Who Cares About Michael Jackson?

I do not have cable nor do I have access to network TV. I read a few different newspapers and blogs online. I listen primarily to public radio and CBC and, as such, I am less bombarded with diversionary tripe than the average American but the media circus surrounding the death of a celebrity (even one so tragically weird as Michael Jackson) still finds its way in to my circle no matter how hard I try to shut it out.

We do not stop often enough to contemplate the damage it must do to our ability to reason to have our heads filled with such useless information day and night even when we do nothing whatsoever to seek it out. While I have never actually seen a program with Paris Hilton in it, I know that she is blond, that she has a sister named Nicole, that she made an “accidental” porn video, that she is heir to the Hilton hotel throne, and that she has done several reality shows. I don’t want to know any of this but it is pervasive. Our media, as our culture, seems to revel in such irrelevant gossip.

A few days ago a friend sent me the following quote from one of Noam Chomsky’s books.

“Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns.”

I have read a few of Chomsky’s books, most notably “Manufacturing Consent”, and I have always appreciated his wisdom but I was particularly impressed by this statement. The man has such a keen ability to identify truths about the systems used to control us and is able to articulate them with such precision and economy of language it is truly awe-inspiring.

Understanding that meaningful debate is simply not happening in our corporate media and that we are only having the “debate” it allows us to have is absolutely crucial to understanding how the status quo machine functions. With far too many topics, it seems that the media controversy generated is just such a framed diversion and that the substantive matter is left unexplored. I thought it might be beneficial to share some examples of items the media is buzzing about, how the discussion or debate has been framed and what I actually wish was being discussed instead.

The Deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett & Ed McMahon - I’m very sorry to be so callous about all three of them but … who cares? A million Iraqi children were starved to death and denied treatment under Bill Clinton and the United Nations. Then, Bush killed a million more Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers as well. Now, Obama will accelerate these wars and employ more mercenaries to carry out the killing. The media debate should not be about how we should properly mourn three celebrities and what their accomplishments were. Instead, we might better explore why we are so damned shallow as to publicly grieve for pop stars while millions of regular folk die specifically because we are so apathetic about the conditions of their lives (and their deaths).

The Senate Coup - Framed as a war between Republicans and Democrats. Was the “coup” warranted? Who is to blame ? With perhaps the most dysfunctional state senate in the country on a paid leave, shouldn’t the media focus instead on how that inaction actually impacts the electorate? Lets talk about whether or not we still feel like employing these “servants”. Can we manage without them? Should we clean house and start all over again? Lets talk about that!

Iran - The discussion is about America’s stance with Iran. Is it “tough” enough? Is the Iranian government in the right unleashing lethal force on its “protesters”? This looks an awful lot like a revolution by a civilian populace against a theocracy that refuses to obey the will of its people (and not a riot or a protest as it is often portrayed on TV). With our invasion of Iraq revealing us as “democracy-bringers extraordinaire”, shouldn’t the media be discussing why we stand idly by in some instances (like this one)? Perhaps we should be helping those who are actually fighting and dying to be free instead of trying to force “democracy” on people who have have shown no desire to have it? What should our role be in the world? Should our warriors be used to aid in our own organized theft or should we use them instead to help civilians throw off the shackles of oppression?

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor - While the media would debate her appointment on a narrow ideological scale, pitting Rush Limbaugh ideology against Al Franken ideology, I just don’t see it. They argue amongst themselves that she is a “reverse racist” or a “minority feminist” but, as usual, they are totally missing the boat. Sotomayor served as a corporate lawyer for almost a full decade before becoming a judge and can the peoples’ interests ever really be served by yet one more corporate-thinking justice on our Supreme Court? I’m sure the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto and Halliburton are all happy but what about their victims?

President Obama - The debate rages. The fake right argues that he is a socialist. The fake left says he is a patient progressive tactician who is using incremental strategy to win small political battles. The real debate should be about whether or not it is even possible any longer to run actual human beings for office in our republic! This new president is beholden to the coal lobbies and big corn and the HMO’s and the banksters. They all have their hooks in him. Is it even possible for a president to have his own ideology and thought process in this day and age or is Obama proof that we are finally doomed to just having puppets and puppet-masters from here on in?

The War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - The question always seems to be whether or not we are fighting these wars “intelligently”? The question we should really be asking (of course) is who the heck are we actually fighting and why are we doing it at all?

Torture - Corporate media debate is framed thusly, “Does water-boarding constitute torture? Should we close Guantanamo Bay?” How about we discuss instead whether we are okay with improper confinement, beatings, kidnappings and the suspension of Habeus Corpus anywhere, at any time, in any place?! Is this really acceptable to the electorate? Is it Constitutional? Is this really what America has become?

9/11 - The corporate debate was, “Which country should we destroy now that we’ve been attacked?” The debate should have been over who really did it and why the government has consistently lied to us about pretty much everything that occurred on that day. Who blew up Tower 7? Why are we not investigating the Put Options placed on United and American Airlines that clearly indicate foreknowledge? If the towers weren’t a planned demolition, then why were there incredibly high concentrations of thermite found in all independent dust samples taken at Ground Zero? How could an airliner have flown into the Pentagon (and completely disappeared) leaving a hole far too small to fit such a plane?

Bailouts and Stimulus - Will our corporate welfare programs work? That’s what’s being debated by most media outlets. Lets talk instead about why we would even think, in a capitalist economy, about adding over $3 TRILLION to our national debt by shoveling money towards Wall Street’s gaping maw? Don’t we live in a capitalist system where dog eats dog and only the strong survive? Why all the aid for these vultures? Do we really want a federal government that feels duty bound to run our economic systems instead of sticking to the paving of roads and delivering of mail? Is it their job to economically indenture our grandchildren to China?

Lastly, what about the “debate” over what (nowadays) passes for political debate? The corporate media chats on endlessly about who “won” each televised photo-op while spending nary a moment on those excluded from both corporate campaign coverage and the corporate “debates”. Shouldn’t our media instead be discussing the fact that we are all being denied any other choice but Democrat or Republican in every single election cycle at every single level!? We are consistently presented with two terrible choices for almost every open office. Instead of revolution, we are acclimating ourselves to accepting the “lesser evil” every time (a choice that seems less relevant or intelligent with each passing cycle). How about a discussion of whether or not it is possible to have a true debate when both sides are in basic agreement about everything?

I could go on and on but I bet that you guys have plenty of other framed or boundaried discussions to add to my litany and I look forward to hearing about them.

Obama Says He'll Debate Nader!

I was just driving to work and listening to WAMC. Senator Harry Reid was on talking about how healthy he felt the Democratic Party "debates" were for the country. He was also making all the usual excuses for why the Democrats weren't fighting for the agenda of those who elected them in 2006. I couldn't help but be disgusted. The "debates" have simply been he said/she said battles between the two Democratic Senators whose views are fairly similar. I want debates but I certainly don't want 21 photo-ops between two people who basically agree on everything and thats what I've seen thus far.

Am I wrong to want substantive criticism and discussion of each candidate's "health care" plan? Is it really weird that I want a moderator to ask these empty corporate heads why, in the name of God, they and their party don't support Single Payer Health Care? I want discussion of why universal health care that is half the price we currently pay isn't even on the table. Is it really so strange that I would like to hear an actual discussion of the subtle differences between staying in Iraq for "a few more years" or "until 2011" or "until the job is done". Whatever happened to the whole "I am against this war", "Lets get the Hell out right now!" position? Which one of these pro-war candidates has a plan for peace and which one will bomb Iran as soon as they can? I want to know why nuclear power and big coal support both candidates even though each one claims to support "alternative, sustainable" energy? ets have some details about their individual policies to resolve America's energy crisis and self-created carbon emission troubles. Lets have a debate where they each discuss the mechanics of HOW their plans (for anything) will work!

Obama settled my mind somewhat recently when he said that he would debate Ralph Nader. The Nader Campaign sent this (tongue in cheek) email out (I've posted it below and you can also check it out online at "votenader.org"). If Obama really would debate Ralph, I would send him a check and a letter supporting his democratic principle. I really would. I wonder, though, should Obama become the candidate in the general election and then refuse to make good on his promise (or even mention it) .... How many Obama supporters will see the light and send Ralph a check and a letter? ;-)