November 18, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Media

Bombshell: Senator Suggested False Flag Attack To Kennedy 2 Years Prior To Operation Northwoods Proposal

August 31, 2012 By 1 Comment

Originally posted by Mr.H on share.banoosh.com

According to newly released documents by the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library, former Californian democratic senator George Smathers proposed an Operation Northwoods style false flag attack on Gitmo to then Massachusetts senator Kennedy. The Guardian reports Kennedy and Smathers were seriously entertaining the possibility of assassinating Fidel Castro. Kennedy was obviously against the entire idea. Smathers went on to propose the option of bombing American troops to provide an excuse for military intervention in Cuba. Significant about Smather’s confessions is the now apparent fact that the idea of bombing the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay was obviously floating in political circles as well as military ones some time before the actual formalization of the false flag proposals in the Operation Northwoods documents, ultimately rejected by President Kennedy in 1962. The other significant aspect of the confession by Smathers is that the proposals described within Northwoods in March of 1962 literally reflect the false flag proposal submitted to Kennedy in 1960 by senator Smathers.

In the freshly released documents by the JFK Memorial Library, Smathers- who frequently joined John F. Kennedy on trips to the south- admits that he proposed the idea of a false flag attack on Gitmo during a conversation with the President-to-be. After the “killing Castro” propiosal was discarded by Kennedy, Smathers suggested provoking an incident at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay on the eastern tip of Cuba as a pretext for a US invasion. Smathers:

“I did talk to him about a plan of having a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and do the job. He asked me to write him something about it. And I think I did.”

As noted this very proposal by Smathers in 1960 is stunningly similar to the infamous Northwoods document, signed by chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff propose some pretty criminal things, among which the one proposed by Smathers to Kennedy in 1960. Under “Incidents to establish a credible attack” the Joint Chiefs came up with the following proposals in regards to the US naval base at Gitmo:

1- Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
2- Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
3- Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4- Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
5- Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6- Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7- Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
8- Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
9- Capture militia group which storms the base.
10- Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires.
11- Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

In a February 2 1962 memorandum titled “Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba,” written by Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project outlines Operation Bingo- a plan to “create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba.”

In the context of Operation Mongoose, a highly classified US military operation, the refusal of Kennedy to put his signature under the before mentioned proposals is especially significant. According to countless sources from inside and outside the American intelligence communities, Mongoose was the infrastructure under which the assassination of Kennedy in ’63 has been carried out. Mongoose was in fact one of the largest covert operations ever conducted in the United States. It involved universities, military bases, individuals, businesses and government agencies- all neatly compartmentalized, of course.

Later, just about the time the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted their operation Northwoods document to the President, Smathers recalled Kennedy telling him:

“George, I’d love to have you over … but I want you to do me a favour. I’d like to visit with you, I want to discuss things with you but I don’t want you to talk to me anymore about Cuba.”

Smathers said he didn’t bring it up again until the President invited him to an informal dinner some time after:

“I remember the President was actually fixing our own dinner and I raised the question of Cuba and what could be done and so on,” he related. “And I remember that he took his fork and just hit his plate and it cracked and he said, ‘Now, dammit, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Let’s quit talking about this subject.”

The revealing aspects of the Smathers confessions released by the JFK Memorial Library can hardly be overestimated. By the time Kennedy was presented with Operation Northwoods, he must have recognized the striking similarities to the Gitmo false flag proposal by Smathers. And just like in 1960, he firmly rejected the plans.

Source: https://share.banoosh.com/2012/08/21/bombshell-senator-suggested-false-flag-attack-to-kennedy-2-years-prior-to-operation-northwoods-proposal/

Filed Under: Corruption, Crime, Cuba, False Flag Attacks, Law, Media, Military, Murder, Politics, Tyranny, USA, War

US Teen Invents Advanced Cancer Test Using Google

August 31, 2012 By 1 Comment

Originally posted on bbc.co.uk, August 20, 2012

Fifteen-year-old high school student Jack Andraka likes to kayak and watch the US television show Glee.

And when time permits, he also likes to do advanced research in one of the most respected cancer laboratories in the world.

Jack Andraka has created a pancreatic cancer test that is 168 times faster and considerably cheaper than the gold standard in the field. He has applied for a patent for his test and is now carrying out further research at Johns Hopkins University in the US city of Baltimore.

And he did it by using Google.

The Maryland native, who won $75,000 at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in May for his creation, cites search engines and free online science papers as the tools that allowed him to create the test.

The BBC’s Matt Danzico sat down with the teenager, who said the idea came to him when he was “chilling out in biology class”.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19291258

Filed Under: Biotechnology, Cancer, Chemistry, Health, Media, Positive, Science, Technology

Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

August 30, 2012 By 4 Comments

Originally posted by Christina Bonnington and Spencer Ackerman on Wired.com, August 30, 2012

It seemed like a simple enough idea for an iPhone app: Send users a pop-up notice whenever a flying robots kills someone in one of America’s many undeclared wars. But Apple keeps blocking the Drones+ program from its App Store — and therefore, from iPhones everywhere. The Cupertino company says the content is “objectionable and crude,” according to Apple’s latest rejection letter.

A mockup of developer Josh Begley’s drone-strike app for iOS. Wired.com

It’s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program’s New York-based developer. The company’s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia “not useful.” Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there’s this crude content problem.

Begley is confused. Drones+ doesn’t present grisly images of corpses left in the aftermath of the strikes. It just tells users when a strike has occurred, going off a publicly available database of strikes compiled by the U.K.’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which compiles media accounts of the strikes.

iOS developers have a strict set of guidelines that must be adhered to in order to gain acceptance into the App Store. Apps are judged on technical, content and design criteria. As Apple does not comment on the app reviews process, it can be difficult to ascertain exactly why an app got rejected. But Apple’s team of reviewers is small, sifts through up to 10,000 apps a week, and necessarily errs on the side of caution when it comes to potentially questionable apps.

Apple’s original objections to Drones+ regarded the functionality in Begley’s app, not its content. Now he’s wondering if it’s worth redesigning and submitting it a fourth time.

“If the content is found to be objectionable, and it’s literally just an aggregation of news, I don’t know how to change that,” Begley says.

Begley’s app is unlikely to be the next Angry Birds or Draw Something. It’s deliberately threadbare. When a drone strike occurs, Drones+ catalogs it, and presents a map of the area where the strike took place, marked by a pushpin. You can click through to media reports of a given strike that the Bureau of Investigative Reporting compiles, as well as some basic facts about whom the media thinks the strike targeted. As the demo video above shows, that’s about it.

It works best, Begley thinks, when users enable push notifications for Drones+. “I wanted to play with this idea of push notifications and push button technology — essentially asking a question about what we choose to get notified about in real time,” he says. “I thought reaching into the pockets of U.S. smartphone users and annoying them into drone-consciousness could be an interesting way to surface the conversation a bit more.”

But that conversation may not end up occurring. Begley, a student at Clay Shirky’s lab at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program, submitted a threadbare version of Drones+ to Apple in July. About two weeks later, on July 23, Apple told him was just too blah. “The features and/or content of your app were not useful or entertaining enough,” read an e-mail from Apple Begley shared with Wired, “or your app did not appeal to a broad enough audience.”

Finally, on Aug. 27, Apple gave him yet another thumbs down. But this time the company’s reasons were different from the fairly clear-cut functionality concerns it previously cited. “We found that your app contains content that many audiences would find objectionable, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines,” the company e-mailed him.

It was the first time the App Store told him that his content was the real problem, even though the content hadn’t changed much from Begley’s initial July submission. It’s a curious choice: The App Store carries remote-control apps for a drone quadricopter, although not one actually being used in a war zone. And of course, the App Store houses innumerable applications for news publications and aggregators that deliver much of the same content provided by Begley’s app.

Wired reached out to Apple on the perplexing rejection of the app, but Apple was unable to comment.

Begley is about at his wits end over the iOS version of Drones+. “I’m kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I’m supposed to do,” Begley said. The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.’ secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley’s thinking about whether he’d have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.

Drones+ iPhone App from Josh Begley on Vimeo.

Source: https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/drone-app/

Filed Under: Censorship, Genocide, Internet, Media, Military, Murder, Pakistan, Technology, Terrorism, USA, War, Weapons

Unheard Martin Luther King Jr. recording found in attic

August 24, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Originally posted by Lucas L. Johnson II, Associated Press

In this 1960 file photo, Martin Luther King Jr. speaks in Atlanta. (AP File Photo)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Stephon Tull was looking through dusty old boxes in his father’s attic in Chattanooga a few months ago when he stumbled onto something startling: an audio reel labeled, “Dr. King interview, Dec. 21, 1960.”

He wasn’t sure what he had until he borrowed a friend’s reel-to-reel player and listened to the recording of his father interviewing Martin Luther King Jr. for a book project that never came to fruition. In clear audio, King discusses the importance of the civil rights movement, his definition of nonviolence and how a recent trip of his to Africa informed his views. Tull said the recording had been in the attic for years, and he wasn’t sure who other than his father may have heard it.

“No words can describe. I couldn’t believe it,” he told The Associated Press this week in a phone interview from his home in Chattanooga. “I found … a lost part of history.”

Many recordings of King are known to exist among hundreds of thousands of documents related to his life that have been catalogued and archived. But one historian said the newly discovered interview is unusual because there’s little audio of King discussing his activities in Africa, while two of King’s contemporaries said it’s exciting to hear a little-known recording of their friend for the first time.

Tull plans to offer the recording at a private sale arranged by a New York broker and collector later this month.

Tull said his father, an insurance salesman, had planned to write a book about the racism he encountered growing up in Chattanooga and later as an adult. He said his dad interviewed King when he visited the city, but never completed the book and just stored the recording with some other interviews he had done. Tull’s father is now in his early 80s and under hospice care.

During part of the interview, King defines nonviolence and justifies its practice.

“I would … say that it is a method which seeks to secure a moral end through moral means,” he said. “And it grows out of the whole concept of love, because if one is truly nonviolent that person has a loving spirit, he refuses to inflict injury upon the opponent because he loves the opponent.”

The interview was made four years before the Civil Rights Act became law, three years before King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, and eight years before his assassination. At one point in the interview, King predicts the impact of the civil rights movement.

“I am convinced that when the history books are written in future years, historians will have to record this movement as one of the greatest epics of our heritage,” he said.

King had visited Africa about a month before the interview, and he discusses with Tull’s father how leaders there viewed the racial unrest in the United States.

“I had the opportunity to talk with most of the major leaders of the new independent countries of Africa, and also leaders in countries that are moving toward independence,” he said. “And I think all of them agree that in the United States we must solve this problem of racial injustice if we expect to maintain our leadership in the world.”

Raymond Winbush, director of the Institute for Urban Research at Maryland’s Morgan State University, said the tape is significant because there are very few recordings of King detailing his activity in Africa.

“It’s clear that in this tape when he’s talking … about Africa, he saw this as a global human rights movement that would inspire other organizations, other nations, other groups around the world,” said Winbush, who is also a psychologist and historian.

“That to me is what’s remarkable about the tape.”

U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Freedom Rider who organized Tennessee’s first lunch counter sit-in at age 19 in Nashville, said hearing King talk about the sit-ins took him back to the period when more than 100 restaurant counters were desegregated over several months.

“To … hear his voice and listen to his words was so moving, so powerful,” said Lewis, adding that King’s principles of nonviolence are still relevant today.

“I wish people all over America, all over the world, can hear this message over and over again,” he said.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who worked with King while a leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, agreed.

“I can’t think of anything better to try,” Lowery said of nonviolence. “What we’re doing now is not working. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Matching violence with violence. We’ve got more guns than we’ve ever had, and more ammunition to go with it. And yet, the situation worsens.”

A spokeswoman for King’s daughter Bernice, head of The King Center in Atlanta, said she was traveling and couldn’t comment on the audio.

Tull is working with a New York-based collector and expert on historical artifacts to arrange a sale. The broker, Keya Morgan, said he believes that unpublished reel-to-reel audio of King is extremely rare and said he’s confident of the authenticity of the recording based on extensive interviews with Tull, his examination of the tape and his knowledge of King. He’s collected many of the civil rights icon’s letters and photos.

“I was like, wow! To hear him that crisp and clear,” Morgan said. “But beyond that, for him to speak of nonviolence, which is what he represented.”

 

Source: https://www.kpic.com/news/national/Unheard-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-recording-found-in-attic-167043495.html

Filed Under: Equality, Human Rights, Media, Racism, Revolution, Rights, Social Unrest

200 page book converted into DNA by researchers

August 22, 2012 By 1 Comment

Originally posted by Jed E. Robinson on RoundNews.com on August 17, 2012

Scientists from Harvard University wanted to prove that DNA, the genetic template substance, can be a viable storage solution. They took a 200+ page book that totalled close to 53000 words.

The book also had 11 images and a short javascript code added to its contents.

The scope of Harvard’s research was to see if DNA molecules ca be used to store a large amount of data. DNA can last for thousands of years as opposed to the average harddrive lifespan which is close to 5 years of active use. If DNA is trapped in amber then it can last for million of years.

In order to convert the digital version of the book to DNA the following process was followed:

- Researchers first took the binary code of the book.

- The resulting binary string was analysed bit by bit. A nucleobase was assigned for every bit value.

- The 5.27 million base long DNA strand was synthesized by analysing 96 bases at a time

- The synthesized DNA now contains the entire book. Its weight is one million time less than the weight of a grain of salt.

After the book was converted to DNA, Harvard scientists went ahead and tried to read the content in order to determine how reliable is DNA as a storing medium. Only 10 bits out of the total of 5.27 million were erronated. Current technology offers an easy way to read DNA. There are many commercially available solutions on the market.

DNA is our basis of life. Using it for storing data in the close future is not that far fetched.

Source: https://www.roundnews.com/science/beyond-science/449-200-page-book-converted-into-dna-by-researchers.html

Filed Under: Genetics, Media, Positive, Science, Technology

Facebook court ruling: What you share on Facebook is admissible as evidence

August 20, 2012 By 7 Comments

Originally posted by tecca.com on August 15, 2012

Author: Fox Van Allen

Did you know that what you say on Facebook can be used against you in a court of law? If you’re sharing something with your friends, you may as well be sharing directly with the judge and jury: A recent ruling in a U.S. federal court says that if you post something on Facebook, your friend can share that information with the police — it’s not a violation of your privacy.

Accused gang member Melvin Colon had argued in court that investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy when they viewed his Facebook profile via one of his friends’ accounts. But US District Judge William Pauley III ruled that Colon’s messaged threats and posts about violent acts he committed were not private, and indeed fair game for prosecutors. To some extent, the ruling makes logical sense: When you say something publicly on Facebook, you’re often sharing a thought with hundreds, maybe even thousands of people. There’s not much that’s private about that.

Courts have settled a number of questions pertaining to Facebook and our legal system this year. Courts have ruled that it is improper to deliver a court summons via Facebook, even when it’s the best method of reaching someone. A court has also ruled that a Like on Facebook isn’t constitutionally protected free speech — something Facebook is vigorously appealing.

Source: https://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/16/facebook-privacy-court-ruling/

Filed Under: Censorship, Crime, Featured, Human Rights, Internet, Justice, Law, Media, Police, Politics, Privacy, Rights, Safety, Social Media Websites, Surveillance

Dehumanized: Will Arabs Forgive Them?

July 11, 2012 By 3 Comments

He lives in a tent. He rides a camel. He carries a sword on his back.
She’s a seductive belly dancer.
She lives in a harem. She only exists for male pleasure.

They are Arabs.

The negative images of Arabs had long been emblazoned into our minds. Where do these images come from?

“Oh I come from a land, from a faraway place
Where the caravan camels roam
Where they cut off your ear
If they don’t like your face
It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home”

This was one of the verses of the opening song “Arabian Night” in the movie Aladdin, one of the most successful Disney movies ever made.
Following protests from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination, the lyrics were changed from “Where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face” to “Where it’s flat and immense and the heat is intense”. Children from all over the world viewed Aladdin and Arabs have been portrayed as backward, barbaric, sinister, violent and imminently dangerous to the Western world.

At a very young age, many children start to learn stereotypes from the environment in which they are raised. They begin to acquire prejudices from their parents, teacher, peers, the media and others around them. They investigate the world around them and start developing their own racial identity between the ages of two and five. They first become aware of how people look. For instance, they start to notice the difference in skin colors. They also become aware of their own physical characteristics. Then they start seeking explanations for differences. At a later stage, they begin to identify with the ethnic group that they perceive themselves to belong to.

In his paper titled “Development of social categories and stereotypes in early childhood: The case of ”the Arab” concept formation, stereotype and attitudes by Jewish children in Israel”, Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal (Tel Aviv University) demonstrated the strength of the Israeli cultural stereotype of Arabs and its influence on young children. Research of concept development shows that Israeli children begin to use the word “Arab” between 24 months and 30 months of age and they also become able to draw a picture of an Arab man which represents their image of him. The majority of young children with any knowledge about Arabs associated them with violent and aggressive behaviors, directed mostly against Jews.

Us and Them

“The way we see things is affected by what we know or what believe” – Berger

The Western Media has projected negative images of the Arabs in order to create “Otherness”. The concept of Otherness consists of dividing people into two social groups: Us (in-group) and Them (out-group). The in-group views the out-group as being different in a fundamental way. The out-group may be of a different race, nationality, religion, social class, political ideology, sexual orientation or origin.

Evaluating others as “Us” and “Them” is based on Social Identity Theory developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. The theory is based on three mental processes:

  • Social categorization
  • Social identification
  • Social comparison

The first process is categorization. It represents our tendency to categorize individuals, including ourselves into groups. In his book “The Nature of Prejudice”, Gordon Allport (1954) wrote that the human kind must think with the aid of categories… Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it.

The second process is social identification. In this stage we adopt some of the values and behaviors of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to. In other words, we adopt the identity of that group. Belonging to a social group gives us a social identity that boosts our self-esteem by enhancing our image.

The final process is social comparison. Once we see ourselves as members of a group, we start to define ourselves by comparison with other groups. People make social comparison with other individuals they perceive to be better or worse off than themselves.

Many of the studies have shown that our self-esteem is maintained by making social comparison with other groups: individuals with high self-esteem tend to make upward comparison choices, whereas low self-esteem individuals tend to make upward comparisons only when there is no threat to their self-esteem (Wood, 1989).

In conclusion, society is composed of social groups that tend to maintain their self-esteem. The power and status relations between groups are based on social identity (Hogg and Abrams, 1988). Members of high-status groups gain positive social identity and high self-esteem. They even tend to discriminate and be prejudiced against low-status groups in order to enhance their social power and status.

Nations and Identities

National identity is the sense of one’s belonging to one nation. Based on Social Identity Theory, a nation defines its own identity by comparing itself to other nations. As a result, having an out-group strengthens a sense of belonging to a nation that places an enmity between “Us and Them”. In brief, a nation needs enemies to maintain its identity.

As Sam Keen puts it in his book Faces of the Enemy: “In the beginning we create the enemy. Before the weapon comes the image. We think others to death and then invent the battle-axe or the ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them. Propaganda precedes technology.” (1986, p. 10).

Governments use the process of creating enemy images as a method of social control. They rely on negative stereotypes in an attempt to create a common enemy. They vilify and dehumanize the enemy as merely being thief, murderer, rapist, monster, criminal, kidnapper and terrorist. Once the enemy is depicted as evil, inferior and not human, it becomes psychologically acceptable by people to persecute him. The psychological process of dehumanization is very dangerous for it often paves the way for violence.

In Search of An Identity

There are many historical examples of dehumanization. Before and during the Second World War, Hitler and his Nazi regime created a negative image of the Jewish people using stereotypes and propaganda. The Nazis dehumanized the Jews by naming them “inferior race” in order to make their persecution more psychologically acceptable.

After the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers and Cold War began. America used Hollywood and media in order to promote an anti-Communism propaganda. America created the negative images of the Soviet Union enemy and managed to manipulate public opinion to fear the new enemy.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, America needed a post-Soviet foreign devil (Said) to maintain its identity. And once again, the Western monopoly of power has dehumanized an entire group of people in order to create “a stereotypical image of the dangerous ‘Arab Other’.”

Dr. Jack Shaheen, Professor Emeritus of Mass Communication at Southern Illinois University, studied portrayals of Arabs in Western Media by examining 900 U.S. films. He writes “Arabs are the most maligned group in the history of Hollywood. They are portrayed, basically, as sub-human untermenschen, a term used by Nazis to vilify Gypsies and Jews. These images have been with us for more than a century.”

Hollywood has internalized the negative stereotypes of Arabs before 9/11 in order to serve the U.S imperial objectives. The Department of Defense and CIA have always been cooperating with Hollywood. Former Hollywood Reporter staffer Robb exposes In his book “Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies” how Hollywood producers ask the Pentagon for help in making films. The department of Defense provides filmmakers with a crowd of Marines, or a Navy aircraft carrier and Blackhawk helicopters and the CIA provides filmmakers with a pile of script ideas. After all, the producers want to make money and the Defense Department wants to make propaganda (David L. Robb).

Hollywood’s representation of Arabs before 9/11 has been influenced by three major political events: the creation of the state of Israel, the 1973 oil crisis when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo, and the Iranian Islamic revolution.

First, The Sheik (1921) and The Son of the Sheik (1926) were two films that depicted Arabs as savage beasts who auction off their own women. After World War II, Exodus (1960), a film based on the 1958 novel Exodus by Leon Uris, was the first movie to deal with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. This movie highlighted the Israeli struggle against Nazi oppression and confirmed the U.S. support for Israel. After the Iranian revolution, the film Not Without Your Daughter (1990) depicted the escape of American citizen Betty Mahmoody and her daughter from her husband in Iran. The film was shot in the United States and Israel. The film highlights the return of Iran to the dark ages. After the first Gulf War and the end of the Cold War, the film True Lies (1994) directed by James Cameron, Arnold starring as Harry Tasker leads a double life, performing covert missions for the United States Government under a counter-terrorism task force called “The Omega Sector”. Harry’s latest mission in Switzerland reveals the existence of an Islamic terrorist organization group known as the Crimson Jihad, led by Salim Abu Aziz (Art Malik). And once again, Arabs were portrayed as terrorists, extremists and religious fanatics bent on destroying the world. The Rules of Engagement (2000) portrayed Arabs as extremists attacking the U.S. embassy. This movie dehumanized Arabs, which justified US Marines killing Arab women and children. These are some of the movies that depicted negative images of Arabs. After watching more than 900 movies, Jack Shaheen claims that only 50 or so had shown a neutral image of Arabs. He also says, “Each of Hollywood and Washington share the same genes”.

Conclusion

In the period before 9/11, the Western Media has developed a set of negative stereotypes depicting Arabs as enemies in order to serve the U.S. political agenda. On Sept. 20, 2001, President Georges W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and a national television audience to launch the “war on terror”:

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

As Slavenka Drakulic expresses it, ‘once the concept of “otherness” takes root, the unimaginable becomes possible’. And once again, President Bush and his administration managed to convince the American public of the need to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you’re still wondering:

  • Why most Westerners do not show empathy to Palestinian suffering
  • Why most Westerners did not stand up against the war in Iraq
  • Why most Westerners support Israel
  • Why most Westerners hate Muslims

That’s because Americans tell the best stories, they can invade a country and immediately construct a narrative justifying it (Jean-Luc Godard).

It’s time to occupy Hollywood.

 

Sources:

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, Jack G. Shaheen

The evolution of Hollywood’s representation of Arabs before 9/11: the relationship between political events and the notion of ‘Otherness’ - SULAIMAN ARTI, Loughborough University

The Construction of Arabs as Enemies: Post-September 11 Discourse of George W. Bush, Debra Merskin

https://www.self.ox.ac.uk/Current_Research_Students/documents/CHAPTER_2.pdf

https://www.sesamestreet.org/parents/topics/getalong/getalong05

https://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/412/studyguide_412.pdf

https://www.ibiblio.org/prism/jan98/anti_arab.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Arabs_and_Muslims

https://arabstereotypes.org/why-stereotypes/what-orientalism/veils-harems-belly-dancers

https://beyondintractability.colorado.edu/essay/dehumanization/?nid=1082

https://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16888

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Arab_oil_embargo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Without_My_Daughter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Lies

Filed Under: Equality, Featured, Media, Propaganda, Racism, Sexism, Women

Grim Economic Outlook Weighs Down Obama Approval Rating

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By Stephanie Condon - CBS News

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

Less than one year out from Election Day 2012, voters remain overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, and their concerns are taking a toll on President Obama’s re-election chances. Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don’t think so.

The president’s overall approval rating remains in the mid-40′s, according to a CBS News poll - lower than the approval ratings of Mr. Obama’s four presidential predecessors at this point in their first terms. Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dragged down by his poor marks for his handling of the economy - which, at 33 percent, is the lowest rating of his presidency in CBS News polls.

Mr. Obama receives better marks on foreign policy and for his leadership skills. But when it comes to leading the economy in the right direction, voters are unimpressed: Just 28 percent think he has made progress on improving the economy. And most Americans say the president doesn’t share the public’s priorities, according to the poll, conducted December 5-7.

 

(Credit: CBS)

Obama and the economy

Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, and about as many - 46 percent - disapprove. His approval rating has remained fairly steady but below 50 percent since the spring of 2010, aside from an uptick in the spring of 2011 following the death of Osama bin Laden.

Since bin Laden’s death, the president has received high marks for his handling of terrorism: In this poll, 57 percent approve. Voters are split on his handling of foreign policy overall, with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving.

Views of how he has handled the economy is the obvious drag on the president’s ratings: While just 33 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove. Similarly, just 35 percent approve his his handling of job creation while 58 percent disapprove. The last time Mr. Obama’s approval rating on the economy was above 40 percent was in February of this year.

Views on the national economy remain very negative: Since early 2008, roughly three in four Americans (and sometimes even more) have said the economy is in bad shape. Now, 86 percent of Americans characterize the economy as at least somewhat bad, including 42 percent who say it is very bad.

Although the national unemployment rate recently dropped below 9 percent for the first time since 2009, Americans are skeptical that a recovery is on the horizon. Just 21 percent think the economy is getting better, and 39 percent think it is getting worse, up from 32 percent last month. Another 40 percent think the economy isn’t changing.

When asked if Mr.Obama has made real progress fixing the economy, 68 percent say he has not, and just 28 percent say he has. And while 37 percent say the Obama administration’s policies prevented the country from going into a deeper recession, just under half - 49 percent - say those policies did not do that.

In addition, more think the policies of the Obama administration have mostly favored Wall Street (42 percent) than mostly favored average Americans (38 percent).

But while they may disapprove of his handling of this issue, few Americans think the president is most to blame for the current state of the nation’s economy. When asked to choose between the Bush administration, the Obama administration, Wall Street, and Congress, more Americans blame the Bush administration (22 percent) or Congress (16 percent) than Wall Street (12 percent) or Mr. Obama (12 percent), though 24 percent volunteer that a combination of all four is to blame.

Obama: Unemployment could go down to 8% by election (“60 Minutes” interview)

Mr. Obama’s qualities and characteristics

Despite an approval rating in the 40s, Americans appear to have a positive impression of Mr. Obama on some personal measures. A 57 percent majority views the president as a strong leader, similar to the percentage in a September poll — but that figure has declined significantly since he took office. Democrats (85 percent) and independents (57 percent) say Mr. Obama has strong qualities of leadership, while 67 percent of Republicans disagree.

Fifty-nine percent Americans describe the president as down-to-earth, and just a third says he is aloof. Democrats and independents see him as down-to-earth, while more than half of Republicans perceive the president as aloof.

The president is also seen as a fighter: Two thirds of Americans think Mr. Obama fights hard for his policies; just 26 percent say he doesn’t. More than half of Republicans think Mr. Obama fights hard for his policies.

 

(Credit: CBS)

Bringing change and uniting Americans were central elements of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign four years ago. Today, most Americans think he has worked hard to bring about change (57 percent), but fewer (37 percent) think his presidency has united the country. There are partisan differences on these measures also.

Additionally, most Americans do not think the president’s priorities for the country are in line with theirs. Fifty-four percent say Mr. Obama doesn’t share their priorities, while 41 percent think he does. This is the public’s most negative assessment on this question since Mr. Obama assumed office. Again, the public divides along partisan lines: 73 percent of Democrats say he shares their priorities, while 79 percent of Republicans say he does not.

Americans also remain skeptical of one of the major legislative achievements of Mr. Obama’s first term as president — the 2010 health care reform law. Fifty-one percent of Americans disapprove of the law, including a third who strongly disapprove, while just 35 percent approve either somewhat or strongly. More Americans have disapproved than approved of the law since it was passed in March 2010.

Half of all Americans think Mr. Obama should have focused his priorities elsewhere during his first term in office, though 43 percent think he did the right thing in trying to reform the health care system.

Congressional gridlock

Congress’ job approval rating is far lower than the president’s. Eighty-two percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, while 11 percent approve - just two percentage points above the all-time low of 9 percent recorded last month.

When it comes to the difficulties in reaching agreements and passing legislation in Congress, Americans put more of the blame on the Republicans in Congress than Mr. Obama and the Democrats. Forty-two percent blame Republicans more, while just 26 percent blame Mr. Obama and the Democrats, though 22 percent volunteer both are equally to blame.

Looking ahead to 2012

 

(Credit: CBS)

 

Americans continue to be unhappy with the direction the country is headed: Three in four think the country is off on the wrong track. Just one in five thinks it is headed in the right direction.

With nearly a year left before the 2012 election, 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, but 54 percent don’t think so. Not surprisingly, most Democrats think Mr. Obama deserves to be re-elected, while most Republicans do not. More than half of independents do not think he deserves to be re-elected.

As the president gears up for his re-election campaign, 66 percent of Americans say they do not have a clear idea of what he wants to accomplish in a second term; just a third say they do. Fewer than half of Democrats say they have a clear idea of what the president wants to accomplish if re-elected.

Mr. Obama’s 44 percent approval rating is only slightly below President Bill Clinton’s at this point in time in his presidency (47 percent), but it is 14 points lower than President Ronald Reagan’s was in late 1983. President George W. Bush’s approval rating, at 52 percent in December 2003, was also higher than Mr. Obama’s.

Comparisons to modern one-term presidents are mixed. President Obama’s approval rating is lower than President George H. W. Bush’s in November 1991, but Mr. Bush’s approval rating dropped precipitously during 1992. In contrast, Mr. Obama’s current approval rating is much higher than the 30 percent Jimmy Carter received in late 1979.

After nearly three years in the White House, 52 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s performance in office has been about what they expected, but 35 percent feel his time in office has been disappointing. Few Americans - even among Democrats — say he has exceeded their expectations.

 

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57340576-503544/grim-economic-outlook-weighs-down-obama-approval-rating/?tag=re1.channel

 

Filed Under: Media, Politicians, USA Tagged With: ,

How the Council on Foreign Relations Controls the Media

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Corruption, Media Tagged With:

Impartial? The BBC Made It Sound As If The World Had Ended After Cameron’s Historic Veto

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Anybody waking up last Friday morning and tuning in to the BBC’s TV or radio news bulletins might have thought there had been a national disaster overnight.

On Radio 4’s Today programme, in particular, the voices were sombre, verging on the funereal. Had they been required to wear ties, the presenters would surely have chosen black.

But far from being a catastrophe, the event they were reporting upon — David Cameron standing up to the Brussels elite by vetoing a new EU treaty inimical to Britain’s interests — was considered by the majority of the public (as proved by opinion polls at the weekend) to be a cause for celebration, or at least applause.

To the BBC, however, it was a betrayal of one of the Corporation’s most trenchantly held views: that Britain can prosper only if it agrees to do everything Europe demands of it.

Hence, the veto was reported from the perspective of the EU — rather than the British taxpayers who pay the wages of the BBC’s vast army of correspondents and executives.

On Radio 4’s 6am news bulletin, Justin Webb announced gravely: ‘Leaders of 23 EU countries are to draft a new fiscal pact to help stabilise their currency without the involvement of Britain.’

He added: ‘President Sarkozy accused David Cameron of making a deal between all 27 countries impossible.’

It was a full two minutes before listeners heard Mr Cameron’s own remarks explaining why he was forced into exercising Britain’s veto.

The debate, as conducted by the BBC, was batted around that, if the hopelessly flawed, one-size-fits-all model for a single currency collapses under the weight of its own monstrous debts, it would somehow be Mr Cameron’s fault — even though nothing could be further from the truth.

Apocalyptic tones: The BBC's reporting of the Prime Minister's historic veto of an EU treaty was skewed in favour of Brussels

Apocalyptic tones: The BBC’s reporting of the Prime Minister’s historic veto of an EU treaty was skewed in favour of Brussels

On BBC TV’s One O’Clock News, presenter Sophie Raworth continued with the negative tone and began by saying: ‘David Cameron has dramatically refused to sign a new treaty designed to resolve the eurozone debt crisis.’

The response of senior Tory officials to this dark propaganda was a weary shrug. They have become accustomed to BBC bias on all matters European.

But what makes this latest coverage so depressing is that the Corporation is fully aware of its pro-EU bias and seems incapable of behaving any differently.

Last year, BBC Director General Mark Thompson accepted the Corporation had previously been guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias. He also confessed that the BBC’s coverage of Europe had been ‘weak and rather nervous’.

Promising a change of course, Mr Thompson added: ‘We have made some progress there, but I think there are more areas where we can make progress.’

Yet still the BBC’s instinctive response in recent days has been to assume that Britain is doomed and that — by not binding Britain ever closer to Brussels — Mr Cameron has somehow sold us all down the river.

Surprised: George Osborne was asked almost nonsensical questions from BBC interviewers after the veto

Surprised: George Osborne was asked almost nonsensical questions from BBC interviewers after the veto

Every medium available to the Corporation was flooded with negative coverage. On the main news website on Friday, political correspondent Carole Walker was warning of the ‘profound danger’ of wielding a veto which could have ‘damaging consequences’.

When Labour MPs took to the airwaves to denounce the Prime Minister, they were largely given a free ride. The line taken by Labour and Lib Dem MEPs and backbenchers — namely that Britain would be left in parlous ‘isolation’ on the fringes of Europe — was treated as if it were gospel.

Yet when Chancellor George Osborne was invited onto the Today programme on Saturday morning, he was subjected to an unusually harsh grilling.

After the editor of the pro-Europe Financial Times — which was proved spectacularly wrong over its support for the euro — was given licence to attack the Government for leaving Britain ‘completely on our own’ in Europe, Mr Osborne took a battering from John Humphrys, who was characteristically adversarial.

The presenter’s opening remarks included the following line about the Prime Minister: ‘He wielded a veto and we gained nothing in return.’ The BBC man then curiously compared Tory Eurosceptics with Danish invaders from the time of Ethelred II.

Mr Humphrys told a stunned Mr Osborne: ‘You’ve chucked them some meat, or to use another metaphor if you like, you’ve paid some Danegeld [a tax raised to pay tribute to the Viking raiders to prevent them from ravaging the land]; you’ll never get rid of the Danes now, will you? Once they’ve got this — they’ve got it now — they’ll want more.’

In other words, he was implying that the veto was a ‘political gambit’ designed solely to appease ‘extremists’ in the Tory Party.

By Sunday, when Nick Clegg appeared on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show to openly attack the Prime Minister, the sense of glee in BBC newsrooms was palpable as his message boosted the Corporation’s Euro-friendly agenda.

The story leading the BBC website yesterday morning said: ‘David Cameron will face MPs later to explain his decision to veto EU treaty changes, the day after his deputy PM said the move was “bad for Britain”.’

According the BBC’s own editorial guidelines: ‘Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences . . . We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.’

Yet according to the polls, around six in ten voters support Mr Cameron’s actions. Less than 15 per cent are against.

Not that you’d know it from listening to the ‘British Broadcasting Corporation’.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073358/BBC-bias-The-Corporation-sounded-like-world-ended-Camerons-EU-veto.html

Filed Under: European Union, Media, United Kingdom
« Older Posts