publicity, the Republicans had their own megaphone ready at hand. This is, by now, a machine chock-a-block full of politicians and ex-politicians, publishers, pundits, military "experts," journalists, shock-jocks, and the like (categories that have a tendency to blend into each other). It adds up to a seamless web of promotion, publicity, and din. It's capable of gearing up on no notice and going on until a subject -- none more popular than terrorism and Democratic spinelessness in the face of it -- is temporarily flogged to death. It ensures that any failed terror attack, no matter how hopeless or pathetic, will be in the headlines and in public consciousness. It circulates constant fantasies about possible future apocalyptic terror attacks with atomic weaponry or other weapons of mass destruction. (And in all of the above, of course, it is helped by a host of tagalong pundits and experts, news shows and news reports from the more liberal side of the aisle.)
The Democrats who don't dare: It's remarkable that the sharpest president we've had in a while didn't dare get up in front of the American people after Flight 253 landed and tell everyone to calm down. He didn't, in fact, have a single intelligent thing to say about the event. He certainly didn't remind Americans that, whatever happened to Flight 253, they stood in far more danger heading out of their driveways behind the wheel or pulling into a bar on the way home for a beer or two. Instead, the Obama administration essentially abjectly apologized, insisted it would focus yet more effort and money on making America safe from air terrorism, widened a new front in the Global War on Terror in Yemen (speeding extra money and U.S. advisors that way), and when the din from its critics didn't end, "pushed back," as Peter Baker of the New York Times wrote, by claiming "that they were handling terror suspects much as the previous administration did." It's striking when a Democratic administration finds safety in the claim that it's acting like a Republican one, that it's following the path to the imperial presidency already cleared by George W. Bush. Fear does that to you, and the fear of terror has been institutionalized at the top as well as the bottom of society.
9/11 Never Ends
Fear has a way of re-ordering human worlds. That only a relatively small number of determined fanatics with extraordinarily limited access to American soil keep Fear Inc. afloat should, by now, be obvious. What the fear machine produces is the dark underside of the charming Saul Steinberg New Yorker cover, "A View of the World from 9th Avenue," in which Manhattan looms vast as the rest of the planet fades into near nothingness.
When you see the world "from 9th Avenue," or from an all-al-Qaeda-all-the-time "news" channel, you see it phantasmagorically. It's out of all realistic shape and proportion, which means you naturally make stupid decisions. You become incapable of sorting out what matters and what doesn't, what's primary and what's secondary. You become, in short, manipulable.
This is our situation today.
People always wonder: What would the impact of a second 9/11-style attack be on this country? Seldom noticed, however, is that all the pin-prick terror events blown up to apocalyptic proportions add up to a second, third, fourth, fifth 9/11 when it comes to American consciousness.
So the next time a Flight 253 occurs and the Republicans go postal, the media morphs into its 24/7 national-security-disaster mode, the pundits register red on the terror-news scale, the president defends himself by reaffirming that he is doing just what the Bush administration would have done, the homeland security lobbyists begin calling for yet more funds for yet more machinery, and nothing much happens, remember those drunken drivers, arsonists, and tobacco merchants, even that single dust devil and say:
Hold onto your underpants, this is not a national emergency.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

95 Comments so far
Show AllFear activates our underlying lizard brain area and we either want to flee (primary instinct) or, if cornered, fight. Here we have both modes activated. We flee into our largely meaningless lives and ease our fear with shopping and fast food. And we fight, anywhere but at home, and for the damned reasons. Just striking out in all directions. And bankrupting ourselves nationally in the process, just as we bankrupt ourselves in our personal lives with over-spending.
Gary
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
-- Anais Nin
So true, people need to escape their fear of death, they'd enjoy their brief moment of existance so much more. Besides, why fear the inevitable?
Who's secret agents helped put Abdulmutallab on the plane in the first place? CIA or Mossad?
The CIA, as I reported awhile ago. It told State not to pull his visa, which allowed him to board the plane. And there are several other "irregularities" similar to how the 9/11 Saudi patsies gained entry to the USA.
The malignant, pathological characteristic of Americn culture that allows, or more accurately, impels this misplaced, outsized reactionary response to occur is xenophobia.
The fear of the swarthy. The distaste for the 'different.'
It happens when the kids at our few remaining integrated schools resegregate themselves at lunch. It happens with the 'white flight' phenom that fuels endless exurban sprawl. It is the life blood of the repub party and the geritol of the dems.
It is the poison that will cause us to self-destruct in a dust devil of immaturity, ignorance and spite.
The greatest threat to america is......ourselves.
Sioux Rose
IOWA: You can't trace this revulsion of "other" to the religious notion of sin and the strong admonition that all those who intend to be saved (from hell) had better toe a very rigid line? When people are taught to live in fear, that their natural urges are wrong, how tolerant can they be of other? Especially when "other" may enact a lifestyle that is far more original, natural, and joy-based.
Granny D had this dynamic pegged. She understood (and spoke about) that persons twisted into the moral equivalent of pretzels, walk around in the same kind of pain as those with pinched nerves. It was also depicted in Easy Rider when the local rednecks show their disgust for the long-haired free-spirited motor cycle riders.
When people are kept on short leashes they resent those who run freely. The authoritarian programming, which is a direct byproduct of religious fundamentalism whether in Orthodox Jews, Islamics, or Christians... is THE thing that makes for intolerance. Then, too, racism, sexism, and class-based snobbery are related ism-divisions taught out of the vileness resulting from the absence of LOVE. I still say religions are quite responsible for this defect since they exist, in theory, to minister to peoples' spiritual needs. They have defaulted on High Principle in a way that runs parallel to the way bankers have fleeced the public of the very meaning of worth. What really is a dollar worth today when the derivatives, timebombs that they represent, are yet to go off? What will that dis-ease, that weapon of mass destruction mean to personal and national economies? There has been a betrayal of trust in all the places where authority was given the responsibility to sustain the common-wealth. I feel the reverberations beginning, like the sense of a vast earthquake.
Eloquent and accurate.
Sioux Rose
COLDWAR BABY: Thank you.
I see your point, SR, but I wonder if it isn't "we the people" of our patriarchal societies who have turned religions into anti-love vehicles. Christianity, I know, begins with "For God so loved the world . . .."
Of course S/He should have known better than to send her/his Son (and why not his daughter?) to a very patriarchal society where the story would be written by a bunch of men. However, there are odd groups of Christians who still believe what was once quite widespread: that Mary was the person sent by God and not Jesus. (There were some of such a sect in Iraq; whether any survived the mess we made of that country I don't know and I don't remember what they were called.) I think this was why the RC church finally endorsed and absorbed the cult of Mary.
Sioux Rose
RAINBOROWE: Anyone who still speaks from INSIDE the paradigm, which is my take on how you're framing your question to me, obviously doesn't recognize the full import of said paradigm. And while men and women are both stuck in it, until they awaken, it is run BY men; and the patriarchal context is deeply damaging to women, while reciprocally crippling their participation in society. When women DO participate, they impart all the attitudes and behaviors consistent with said paradigm. This is not so different from the Black judge who is quite severe in protecting and enforcing a species of justice most unkind (and unfair) to HIS kind. The problems are very deep-seated (with respect to all sorts of conditioning mechanisms there to present the FICTION that the present status quo = reality's only format) and as such, many don't understand these are not the product of human nature OR God's will, but of certain types of human beings who figured out how to manage the herd long ago, beginning with the invention of fictions (inversions of Divine Principle) THEY attribute to god, enforced with deadly power(s). Burning all those women who didn't go along with "that" program was the terror campaign that spanned centuries, and "put women in their place." There was NO voice other than that of the patriarchal church-state allowed! Heretics, be damned.
With the FEMININE side of THE FORCE imprisoned by male equivalent jailers (women were unable to vote, own property, choose their mates, when they wished to bear a child, if they wanted to go out/off on their own unchaperoned) until VERY recently. And now all those rights are in the process of being endangered, if not rescinded. I can appreciate some men in this forum who give this IMPORTANT subject short shrift as they see it as a divisive topic, when the "left" should be united. But I remember reading how some of our Black Sisters got a similar treatment, infused with sexism, when they got involved with radical movements in support of civil rights. Sexism was the first cut in the great pie... and from that quintessential division, disequilibrium began. An imbalance in the very NATURE of what it means to be a person, a blessed person. From this cleaving of the UNIT of humankind came every other ism division. ALL are ghastly. Pretending they don't exist is NOT my idea of an honest coming together of progressive/left factions. I wonder if you "get" what I am saying?
Good piece. Tom E. leaves it to the reader to see all the benefits that accrue to certain interests, both commercial and governmental, from such absurd scare-mongering.
The US can inflict the equivalent of 500 Sept. 11's. on the people of other lands and it barely makes the news.
excellent point, that last sentence, pjd412.
/cm
Sorry for calling you a troll. Now, if you would just give up your bone-headed nuclear advocacy, I would totally rescind it and abase myself as a witless reactionary
"The Republican criticism machine and the media that go with it:"
Why hesitate? Why not mention the Fox and Clear Channel networks? They seem to be subsidiaries of the R.N.C. Or is it the other way around?
GOD BLESS RUSH LIMBAUGH'S AMERIKA!
Excellent article.
Further manipulation of the electorate to continue the Wars in the Mid East and beyond. Next stop: Iran!
- George W. Bush's Global War on Terror, a term now persona non grata in Washington...the "war " itself goes on and on. -
- a new front in the Global War on Terror in Yemen -
The author calls this and doesn't call this the GWOT*, and admits that this unnamed but named war goes on and on, with new fronts in new countries:
I suggest once again that we call it what it is:
DAFT, the Defense against Future Terrorism
I repeat once again - after 9/11 the very first thing that the Bush/Cheney administration did was to steamroll Public Law 107-40 through our feckless and craven Congress.
P.L 107-40 is the mechanism that drives this DAFT war, this Cyclopean fixation on preventing future terrorism against the US.
This insanity will continue as long as Americans (and even Progressives, sadly) ignore this DAFT law.
* GWOT - a made-up MIC term. Why does this author continue to use one of THEIR terms and not ours? It's DAFT, I tell you.
And, after repeal of PL 107-40, maybe we can get rid of the so-called "Patriot Act".
After so many times Could you please explain:
Why call this war "Defense Against Future Terrorism"?
When it is more truly "Offensive For More Terror."
I believe the double meaning of "Daft" as acronym (silly and foolish) is not gonna wake up anyone.
War is more and Daft does not come close.
BRAVO, Tom E. So damn true, and a one more analysis proving the GWOT is a fraud of epic proportions.
I suggest that by using the MIC-term GWOT, you perpetuate the fraud.
It's DAFT.
Ignoring the law that caused this insanity has not accomplished anything. I suggest that we bring attention to the law, and change it.
The author cites danger after danger that is more real than terrorism, yet he and America continue to ignore that this new American zeitgeist of terror-fear is enshrined into law.
Public Law 107-40. That's where we find the cause, that's where we find the solution.
Hi Locust--Please put your comment into an email and send it to Tom. From my own experience, Tom is very open to such suggestions. He can be contacted through the TomDispatch website.
""I suggest that by using the MIC-term GWOT, you perpetuate the fraud.""
*********************************************************************
Perhaps not, when looking at the GWOT being the Ghost War on Terror which I find very appropriate considering our country is treating a few people as WWIII just to keep laundering money for the MICC(this first C is for congressional which I don't leave out as eisenhower did) and it is still a fraud.
The only fear we fear is that from our elected officials and the corporate aristocracy, if you believe their claptrap of terrorism.
samosamo, if you are going to add an extra 'C' to 'MIC', why not an extra 'M' - for mainstream media? They are the 'enablers', after all - and active participants in keeping the population passive and numbed. MMICC?
Quite so, quite so, especially since I view the MSM as obstructor number one which definitely will need dissolution for this country to be returned anything approaching a governement of, for and by the people.
MMICC
Locust, The only place I have found "Defense Against Future Terroism" is in your posts.
Could you tell me where 107-40 is called D.A.F.T. besides yourself?
Thank you, Tom for clarity and truth.
Key word: "manipulable" That is what we are--manipulated. To those who think we are stupid, I'd say more likely easily manipulated, and this is everyone, including those still carrying their Hilary or Obama banners high and those who believe we've been victims of free markets.
Up until the regulated markets were given freedom to screw anyone they wanted, the blue collared workers were doing just fine. The free markets killed our wages, benefits, pensions, and some of jobs.
We don't have free markets--never have, maybe never will. They used the term "free market" because they invested it with goodness and that is how they get what they want. Didn't you hear Obama spout the c*** about bonuses as rewards in free markets? In a free market, everyone of those bank monstrosities would have gone bankrupt. The WTO was organized so that less than 100 transnational corporations could write the rules of international trade. That is anything but a free market. NAFTA, GATT--no real free markets anywhere. If we had free markets in banking, there would be no FDIC or SEC and certainly no bailouts. If we had free markets in health care, the FDA would not pull low cost effective treatments off the market because patented drugs can't compete.
Thom gives the reasons I do not watch network news. All the networks--PBS included--air the same stories with the same emphasis for the same period of time using the same framing and methods of conveying the news. One reason a story is featured is that it presents the United States in a favorable light: How generous we are! How brave our soldiers are! How endearing we are! Another reason is the sheer entertainment value: The boy in the balloon is a perfect example. Then there is the framing: MSM adopts the language of the ruling clique: a "surge", the absurd and inaccurate unemployment numbers, the overhyped GDP numbers which count profits made through speculation as equal to those made honestly through manufacturing production, and so on. And the methods of conveying the news--faked "interviews" with correspondents with Brian Williams' toadying and effusive thanks to them for doing their jobs, the cute anecdotes of couples trying to "make a go of it in these tough times," the insistence that every episode--and episode is what it is--ends with happy, feel-good stories--those methods do nothing for anyone who treasures expert opinion, the presentation of several, not just two--sides of an argument, and desires more than a three minute exploration of a serious topic. The War on Terror finished the evening news for me--it combined all the worst of the things mentioned above. I hope no one is goofy enough to imagine the six-thirty network time slot represents real news.
Sioux Rose
DROSERA: Excellent post. It seems it started either with Jon Bonet Ramsey and/or OJ Simpson. Mass-marketing news as the official stories of the week. And who is it that publishes the list of all those seriously important stories that never get covered by media? I think it might be Robert Weissman? The circus need no longer come to town to serve smoke and mirrors; it's now on a home-delivery system 24/7, and people pay big bucks for the grand bamboozle! Not me! I figure I save at minimum $500 a year by NOT having cable TV. I get to travel with that savings.
SR:
It actually started with deregulation and monopolization of broadcasting under Clinton and Reagan. "Talk Radio" became wall-to-wall Rush Limbo and TV "news" became Celeb cotton-candy.
What really gets my goat is that "We, the People" actually OWN those airwaves; that's something we, and our elected representatives, seem to have lost sight of. I can remember people getting a few minutes of broadcast time to respond to allegations made against them or their business on TV or Radio news; that was one of the regulations that got lost. Others determined the amount and content of legitimate news, of advertising, and the amount of local news and programming required of anyone getting to broadcast on OUR airwaves. Well, not so much mine; I moved 4 years ago and never bothered to plug the TV in. It remains as a handy plant stand.
Sioux Rose
RAINBOROWE: I am quite aware that WE own the airwaves, and on at least 2 occasions mentioned an important essay that appeared in Harper's discussing the great bandwidth giveaway, and what it would mean in the form of NOT making otherwise-expensive time available to political candidates. The same fellow (I can't recall his name) was on C-span after he penned the piece, and very wisely laid out what this heist meant and still means, since the predominant reason why candidates become political whores is that they need the $ to run all those TV ads. There is a high statistical correlation between the $ spent on an election (ads being the key expense) and the probability of winning it. So. Sold out, there, too. And under Clinton was also the sell-out of labor via NAFTA, and the sell-out of banks, via the repeal/or laxity towards the intelligent regulations delivered through Glass-Steagall, etc. I am NOT a Clinton fan, and did not realize the degree to which both parties serve the same beast until first NADER mentioned it, and then many aware posters from this forum broke down the nature of the ruse with unassailable evidence. So here we are...
Thank you for this article putting a brighter light on the topic of public safety.
I might add that 45,000 Americans die each year just because they have no health insurance. Another 90,000 die from medical errors. As a nation, we don't seem upset about either these deaths or those you enumerate in the article.
If we are serious about keeping Americans safe, single payer universal health care would be a terrific place to start. It (HR-676) could be passed via reconciliation or, at the least, S-703 requiring no federal obstacles to states' establishing their own single payer plans.
I don't fly, mainly because I have no need to. But if I did fly I would be more concerned over tiered pilots, shoddy maintenance by cash strapped airlines, and the invasion of privacy you have to go through to board an airplane now a days. Plus how do I know that I'm not on the no fly list? I can't find out until I try to get on a plane.
So I'll stick to land and see travel. Flying is for the birds, IMHO anyway...
Points well taken, NC-Tom.
As others have aptly noted, a most well written article by Mr. Engelhardt. By having the Republicans, and now the Democrats, deliberately instilling fear and hysteria onto the American people, they have gone a long way in ensuring that the terrorists have won, if not a military victory, then certainly a moral one.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and millions being spent on 'Defense'".-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
Exactly. And, Tom E. clearly demonstrates Why we need to reconvene a Real Investigation of the so-called "attack" of 9/11/01.
Without that neo-con contrived "New Pearl Harbor", Cheney, Rummy and Bushy would have had no basis for even dreaming about invading Iraq and spreading Christian love and democracy into the oil-rich ME.
We've been duped and continually propagandized for decades. Everyone should just remember for one moment - Seeing is Not Always Believing.....
Until the American people can understand that 9/11 was an 'imagineered event' designed for the purpose of scaring the BeJeebus out of everyone...we are screwed.
"Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff."
--George Carlin
Utter bullshit...its the MEDIA stupid! I am not , was not will not be terrified, I Know a lot of people, they are bored and frusrated, even disghusted, but they are not terrorised, never were. even during 911 most were nervous that it was a FAKE.
The media insists there is fear, where thre is no fear,, this article included. The FEAR factor is in fact the MEDIA talking to itself, going "Boy are we ever terrified!!'
IT IS MANUFACTURED "fear', FOR MANUFACTURED CONSENT, to do all kinds of nasty expensive shit.
What is terrifyng is that somehow people believe what the TV tells them they are feeling.
too too wierd.
"It's striking when a Democratic administration finds safety in the claim that it's acting like a Republican one, that it's following the path of the imperial presidency already cleared by George W. Bush. Fear does that to you, and the fear of terror has been institutionalized at the top as well as the bottom of society." -Tom Englehardt
In this otherwise excellent and insightful article, I think this particular claim substantially misses the mark.
The Obama White House inner circle political brain trust doesn't act as it does out of fear, as if on cue in Pavlovian reaction to the latest fit of hysteria being hyped on Faux News. Rahm and the boys are not wimps. The problem is that the Obama administration has gone tone deaf, and keeps making inept, sometimes colossally stupid decisions on important public policy issues simply in the narrow, two-party partisan self-interest sense.
If Barack Obama were in fact acting like a Republican, "following the path of the imperial presidency already cleared by George W. Bush", he would have closed Guantanamo on schedule and relocated all of the detainees to be tried into super-max federal prisons stateside - preferably say in red state Leavenworth, Kansas, so that Gop. Senator Pat Roberts would shoulder accountability for the torture and detention policies that Roberts personally enabled during the Bush/Cheney era.
An imperial president would never have given Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the blue dog Congressional Dems responsibility for drafting a true national health care reform bill along the lines that his base constituency, and the American public, overwhelmingly supports. An imperial president would have sent Wall Street/banking regulatory reform legislation to Congress months ago, rather than watching from the sidelines while populist anger over the great economic crash of 2008 morphs into a right wing Teabagger phenomenon.
Imperial presidents do not keep extending out the hand of bipartisan friendship so that it can be repeatedly bitten by the likes of Joe Lieberman.
This is not really fear at work among Washington's new team of executive branch elites.
It is a mixture of naive governing style, ineptitude when it comes to elementary DC beltway gamesmanship, and bad policy choices on important matters of substance.
Bill from Saginaw
That makes sense Bill, while Obama is sitting at the head of an empire, he does not act like an emperor, more like the lead in a stupid Jerry Lewis movie in which the boob becomes by some amazing circumstances the ruler of some corrupt little country, Running around making messes right and left. But unlike a Hollywood movie the reality does not promise a happy ending.
But I might argue that fear does play a role -- fear of failure that drives them to do just what they fear the most -- fail.
Gary
"Fear is not the natural state of civilized people."
-- Aung San Kyi
gdgoodman:
That is the best and most concise summary of the current incumbent of the WH that I have seen. And visually plausible: he already has the young Jerry Lewis's body and his face morphs quite easily into Jerry's, too!
Meanwhile our government is spending $4,000,000.00 to build a brand new TSA screening facility at the miniscule airport in Owl's Head Maine. This airport processes only a handful of passengers a day.
Would you like Pork with your mangled luggage today?
Sioux Rose
BYSTANDER: Thanks for the laugh. Well-said.
The hysteria associated with the "War on Terra" has been ridiculous in the extreme. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"- ie, the routine causes of death that pose real threats to life and liberty. This is all about the monopolization of media by the rethuglican machine. That didn't change with the change in the White House. It's as if Dubyuh were still in the WH and bleating his incoherent blather about 'Terra' 24/7/365.
One important point never discussed in this article, or anywhere in the media, is that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was not "discovered" by the military. Instead he was disabled by citizens, and the intelligence community knew of him. But no military were involved.
The GWoT has been predicated on concepts that the "military will keep us safe", that the "good fight" is to prevent us from fighting terrorists on our soil. Yet for all that bluster, the military have not once been involved in the arrest or conviction of alleged terrorists on or en-route to US soil.
So WTF is the military doing?
I, and others, have long stated that the problem of terrorism is best met by a police response, not a military response. As we have seen, our military have been brought to a standstill by some goat herders. They have not uncovered any plots for doing us harm. The military has in fact done nothing except fan the flames of discontent. The military response to the GWoT has been nothing but a welfare/jobs program.
>>>WTF: I, and others, have long stated that the problem of terrorism is best met by a police response, not a military response.
Yes, treat it as a crime, and pursue the criminals - all the way up to the masterminds and the enablers. It should be possible to do this through Interpol - if necessary, by *greatly* strengthening this network. Choke off the finances to terrorist groups. If it turns out that some state sponsors are involved, put them on notice - and be public about it. I'm sure there will be international support for such a position. All this can be done on a routine basis - through co-ordination between intelligence agencies, police, financial watchdogs, etc. Without involving the military at all - leaving it to take care of any *direct* threat to security from another military.
The reason that this won't work is that some people want to have it both ways. Some 'terrorist groups' might have been handy proxies in the past, some state sponsors might be considered "allies" and "customers" (for the weapons industry) and some state sponsors are useful tools in an imperial agenda. So it all gets more complicated, you see?
Excellent article that needs repeating over and over since neocon foreign policy is firmly in place and advancing its agenda further.
The old PNAC website explained this years ago: in order to mobilize a complacent USA behind the Establishment, a new enemy needs to be invented and a "new Pearl Harbor" was necesary. The Soviet Union was no longer around, the wildly exaggerated threats from the USSR could no longer be used for Fear Inc.
To replace them "Al Quaida" was invented. (See "Power of Nighmares, BBC2 2004) to be the new bogeyman.
When anyone talks of "terrorism" they betray themselves as the enemy of the people. Just about every elected official we have is our real enemy, rigth here at home in the USA.
Woody Guthrie was right so many years ago when he proclaimed that the fascists were not only in Nazi Germany, but right here in the USA
Tom E,
Well done, Sir, well done.
I want to lay some of this at the foot of the Educational Industrial complex that fails to teach critical thinking and doesn't teach media awareness. Media education needs to be added to sex education if we are to have a stronger democracy. It will be a fight, for the corporations and their lackeys in Congress don't want us to think when they sell us fear. But as a teacher, I do it in my own way. All other teachers should have a week teaching propaganda techniques and how to not be duped by any media outlets. Just remember, be fair and balanced.
Peace,
Tex Shelters