--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/Higdon062202/higdon062202.html
Now is not the time to question those who ask questions
By James Higdon
Online Journal Contributing Editor
June 22, 2002�The biggest blow to democracy is the loss of the
people's right to question their leaders. The conduits of inquiry,
oversight by Congress and the national press, are ignoring the
people's right to be informed in this election year. Perhaps it is
because of this dark void confronting us that progressives and other
members of the curious have turned their questions on each other, and
the courage to ask questions of power seems to be crumbling. Those in
power are becoming increasingly arrogant by virtue of their free
pass, while those who still possess the courage to question are being
turned on by their former allies.
The failures of our current Congress are legion. They have provided a
usurper with a rubber stamp to blot out the Bill of Rights, and there
are very few in Washington who have stood up early and often to be
counted for freedom. Even one of Congress' most well known
progressives, Paul Wellstone, has voted on critical issues to allow
Bush and Ashcroft their secrecy and to ride roughshod over the
Constitution. The pink tutus heaped on the Democrats by BartCop are
well deserved. High poll numbers or not, Congress fails the people if
they refuse to provide oversight of the executive branch.
Bush's arrogance is far more open than his "government." After a year
and a half in office, he has never once given an open press
conference where the subjects of questions weren't limited to allow
prepared soundbites in response. His flight from harm on September
11, 2001 was nothing short of a national embarrassment. When he lied
about the reasons for his excursions�no further questions by the
national press. When he is forced by circumstance to confront the
American people, he cowardly chooses crowd control over confrontation.
There is no doubt that Bush's advance men instructed the
administration at Ohio State University to threaten protesters, who
wanted to do nothing more than to turn their backs on Bush, with
arrest and expulsion if they so demonstrated. In 1996, Bill Clinton,
speaking at that same university, welcomed the loud heckling from
Freepers; even going so far as to laud them for exercising their
First Amendment rights, while chastising them for their rudeness in
attempting to interfere with the rights of those who wanted to hear
him speak. The point must be emphasized that those seeking to protest
at OSU on June 14 did not wish to prevent Bush from being heard. They
merely wished to demonstrate their displeasure with the Bush/Ashcroft
destruction of individual liberty by turning their backs on a man who
is only president because the people's right to select their leaders
was interfered with by an ethics-free Supreme Court. Ironic, isn't it?
One must also question the ethics and the courage of the
administration of OSU. After spending four years educating these
young people to think for themselves, on graduation day the
administration instructed its students not to do so, and to offer
themselves up as the propaganda tool of an administration whose
legitimacy is, to say the least, highly questionable.
The passivity of the Washington press corps has been spoken of so
often that we need not dwell on it here. What has become remarkable
is the sudden loss of focus displayed by many on the progressive web.
Both Norman Solomon and David Corn have written recently to discredit
those (specifically Michael Rupert) who logically speculate that the
White House knew much more about the threat of terrorist attacks on
9/11 than revealed. Perhaps the Bushistas even knew of a major
threat, but allowed it to happen to reap the obvious benefits for
their own agendas. But Solomon and Corn don't want us to ask, and if
we do so, we are to be labeled, "kooks."
I'm not exactly certain what Bush knew, and when he knew it, but it
doesn't take a leap of logic to understand that the Bush family is
far more interested in profit than people, and large profit is what
has happened to the Bush family and friends following September 11.
Following what was in the wind prior to September 11, one finds a
pretty strong case that there was certainly enough information to
take some action, even if it was only to put airports on high alert,
and to issue passenger watch lists. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to understand that military aircraft are constantly ready
to intercept planes that represent a danger inside American borders,
but no aircraft were scrambled until it was far too late, even though
US fighter planes had ample time to reach three of the four hijacked
aircraft before they had reached their targets.
Conspiracy is a crime that reaches back to the very beginnings of the
Common Law. The crime wasn't invented so that the paranoid would find
ample opportunity to occupy their time. Conspiracies exist. People
are tried and convicted of them every day. Law enforcement
investigates their possibility every hour. And major US government
conspiracies (either government sponsored, or sponsored by political
officials) have been uncovered in nearly every decade of the last
century. When Congress reexamined the Kennedy assassination in the
late 1970s and determined that there was a conspiracy, it was merely
an acknowledgment that Oswald could not have acted alone. Rupert and
others are not claiming to know exactly what happened prior to, and
on September 11, 2001. They are raising legitimate questions that
Solomon and Corn should be asking, or criticizing others for failing
to ask.
But, the same as progressives, the crime of conspiracy has now been
marginalized. Anyone who looks for the crime is a wild-eyed, paranoid
lunatic. And yet, while attempting to discredit the messengers,
Solomon and Corn have done nothing to discredit their evidence. They
seem to profess that a conspiracy should never be considered unless
it is proven beyond reasonable doubt first, even though, because of
the nature of conspiracies, the crime rarely finds a conviction
without one leap of logic by a jury�the multiple actions (or
inactions) and events would not have occurred absent an agreement. I
suggest that Solomon and Corn fear being so marginalized along with
the rest of us. They ought to at least ask the emperor to feel the
material before complimenting him on his fine clothes.
Solomon's and Corn's fear of being "marginalized," however, is real
and understandable. Maintaining their public profile, as they do,
through the Internet, they are in real danger. It is that same danger
that was felt by Salon when it attempted to discredit a fellow
progressive website, Media Whores Online. In an already much
discussed hit piece by Jennifer Liberto, Salon's report asserted that
none of the information on MWO can be trustworthy, nor their
questions legitimate, unless one knows with certainty the identity of
the human elements behind the website.
The big mystery about why Salon would publish an attempted hit piece
by Jennifer Liberto about Media Whores Online is fairly easy to solve
by merely looking at Salon's recent reporting. It is the same reason
that The Nation's website continues to publish the rantings of
Christopher Hitchens (the new darling of the neo-cons), and Salon
publishes the often ridiculous/scary David Horowitz (who is currently
advocating that the FBI return to spying on Americans). Ultimately it
is the same reason that media whore Tim Russert (never leave out that
he is an "unbiased independent") sets his sights to attack Democrats
and to give Republicans a free pass every week on NBC's Meet the
Press. Perhaps it is the same reason that Solomon and Corn seem to be
hedging their bets.
First off, let me say that I have no idea who is responsible for MWO.
Nor do I care, as long as it is there for my perusal on a daily
basis. MWO is consistently one of the most accurate, entertaining,
and informative sites on the World Wide Web. And it no doubt galls
Salon that MWO's popularity has grown in leaps and bounds. I have
heard it said that MWO is read by everyone in Washington, DC, and I
have frequently heard it referenced on talk shows. MWO has done this
without pressing for donations, as other progressive websites must to
survive, and without posting any adds or pop up windows. It has also
achieved its success without requiring a subscription fee, and Salon
does all of these.
However, in an article published by Salon prior to the Liberto piece,
the motivation to attack MWO, whose popularity is a growing concern
to the extreme right, is revealed. That particular article, "Getting
a lock on broadband," by Jeffrey Benner, is something for which Salon
deserves praise, because it is about an issue which even seems to
have slipped under the radar of MWO. "Getting a lock on broadband,"
if one reads between the lines, reveals that Salon's motivation to
carry out at least some of the bidding of the ultra right is
business, money, and a genuine fear for their own professional
survival. Salon is fearful that anything other than token liberalism
has very little chance of surviving in the very near future.
Benner's article sets up the issue in black and white. There has been
much discussion of how broadcasters have been deregulated, eliminated
the fairness doctrine, and that ownership has consolidated to a
minimum number of diverse news outlets. It allows mega-corporations
to control the news content in order support whatever politics
ownership prefers. Well, my friends, the same thing is about to
happen to the Internet, the last refuge of the educated and the
fascistically challenged.
The second paragraph of Benner's article states:
"In March, the FCC ruled that cable companies do not have to open
their networks to competing Internet service providers, or ISPs. A
FCC proposal to extend the same exemption to DSL service is pending.
If approved, the proposal will allow local phone companies, now down
to four 'Baby Bells,' to deny other DSL providers access to local
phone networks. Currently, all DSL providers are guaranteed access to
phone networks under the FCC's interpretation of federal
telecommunications law." (emphasis added)
What that means is that four mega-corporations will now control the
American Internet. Each will be able to filter, and allow the user to
link only to those sites the provider wishes to allow access to. What
that means is that those who wish to be included had better start
playing ball now. Online Journal, BartCop, Democratic Underground,
Smirking Chimp, MWO, and others too numerous to name, won't
technically be censored (after all, if they want access they can
start up their own Baby Bells), but we all know that something that
waddles, quacks, swims, and flies is a duck. Salon and other websites
may well be auditioning for the role of token "librul." In order to
survive they will have to become to Internet news and commentary what
George Stephonopoulis and Dede Meyers have become to broadcast news
and commentary.
I'd like to offer to Salon, Solomon and Corn that this, too, is a
conspiracy. No . . . it doesn't likely involve cigar smoking Mafia
types plotting around a table in the back room, but it is a
conspiracy nonetheless. The corporate whores in Congress, of which
George W. Bush is their current champion, are offering untold riches
to four corporations. Would you really think that there is no
expected quid pro quo here? Under legal theories of conspiracy, a
wink and a nudge is all that is necessary for an agreement for a
wrongful purpose to exist. The wrongful purpose is the destruction of
the First Amendment.
To those who still consider themselves progressive thinkers, now is
not the time to position oneself for after the coup is complete. Now
is the time for courage, and to fight to keep your principles and
ideals intact. Your duty is to question, not to question those who
question, while there is still time.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/xYTolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
