On 11/23/15, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Our nation lives in a make believe land. We make believe that we are
a nation of love, working to free all enslaved people of the world.
We believe that if we say a prayer before a meeting or meal, and use
God's name, calling upon Him to Bless our endeavors, that we somehow
are following Christian ethics. But lighting the Christmas Tree in
the White House, or rolling Easter eggs on the White House lawn do not
make us a Christian nation, anymore than entering any church and
sitting through the service. It's all show.
We cry out over and over that we are a people of love. But in fact,
that is nothing but a cover over our long festering hatred. We hate
anything that is not similar to what is familiar to us. We brought
hatred with us when we landed on these shores. We hated the natives
who already lived here. We drove them into near extinction. We
brought Chinese workers to build our railroads, and we hated them for
being different. We kidnapped men and women living in Africa, and
turned them into slaves, and then hated them for being different. We
really hate Jews. We've proven that over and over. But we are
confused by today's need for a stronghold in the Arab Land, so we
pretend the Israelis are somehow different. But when the time comes
that we don't need them, we'll hate them, too. During the McCarthy
Hearings, we hated the dreaded Commies because they were Godless and
wanted to take over the world. Same trouble with those pesky North
Koreans and their Chinese Commie friends. And then it was the Viet
Nam, and now it is the wicked, evil Arabs. We are not a nation
founded on Love and Freedom. We are founded on Greed and Hatred.
Just ask yourself why there are so many different churches? Love
should bring people together. Hatred breeds suspicion and drives
people apart. And we don't seem to have a clue. We are like mutant
locust, swarming across the face of the Earth, destroying everything
in sight.
And then we have the Gaul to ask our Make-Believe God to Bless us.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/23/15, abdulah aga <abdulahhasic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
Usa supposed, but is not,
I greed with you Miriam,
this is what I Thoth like that:
Now when we know that USA is not secular government, then I don't know
why
many American hate Muslim? so any country should do in on country what
people desite
Like Iran Afghanistan so on so on.
So when we know that USA isn't secular government and that USA is
Christian
country,
if Trump win lection,
and we know his idea about Muslim,
so we Muslim should thinks about heavy day's or Move some where als.
I don't want to happened 1941 to 1945 for Jewish or 1991 to 1995 for
Muslim
in form Yugoslavia.
But looks like that in USA Muslim people will have sem destiny like
Jewish
in Germany from 1941 1945.
Trump have Hitler's adia and what expect from him? but looks like many
American follow him and mostly he liding.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 8:55 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CNN Punished Its Own Journalist for
Fulfilling a Core Duty of Journalism
Abdulah,
The US is supposed to be a secular government. We are supposed to have a
separation between church and state. But, in reality, it is a Christian
country. That's why Christmas is a national holiday. That's why the
President lights a Christmas tree each year. That's why President Obama
ends
each speech with, "God bless America". That's why there is a
congressional
Christian prayer breakfast.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of abdulah aga
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:05 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: CNN Punished Its Own Journalist for
Fulfilling a Core Duty of Journalism
Hi
this is normal,
like I sad for Muslim coming very heavy days,
same way maybe more wars then,
when was for Juis during second world warld.
This is nothing and USA didn't punish him for this statement
dangerous anti-Muslim climate has exploded. The leading GOP presidential
candidate is speaking openly of forcing Muslims to register in databases,
closing mosques, and requiring Muslims to carry special ID cards.
Looks like this is normal,
use this language is normal in Democratic country:
so last question what I want know if some could give to me answer?
is USA secular country, I mean government it is secular or religion
government of USA?
if is secular government, then why I listen auld time we are krischen and
why I listen of president candidate
often time use word I am religion person?
is it contra victory secular government?.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] CNN Punished Its Own Journalist for Fulfilling
a
Core Duty of Journalism
Greenwald writes: "CNN yesterday suspended its global affairs
correspondent,
Elise Labott, for two weeks for the crime of posting a tweet critical of
the
House vote to ban Syrian refugees. Whether by compulsion or choice, she
then
groveled in apology."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Occupy.com)
CNN Punished Its Own Journalist for Fulfilling a Core Duty of Journalism
By
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
22 November 15
CNN yesterday suspended its global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott,
for
two weeks for the crime of posting a tweet critical of the House vote to
ban
Syrian refugees. Whether by compulsion or choice, she then groveled in
apology. This is the original tweet along with her subsequent expression
of
repentance:
This all happened after The Washington Post's Erik Wemple complained that
her original tweet showed "bias." The claim that CNN journalists must be
"objective" and are not permitted to express opinions is an absolute
joke.
CNN journalists constantly express opinions without being sanctioned.
Labott's crime wasn't that she expressed an opinion. It's that she
expressed
the wrong opinion: after Paris, defending Muslims, even refugees, is
strictly forbidden. I've spoken with friends who work at every cable
network
and they say the post-Paris climate is indescribably repressive in terms
of
what they can say and who they can put on air. When it comes to the Paris
attacks, CNN has basically become state TV (to see just how subservient
CNN
is about everything relating to terrorism, watch this unbelievable
"interview" of ex-CIA chief Jim Woolsey by CNN's Brooke Baldwin; or
consider
that neither CNN nor MSNBC has put a single person on air to dispute the
CIA's blatant falsehoods about Paris despite how many journalists have
documented those falsehoods).
Labott's punishment comes just five days after two CNN anchors spent 6
straight minutes lecturing French Muslim civil rights activist Yasser
Louati
that he and all other French Muslims bear "responsibility" for the attack
(the anchors weren't suspended for expressing those repulsive opinions).
The
suspension comes just four days after CNN's Jim Acosta stood up in an
Obama
press conference and demanded: "I think a lot of Americans have this
frustration that they see that the United States has the greatest
military
in the world. . I guess the question is - and if you'll forgive the
language - is why can't we take out these bastards?" (he wasn't
suspended).
It comes five days after CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour mauled Obama
on-air
for not being more militaristic about ISIS (she wasn't suspended);
throughout 2013, Amanpour vehemently argued all over CNN for U.S.
intervention in Syria (she wasn't suspended).
Labott's suspension also comes less than a year after Don Lemon demanded
that Muslim human rights lawyer Arsalan Iftikhar state whether he
supports
ISIS (he wasn't suspended); in 2010, Lemon strongly insinuated that all
Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attack when he defended opposition
to
an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan (he wasn't suspended).
During
the Occupy Wall Street protests, CNN host Erin Burnett continuously
mocked
the protesters while defending Wall Street (she wasn't suspended) and
also
engaged in rank fear-mongering over Iran (she wasn't suspended). I could
literally spend the rest of the day pointing to opinions expressed by CNN
journalists for which they were not suspended or punished in any way.
By very stark contrast, career CNN producer Octavia Nasr was instantly
fired
in 2010 after 20 years with the network for the crime of tweeting a
positive
sentiment for a beloved Shia imam who had just died, after neocons
complained that he was a Hezbollah sympathizer. Earlier this year, Jim
Clancy was forced to "resign" after 30 years with CNN for tweeting
inflammatory criticisms of Israel. As I've pointed out over and over,
"journalistic objectivity" is a sham for so many reasons, beginning with
the
fact that all reporting is suffused with subjective perspectives.
"Objectivity" does not ban opinions; it just bans opinions that are
particularly disfavored among those who wield the greatest power
(obviously,
no CNN journalist would be punished for advocating military action
against
ISIS, for instance).
But there's a more important point here than CNN's transparently farcical
notion of "objectivity." In the wake of Paris, an already-ugly and quite
dangerous anti-Muslim climate has exploded. The leading GOP presidential
candidate is speaking openly of forcing Muslims to register in databases,
closing mosques, and requiring Muslims to carry special ID cards.
Another,
Rand Paul, just introduced a bill to ban refugees almost exclusively from
predominantly Muslim and/or Arab countries. Others are advocating
exclusion
of Muslim refugees (Cruz) and religious tests to allow in only "proven
Christians" (Bush).
That, by any measure, is a crisis of authoritarianism. And journalists
have
historically not only been permitted, but required, to raise their voice
against such dangers. Indeed, that is one of the primary roles of
journalism: to serve as a check on extremism when stoked by political
demagogues.
The two most respected American television journalists in the history of
the
medium are almost certainly Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. The
legacies of both were shaped by their raising their voices in times of
creeping radicalism and government overreach. Murrow repeatedly inveighed
against the extremism of Congressional McCarthyism, while Cronkite
disputed
Pentagon claims that victory in the Vietnam War was near and instead
called
for its end: "the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as
victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to
defend
democracy, and did the best they could." Neither could survive at the
climate created at CNN:
As Murrow said in justifying his opposition to the Wisconsin Senator and
his
allies: "there is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his
[sic]
responsibilities."
It's not hard to envision the impact that this CNN action will have on
the
next journalist who considers speaking up the way Labott (very mildly)
just
did: they know doing so could imperil their career. In the face of the
kind
of emerging extremism now manifest in the U.S. (and Europe), that
journalistic climate neuters journalists, renders them impotent and their
function largely irrelevant, and - by design or otherwise - obliterates a
vital check on tyrannical impulses. But that's what happens when media
outlets are viewed principally as corporate assets rather than
journalistic
ones: their overriding goal is to avoid saying or doing anything that
will
create conflict between them and those who wield the greatest power.
I did two interviews yesterday where I was able more or less
comprehensively
to set forth my views on the behavior of the U.S. media following Paris,
which I must admit - notwithstanding my very low expectations - has
surprised (and horrified) me in terms of how subservient it is. First,
there
was this interview on Democracy Now (starting at 13:00; relevant segments
are here and here), which generated more response than any I've ever done
on
that show, and this shorter one on France24.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Occupy.com)
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/20/cnns-punishment-of-refugee-defending-jou
rnalist-highlights-media-abdication/https://theintercept.com/2015/11/20/cnns
-punishment-of-refugee-defending-journalist-highlights-media-abdication/
CNN Punished Its Own Journalist for Fulfilling a Core Duty of Journalism
By
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
22 November 15
NN yesterday suspended its global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott,
for
two weeks for the crime of posting a tweet critical of the House vote to
ban
Syrian refugees. Whether by compulsion or choice, she then groveled in
apology. This is the original tweet along with her subsequent expression
of
repentance:
This all happened after The Washington Post's Erik Wemple complained that
her original tweet showed "bias." The claim that CNN journalists must be
"objective" and are not permitted to express opinions is an absolute
joke.
CNN journalists constantly express opinions without being sanctioned.
Labott's crime wasn't that she expressed an opinion. It's that she
expressed
the wrong opinion: after Paris, defending Muslims, even refugees, is
strictly forbidden. I've spoken with friends who work at every cable
network
and they say the post-Paris climate is indescribably repressive in terms
of
what they can say and who they can put on air. When it comes to the Paris
attacks, CNN has basically become state TV (to see just how subservient
CNN
is about everything relating to terrorism, watch this unbelievable
"interview" of ex-CIA chief Jim Woolsey by CNN's Brooke Baldwin; or
consider
that neither CNN nor MSNBC has put a single person on air to dispute the
CIA's blatant falsehoods about Paris despite how many journalists have
documented those falsehoods).
Labott's punishment comes just five days after two CNN anchors spent 6
straight minutes lecturing French Muslim civil rights activist Yasser
Louati
that he and all other French Muslims bear "responsibility" for the attack
(the anchors weren't suspended for expressing those repulsive opinions).
The
suspension comes just four days after CNN's Jim Acosta stood up in an
Obama
press conference and demanded: "I think a lot of Americans have this
frustration that they see that the United States has the greatest
military
in the world. . I guess the question is - and if you'll forgive the
language
- is why can't we take out these bastards?" (he wasn't suspended). It
comes
five days after CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour mauled Obama on-air for
not
being more militaristic about ISIS (she wasn't suspended); throughout
2013,
Amanpour vehemently argued all over CNN for U.S. intervention in Syria
(she
wasn't suspended).
Labott's suspension also comes less than a year after Don Lemon demanded
that Muslim human rights lawyer Arsalan Iftikhar state whether he
supports
ISIS (he wasn't suspended); in 2010, Lemon strongly insinuated that all
Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attack when he defended opposition
to
an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan (he wasn't suspended).
During
the Occupy Wall Street protests, CNN host Erin Burnett continuously
mocked
the protesters while defending Wall Street (she wasn't suspended) and
also
engaged in rank fear-mongering over Iran (she wasn't suspended). I could
literally spend the rest of the day pointing to opinions expressed by CNN
journalists for which they were not suspended or punished in any way.
By very stark contrast, career CNN producer Octavia Nasr was instantly
fired
in 2010 after 20 years with the network for the crime of tweeting a
positive
sentiment for a beloved Shia imam who had just died, after neocons
complained that he was a Hezbollah sympathizer. Earlier this year, Jim
Clancy was forced to "resign" after 30 years with CNN for tweeting
inflammatory criticisms of Israel. As I've pointed out over and over,
"journalistic objectivity" is a sham for so many reasons, beginning with
the
fact that all reporting is suffused with subjective perspectives.
"Objectivity" does not ban opinions; it just bans opinions that are
particularly disfavored among those who wield the greatest power
(obviously,
no CNN journalist would be punished for advocating military action
against
ISIS, for instance).
But there's a more important point here than CNN's transparently farcical
notion of "objectivity." In the wake of Paris, an already-ugly and quite
dangerous anti-Muslim climate has exploded. The leading GOP presidential
candidate is speaking openly of forcing Muslims to register in databases,
closing mosques, and requiring Muslims to carry special ID cards.
Another,
Rand Paul, just introduced a bill to ban refugees almost exclusively from
predominantly Muslim and/or Arab countries. Others are advocating
exclusion
of Muslim refugees (Cruz) and religious tests to allow in only "proven
Christians" (Bush).
That, by any measure, is a crisis of authoritarianism. And journalists
have
historically not only been permitted, but required, to raise their voice
against such dangers. Indeed, that is one of the primary roles of
journalism: to serve as a check on extremism when stoked by political
demagogues.
The two most respected American television journalists in the history of
the
medium are almost certainly Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. The
legacies of both were shaped by their raising their voices in times of
creeping radicalism and government overreach. Murrow repeatedly inveighed
against the extremism of Congressional McCarthyism, while Cronkite
disputed
Pentagon claims that victory in the Vietnam War was near and instead
called
for its end: "the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as
victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to
defend
democracy, and did the best they could." Neither could survive at the
climate created at CNN:
As Murrow said in justifying his opposition to the Wisconsin Senator and
his
allies: "there is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his
[sic]
responsibilities."
It's not hard to envision the impact that this CNN action will have on
the
next journalist who considers speaking up the way Labott (very mildly)
just
did: they know doing so could imperil their career. In the face of the
kind
of emerging extremism now manifest in the U.S. (and Europe), that
journalistic climate neuters journalists, renders them impotent and their
function largely irrelevant, and - by design or otherwise - obliterates a
vital check on tyrannical impulses. But that's what happens when media
outlets are viewed principally as corporate assets rather than
journalistic
ones: their overriding goal is to avoid saying or doing anything that
will
create conflict between them and those who wield the greatest power.
I did two interviews yesterday where I was able more or less
comprehensively
to set forth my views on the behavior of the U.S. media following Paris,
which I must admit - notwithstanding my very low expectations - has
surprised (and horrified) me in terms of how subservient it is. First,
there
was this interview on Democracy Now (starting at 13:00; relevant segments
are here and here), which generated more response than any I've ever done
on
that show, and this shorter one on France24.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
