How can they, they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them. REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Denial and Deception > Karen, > > It appears that people don't care about any deception. > > Or, at least 68% of them don't care. > > Harry > -------------------------------------------------- > > Karen wrote: > > >Krugman wrote: After all, suppose that a politician or a journalist admits > >to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a > >war on false pretenses is, to say the least, a breach of trust. So if you > >admit to yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation > >to demand accountability and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, > >ruthless political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to > >believe that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It's a > >scary prospect. > > > >The New Republic article by Judis and Ackerman that Krugman referred to as > >magisterialis too large to attach and pass through FWs filter, (I MB) but > >if anyone wants to read it in a easy to read Word format, (11 pages) > >please contact me. Otherwise, its at > ><http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003>http://www.t nr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003. > > > > > >I dont think its a matter of naivete. You have to open peoples mind to > >their deception gently. It you accuse someone of being willfully stupid > >and willingly deceived, they will be even more defensive and retreat into > >denial. > > > >It is my instinctive feeling that the American public is weary of scandal, > >beginning in importance with the travesty that was the Clinton sex > >scandals that led to a sham impeachment proceeding, calling into question > >the motive and intent of all subsequent and more relevant, legitimate > >reasons for it in our checks and balances. Many people felt "used" by the > >excesses of the Starr Report as they saw life return to normal, Clinton's > >job approval ratings surviving right up to the end when the pardoning > >scandals unleashed yet another wave of mental overload. > > > >Who knows what it will take for comatose America to wake up? I suspect > >something dramatic will have to come to light, more than leaked stories by > >enraged intelligence officials, stories from soldiers returning from the > >war, a jobless recovery confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt and the best > >efforts of the corporate media to hide it. Besides a smoking gun, which > >hopefully the article above will provide catalyst for, we need people to > >be brave enough to look at their communities and neighborhoods, to the > >families affected by joblessness, being shut out of higher education by > >rising tuition and fewer scholarships, by homelessness and the increase in > >personal crimes (domestic abuse, rape) venting personal emasculation, and > >the declining prospects for real health care and retirement for millions > >of people who have put a lifetime into Social Security who are feeling > >betrayed. > > > > It is very discouraging to read that the Bush campaign is already > > halfway to its fundraising goals, with the reality of what that money can > > buy, but this simple overdone greediness may wake a few people up to the > > presence of a real threat to the election process and practicing > > democracy. I remain hopeful, because I must. Maybe that is part of the > > syndrome, too, however; that we don't want to know how bad it is and hold > > onto the dream that it is still working, real and viable. > > > >Some of us are working fervently and diligently, some of us carefully and > >incrementally. Some of us are ostriches, some dreamers, some of us > >rabble-rousers. We may fail, but I'll be damned if I am going to sit by > >silently and passively. What we need is an abundant sense of outrage and > >civic call to duty. - KWC > > > >REH wrote: I agree Keith, > >They are all being almost beyond naive but devious. I don't even watch > >Russert and the others that I used to watch religiously. Their > >questions are obvious and the shape that they put to them constitutes > >spin. There is not longer and explorations but a bi-polar spin to > >everything. Its absolutely parliamentary. Something that is > >definitely an immigrant to this soil. We used to be about negotiation > >and compromise. Today we are about class. Sound familiar? > > > >KH wrote: The blurb on the NYT e-mail says, of Paul Krugman's latest Op-ed: > > > <<<< > >There is no longer any doubt that we were deceived into war. The key > >question now is why so many influential people are unwilling to admit the > >obvious. > > > >Surely the answer is obvious. Is not the NYT and Krugman being a > >teeny-weeny bit naive? The idea of an occupation of Iraq as a fallback > >secondary source of oil in the case of instability within Saudi Arabia had > >long been on the books -- not in the State Department itself, maybe, but > >certainly in the Bush Senior, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle group. Then, when it > >became clear that it was a group of predominantly Saudi Arabian fanatics > >that caused September 11, this was final confirmation that SA was a far > >more unstable country than even the Bush-Cheney group realised. The > >uncertain situation in the Middle East could no longer be left in the air. > >Of course, no one is willing to admit the obvious! To say publicly that > >the Americans were guaranteeing their oil supplies by invading Iraq would > >be almost a declaration of war against the whole of the Moslem world > >because the implication is that they might be prepared to invade Saudi > >Arabia or Iran next. If Osama bin Laden and a bunch of amateurs could take > >out the World Trade Centre, what could the governments of Iran, Saudi > >Arabia, Syria and Pakistan do between them? Placing a suitcase nuclear > >bomb somewhere near the White House would be a relatively easy operation > >by terrorist group given a nod and wink by these governments. Unlikely, > >maybe, but quite feasible. > > > >Instead, by invading a country whose President was demonstrably a monster > >(even though an ex-ally), the Americans have been able, so far, to > >establish their determination to guarantee their oil supplies by proxy > >without actually making a frontal attack on Islam itself. So far, the > >Americans have skirted disaster by a razor's edge. > > > >The influential people Krugman alludes to know what it's all about, but > >they are certainly not silly enough to talk about it publicly. Nor is Tony > >Blair or Jack Straw, our foreign secretary, or Geiff Hoon, our defence > >minister. The whole of the Middle East, and Israel in particular, could be > >a disaster area if America were too honest about what they're really about. > > > >DENIAL AND DECEPTION @ > ><http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/opinion/24KRUG.html>http://www.nytimes.c om/2003/06/24/opinion/24KRUG.html > >Paul Krugman > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
