PR firm Murray Hill Inc. has announced its entry into the Republican primary for Maryland’s 8th Congressional district, thereby becoming the first corporation to exercise its personhood by running for elective office. The company says that “Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in . . . → Read More: Corporation to run in Maryland Congressional primary
|
|||
|
No they aren’t. They’re doing rescue and remediation work that is pretty astonishing in its magnitude and effectiveness. I’m still steamed by Pat Robertson’s insanely malignant remark to the effect that the natural disasters suffered by Haiti are the result of a pact with the devil that empowered them to successfully rebel against the . . . → Read More: US Military Doing The Devil’s Work In Haiti The only fair way to score the debates is to watch them without audio. That way one doesn’t get distracted by what the candidates say, which anyway has only a minor relationship with reality. The important thing is how they looked. Did McCain smirk? Did Obama get that pinched, schoolmarm-ish look? Did either man . . . → Read More: In which we watch the first presidential debate with the sound off The New York Times has a he said/she said story about the potential hazards of second-generation biofuel crops, which generally aren’t edible and hence don’t contribute to famine and associated political difficulties, but are often unfriendly to local ecosystems and domestic crops. On one side of the story are ecologists and others who point . . . → Read More: A fast-growing, thirsty, flammable biofuel crop: what could go wrong? Circumstances in Iraq are insanely complicated, but not generally indecipherable. The major players are known—some well, some not so well—many major occurrences are reported, and a fair number of people who are either in Iraq or know the country well regularly provide commentary and analysis. Yet the US press continue to rely largely on . . . → Read More: Why can’t the US press get Iraq right? Jackson Diehl, the deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, has an op-ed today in which he asserts that the lack of political progress in Iraq is an argument for staying there indefinitely. It’s another version of the now familiar If-Things-Are-Getting-Worse-We-Must-Stay-In-Iraq-And-On-The-Other-Hand-If-Things-Are-Getting-Better-Then-We-Must-Stay-In-Iraq argument that, whatever its deficiencies might be, is at least admirably consistent. . . . → Read More: Making sense of Jackson Diehl The latest signal came from George Bush, warning of a “nuclear holocaust” if Iran gets The Bomb (despite an IAEA report that Iran isn’t as much of a threat as Bush claims). There can’t be any more provocative words than “nuclear holocaust” to justify the purported prevention of one. Nor can there be any doubt that, with such freighted language, combined with the accusation that Iran is arming insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and that a substantial portion of its army is a terrorist organization, the propaganda campaign to soften us up for The Announcement is accelerating or that an attack, whether it actually happens or not, is solidly in the works. Continue reading Attack on Iran: the PR campaign picks up speed It’s yet another example of reporting that makes no effort at analysis of Bush’s claims. This time, Bush says that an American withdrawal from Iraq would have an effect like that of our withdrawal from Vietnam – a bloodbath resulting in the deaths of millions of people.
It took two New York Times reporters to write this nearly stenographic story. They condescended to include two short rebuttal sentences from Ted Kennedy, and two from a World War II veteran who heard Bush – who jumped through hoops to avoid Vietnam – speak at the VFW convention. Aside from some brief notes about the upcoming debate in September and the performance of the Iraqi government, much of the rest of the article consisted of direct quotes or paraphrases from Bush’s speech. Continue reading Bush rewrites history, aided by the New York Times The American Psychological Association now says that its members can’t take part in water-boarding, sleep deprivation or sexual humiliation, among other techniques that have become part and parcel of Bush tactics against alleged terrorists at Guantanamo. If they see such activities, they are now required to intervene to stop them, report them to superiors, and to report the names of participating psychologists to the APA. What? You say you thought the premier professional society of psychologists would have long ago adopted such ethical strictures? After all, psychologists, those most politically liberal and emotionally empathic of healers, are supposed to be in the business of healing emotional pain, not causing it. The Post described the move as a “rebuke” of Bush interrogation tactics. Yet the APA rejected an all-out ban on psychologists working at places like Guantanamo; the group says it’s fine for psychologists to serve in places where the American government practices torture because they can protect the prisoners and show the torturers how torture doesn’t work. Right. That’s a self-serving proposition, and there’s a reason for such unethical, craven behavior not named in the Post article: the APA’s sordid history in confronting this issue. Continue reading Professional psychology: ethical whores for George Bush |
|
||
|
Copyright © 2012 BTC News: If It Says ‘News,’ It Must Be True - All Rights Reserved |
|||
Barack Obama and the One-Drop Rule
So Barack Obama is planning to become the first African-American president of the United States. The first black president. Or so we’re told. But wait just a second here. How come Obama is black? When someone is tagged “white,” it’s because s/he’s all white. Allegedly. If s/he has one drop of African-American blood, s/he’s black. Of course Obama is half-black. So it’s no contest: He’s all black.
This is the One-Drop Rule of American race relations. We all follow this rule, with greater or lesser slavishness, whites and non-whites alike. I suppose it’s true for Latinos and Asians, too, though maybe not as much, and that’s a curious thing. Maybe it’s not so bad to have Hispanic or Asian heritage? Not so bad in white eyes anyway, and they’re the ones who seem to make all the rules about race, including the One-Drop. Well, guess what that says about whites. Chances are if you’re reading this, you’re white. And even if you’re black, you follow the rule. It’s just how it’s done.
Continue reading Barack Obama and the One-Drop Rule