MEDIA LENS keeps me sane!

For o­ne source that will keep you riveted on what really is happening, get o­n the list for Media Lens. I get the feeling that if the world could meet in its pages, we could make things work. In addition to astute criticisms of goings o­n, you also get a sense of things we can do.

Here's the ending for two MEDIA ALERTS (on their site you have to click o­n Media Alerts and then o­n the title of each piece)  — about a major appearance Blair made o­n British TV, BLAIR'S BETRAYAL – PARTS 1 & 2 — which are written with this premise: “We believe that Blair consciously sets out to deceive the public while obscuring his deceptiveness behind an appearance of sincerity. If this sounds like wild speculation, recall that it has in fact been standard political practice since the time of Machiavelli.”              

All of the facts in this two-part Media Alert were readily accessible to us – part-time, unpaid writers – and yet almost none of them were raised by Jeremy Paxman – a full-time, professional journalist backed up by a large BBC research team – nor in the press in the days following the interview.

These omissions are obviously not the result of incompetence – it takes no competence at all to seek out well-known, credible sources, even via the web. Lack of resources is also clearly not a limiting factor. Nor can lack of significance explain these oversights – what could be more vital than to establish the basic facts challenging a prime minister's fraudulent case for war?

Instead, these omissions, we believe, are the result of a long-standing, institutionalised media aversion to seriously challenging establishment power of even the most ruthless and cynical kind. The reason is not complex: the liberal media so often trusted by the public – the Guardian/Observer, the Independent, the BBC, ITN – are all very much part of, and deeply dependent o­n, that same system of power.

We have a stark choice: we can continue to be deceived by the illusion of a free press, in which case many thousands of people will continue to be killed in our names but in the cause of profit and power. Alternatively, we can expose and challenge the 'liberal' propagandists stifling democracy. Journalists, even admired radical o­nes, may choose to maintain their silence to protect their hard-won reputations and lucrative careers – it's up to the rest of us simply to tell the truth.

These posts followed two others, FULL SPECTRUM DISSENT – PARTS 1 & 2, the likes of which I haven't seen from progressive political sources. In fact, they speak to what is missing from progressive politics. These pieces go to the human behavior that needs to be in our focus as what makes us who we are, and the deep understanding we need in order to change our world. Here's the conclusion of Part 1:

A crucial reason for modern levels of unhappiness, malaise and depression, then, we believe, can be identified in the impact of a filtering system distorting even our most fundamental ideas about ourselves and the world around us. Corporate interests need us to pursue a version of human happiness that serves profits but not people. The results include individual depression, global environmental collapse, and wars for control of natural resources in countries like Iraq. In Part 2 we will discuss the possibility that there are more rational approaches to achieving human and social well-being, and that these, too, have been filtered out by the propaganda system.

And here are quotes from Part 2:

“The ultimate root of many of our problems is that very many people care a great deal about themselves and their immediate families, but very little about anyone else. This is the basis of much unthinking obedience, passive complicity, and enthusiastic participation in state-corporate destructiveness. This self-centered concern, in turn, is rooted in the deeply entrenched – but, we believe, false – conviction that personal happiness is best achieved by applying maximum effort to securing the needs of ourselves and our immediate families, such that we have little inclination to attend to the needs of others deemed irrelevant – people who often pay an appalling price for our actions. We often rightly focus o­n the logic and function of state-corporate systems, but we need to remember that states and corporations are in the end mere abstractions – they are made up of, and run by, real people.”

“Compassion and concern for others are of course implicit in much dissident thought – relief of human suffering is quite obviously what motivates many writers and activists. But explicit focus o­n the importance of such concern as an antidote to individual human misery, and to the many problems rooted in the unrestrained greed of corporate capitalism, is almost nowhere to be found in contemporary radical thought, just as it is rarely found in mainstream scientific and other thought.”

Comments? Click here
Continue reading

Conversation about COULD WE SPARK A CAMPAIGN?

These are in Previous Comments posted in COULD WE SPARK A CAMPAIGN?From: Wade Frazier [wade.frazier2@verizon.net] [Wade has a great site for “making sense of these times.”] 

Regarding wanting to “start something,” my writings lay out what I am trying to do: “I ask nothing of any reader except to honestly consider this site's thesis and information.” It makes it clear that energy has always been the name of the game for humans, ever since they left the tropical forests a couple million years ago.

Until the underlying political-economic (and probably spiritual) reality behind why there is no alternative energy is comprehended, we can have a million “bright ideas,” and they will go nowhere. My stuff is too rad for even the rad left, as the idea that there is conscious manipulation of the system, at levels that are truly scary to consider, simply fries their circuits. If we are going to escape the reality box we sit in, we have to become familiar with what that coffee really smells like.

The problem, as I see it, is having the mental horsepower, emotional strength or integrity to “get it.” Virtually every activist I have seen — political, social, religious, or economic — is mainly hacking at the situation's branches, not its root (and 99% of the population is not doing any hacking at all). If just o­ne percent of the population devoted o­ne percent of their effort toward the root issue, bringing sustainable harmless energy to humanity would be an easy task. That is what I am shooting for.

From: Beverly Russell [bevruss@earthlink.net] [Beverly is about to get a lifetime achievement award  from a design organization.]

Your socially conscious writing o­n 8 Mile is full of heartfelt energy and emotion. I wish the architects would DO SOMETHING. They have a responsibility to rebuild the environment and they can do it any way they really want. Mostly they want “big.”

From: Linda Genutis [LGenutis@aol.com]

In response to your saying, “Let corporations compete for how great their social services are,” have a web application/site for Fortune 500 companies where employees make material donations — clothing, toys, computers (or money, of course) — to social service organizations of their choice. This application would tally up donations monthly by each company. This could also serve as a volunteer match website for employees. I would be happy to create the website design, including a customized application which would incorporate all of the above. This link is a resume website I completed a month or so ago for a friend of mine.

Suzanne to Linda:Thanks, Linda, for your willingness. That is such a great site you did — it kept making me cry.What I'm proposing is for some ideational thing to happen, where we'd stop climbing over each other and become concerned horizontally. How can we shift context? The alignment of people — o­nly a few — can work magic. So I thought to enroll some specific people in this advocacy. If the right spirit were established, then what you've suggested doing would be a good way for people at large to get involved.

Linda to Suzanne

When I first read your “Could we spark a campaign” message, the first thing that came to mind was Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, memes, and some recent writings o­n the power of prayer. But, after reading excerpts of The Tipping Point, I found it fascinating that positive societal and cultural changes can occur simply by the efforts of a small group of socially minded individuals — to such an extent that the message they are communicating takes o­n a life of its own — like wildfire across the entire landscape of humanity. It's something I've always suspected — I guess that's why it makes so much sense to me.

I totally support your quest to follow through with this idea because I know it to be true. I've had the honor of experiencing it o­n a first hand basis — the “primordial collective unconscious mind.” It's powerful, it's real, and it's undoubtedly the designated vehicle that needs to be tapped for meaningful change to occur — for now and forevermore. Amen!

Suzanne to Linda

I keep chewing o­n how to make impact. I think about Sheldrake, too — that a morphic field gets ignited by a spark. That Margaret Mead quote must turn up everywhere because it states a truth: “A small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.”

You talked about a “wildfire.” My favorite thing Brian Swimme said to me is, “We're both pointed at the same thing — igniting a great raging forest fire of love that will sweep us forever out of this deadening sadness of egos and superficiality!”

Linda to Suzanne

You say, “I keep chewing o­n how to make impact.”

Remember that 70's “I'd like to teach the world to sing” commercial? And remember Disney's animated Hiawatha movie that had that song “The Colors of the Wind?” And what are the similarities between crop circles and music? And why do so many of us who have experienced a kundalini awakening hear o­n-going choruses of voices singing? How about approaching a company that manufactures a popular brand name product to do an advertising campaign that conveys the message of peace, love, harmony etc., with a song?

From: Allen Branson [me@allenbranson.com] [Allen has a site in development intended to be a focal point for advocacy for the crop circle phenomenon. We are lucky to newly have his webmaster help.]

Your thoughts o­n 8 Mile spark me to respond.

What keeps running through my head is, “Find the joy and the truth will reveal itself.” As you have said, the crop circles provide a glimpse into the deep and stunning beauty of the universe. 8 Mile took a very different tack in showing a beauty that is inherent in the struggle for life, and a glimpse of what could be if that energy were turned toward creativity rather than violence.

My feeling is that people are desperate for permission to dream again. The end result of our scientific advancement has been a world more mundane in many ways than we ever imagined. Propagation of such a myth is by no means o­nly done for consciously nefarious purposes. There is the fear of scientists that if the general public is allowed to dream of things, the funding for “legitimate research” (read “research that leads to a profitable product”) would become diffused.

Yet, there is this matter of joy and truth. Can a people in touch with the wonder, joy, beauty and mystery of this world allow the slaughtering of innocent Iraqis so that they can maintain the privilege of polluting their environment while stuck in rush hour traffic?

If the Pythagoreans were right when they stated, “Beauty is Truth; Truth is Beauty,” then the crop circle phenomenon is pointing us toward a great truth.

Suzanne to Allen

What a challenge to turn a world so pained to serious consideration of joy. A Maslow scale kind of thing. Joy is the biggest box, I think you could say. When you are all hooked up with the infinite and with each other, there joy is. It may be our birthright, but it's as difficult to come by as peace is despite the insanity of war.

Right o­n about the circles. It keeps washing over me how beautiful a source they are coming from. No way anything malevolent could be making those designs.

Comments? Click here

Taking war off the table.

War in a sense is a very rational thing. It fits into the concepts we have about life, where, in additional to whatever objective reality we perceive, we also live in a giant idea. War is included in the idea we now hold — when “justified,” war is the answer.

After Colin Powell's speech to the Security Council I was reflecting o­n what might be if war weren't o­n the table. It's challenging, and maybe impossible, where there are people who operate outside a willingness to negotiate. What do we do with a Saddam Hussein?

My daughter wrote a parenting book that's a guide to negotiation as an alternative to force, which is war translated to the parent/child relationship. (Watch for a PBS special this spring, “Great Parents, Great Kids,” starring Dr. Dana Chidekel, author of “Parents in Charge.”) If force is not in your parental toolbox, you develop other ways.

What's the translation of this to the world scene? We know the adage, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” If what we have is war, it's the club we wave. Today, with Iraq possibly defying U.N. orders, the question o­n the table is whether they've crossed the line to where we should wield it.

We aren't discussing the presumption that war is the answer if that line is crossed — if Iraq is bad enough, we are “justified.” But, if it were not a done deal that war was an option, the way human intelligence works is it becomes creative. Who knows what the answer would be, but I want to make a case for taking preemptive war off the table, and then calling the world to gather round.

I heard social commentator Max Lerner, years ago, tell a story I never forgot. He was walking down Broadway, in New York City, when he passed a store with a sign in the window which said, “If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?” Lerner stopped and reflected o­n this, looking for the right answer — until he realized it was the wrong question. The sign he might reflect o­n today might ask, “Has Iraq violated its agreements egregiously enough for us to go to war?” It may be that that is the wrong question.

Here is a very poignant piece o­n waging war, written in the wake of the shuttle disaster, by my good friend, listmember Bob Bates [bobbates7@earthlink.net], who founded and presides over Inner-City Arts,  a nationally renowned arts program for inner-city kids in L.A.:

February 4, 2003

Subject:  Do we really need to do this?

The tragedy of the space shuttle, Columbia, brings into our hearts the loss of seven amazing men and women.

They knew the dangers of their work and embraced the risks of the mission — we will miss them dearly.

As the bombs fall in Iraq, will you miss the thousands of innocent children and families who we will kill — whose faces we have never seen o­n television or in the news papers — thousands who will never grow to maturity as our seven astronauts did — lives that have never been touched by us till now?

You now know so much about the lives of the seven astronauts who died in space — will you ever know anything about the thousands of innocent human beings that we are about to destroy to free the world from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein?

How would you feel knowing that you were about to die under a blanket of our bombs and invading soldiers?

We mourn the lives of the seven, will we mourn the lives of the thousands?

Do we really need to do this?

Comments? Click here
Continue reading