Civics 101, Or - Whadooeyeno?
This link was posted on my forum yesterday:
I'm glad somebody, lots of people, are paying attention to this whole Montebello thing (and if you recognize the name, it's because it's the same resort that had a nasty bout of food poisoning hit its "paying" customers a few years back) but I kind of wish they'd just stick to the civics of the matter and not get sucked into the swirling "polipartisan" vortex that is known as 9/11. Because:
1. Although Bush Inc. is an evil, corrupt administration of proven liars and psychopaths, the Arab guys who'd been living and working in the United States and flying suspiciously in and out of the country acting like potential terrorists for years while the FBI and CIA raided their own closets or whatever they were doing while Al Queda set up its network did it.
2. Although Bush's approval rating went up in the aftermath of 9/11 and he can be said to have benefitted personally and mightily from 9/11, we must blame the American media for that, including Vanity Fair and the NYTimes. Remember that Vanity Fair centerfold of Bush Inc. in the Oval Office posing for all the world like its saviour? I do. And yes - I'm in year... what... how long have we been paying in civil liberties for 9/11 now... let's see... 5?... 6 years? Year six. I'm in year six of my boycott - with a couple of exceptions, one being the time I bought it to refute Christopher Hitchens on "Why Women Aren't Funny":
AmIRightAboutTheWarYet?
3. I'm just paranoid enough to wonder every time a blog mixes the issue of civil rights in with 9/11mutterings if it isn't being written by "Muddy Waters" - CSIS spy No.X Classified, Special Assignment "Deflector Shield" Code: "CyberAlert". And that's pretty much when the blogger loses me. If I can't tell if it's being written by someone wanting to cover the protest in the interests of civil libertarianism or if it's being written by someone wanting to discredit someone wanting to cover the protest in the interest of civil libertarianism by cramming in conspiratorial stuff about 9/11 "The Inside Job" - then I don't read it. Sure, I look at the pictures - BUT - then I wonder why someone supposedly on the side of the protestors is putting up pictures of THEM on the Internet instead of the SECURITY DETAIL - the same one that would dearly love to know just who these peaceful protestors are, since they already know who the violent protestors are (if you catch my drift...)
Anyway, back to Civics 101. Here's my take on Government and Corporations versus Media versus Us:
1. Corporations should not have rights because they are not citizens - they are money-making entities whose only concern is to make more money.
2. Governments should not meet "in secret" to discuss corporate interests because that is not the job governments are elected to do. We pay politicians to represent our interests, its citizens, and to protect our civil rights - over the longterm. That's why we pay them well and give them good pensions. That I even know the name "Thomas d'Aquino" annoys me. He's nothing more than a corporate shill and no government - EVER - should give him the time of day except as an individual citizen. There's plenty of civilian work to do to keep politicians busy - there is no need for them to work gratis for corporations.
3. Unless the Media is critical of government and reports on all its comings and goings, it isn't media. It's just another government spokesthingie bought and paid for with our tax dollars. Good government means an adversarial media - no less - and I refer you to paragraph No.2 in the 9/11 rant above. It's no good to say, "Sorry", once the invasion is underway and the President has been re-elected for a second term. So, if you're Canadian, cancel your CanWest subscriptions now and stop watching Global because you're just being bribed with your own money and then sold a bill of goods.
And watch words, people! (Swirling polipartisan vortex derailment straight ahead, by the way, should you wish to detour down 4 paragraphs.) I just noticed the other day that our hopelessly out-of-date media continues to refer to the "conflict" in the Middle East. What conflict? The Israelis have the Palestinians trapped behind a wall. That's not a conflict. That's "Look, you lost, Palestinians - and now it's time for the UN to relocate you to Davis Inlet".
As far as the rest of the Middle East goes, well, from what I can figure, the Arab States (who aren't exactly ponying up re the Palestinians, either, I've noticed) periodically engage in rhetorical war by threatening to wipe Israel off the map and Israel responds by bombing the crap out of Lebanon, or threatening to nuke Iran, or whatever.
That isn't a conflict, either. That's just one side saying the same stupid shit over and over and the other side responding like the U.S vis a vis Iraq.
(Oh - and comments are on for all you Middle East nutters - go crazy(er). I did the aside on porpoise like, because I'm crazy that way, too.)
Closer to home, it's the same deal, just different, if you follow my drift... again. There is no conflict between protestors (who should be all of us, includng the media, which is no longer "our" media once it's decided to take the government's word for it that it's acting in our interests by meeting "in secret" with corporate interests) and the government at Montebello. The fact that there is a meeting at Montebello at all means that our government has failed us. If Canadians have any sense at all, they will turf it at the first opportunity - before we lose the opportunity altogether.
Governments and corporations do NOT go together. Governments and media do NOT go together. Only governments and citizens go together. We elect them, they work for us. That's their only job and we pay them well to do it.
Work for us or go do something else, G-man.
