DesperatelyObvious.com

An ad for a Dixie Chicks movie was rejected by NBC and CW.

There is a reason that watching television is one of the most mind-numbing activities one can do. It has nothing to do with the nature of the technology and everything to do with those who own the stations.

Cable networks are pushing a product to high paying customers. Specifically they are selling audiences to advertisers. But the size of the audience isn’t the only consideration. Audiences that are busy actually thinking are just not as useful to advertisers. Its much easier to mold the preferences and opinions of a brain dead viewer.

So NBC is telling the truth when they say they refused the Dixie Chicks ad because they follow a “policy of not broadcasting ads that deal with issues of public controversy.” Ads that provoke thought aren’t good at promoting an atmosphere of fabricating wants.

Don’t get the wrong idea, political ads are fine. But only if they proclaim empty buzzwords and hurl personal attacks that no one cares about. Political ads are OK as long as they don’t take a stance on real issues.

That is what happens when every channel is owned by a handful of companies. Similar efforts are being taken by the corporate masters to dominate the Internet with the same thought killing atmosphere.

Peter Bergen writes the following in an editorial published in the New York Times arguing against U.S. withdrawal from Iraq:

“Vietnam often looms large in the debate over Iraq, but the better analogy is what happened in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion. During the 1980’s, Washington poured billions of dollars into the Afghan resistance. Around the time of Moscow’s withdrawal in 1989, however, the United States shut its embassy in Kabul and largely ignored the ensuing civil war and the rise of the Taliban and its Qaeda allies. We can’t make the same mistake again in Iraq.”

It’s true that an analogy can be made between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The reader might be tempted to think that Bergen is suggesting that the Soviets shouldn’t have left Afghanistan.

Of course, this is not what he is suggesting. Instead, keeping to standard American doctrine, we must assume that America was benign in going to war and in fact is only guilty of a “blunder” of poor planning and execution. It is impossible to imagine that this mistake is on the same level as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Instead the analogy equates U.S. funding of Afghan resistance groups with the current U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Berger implies that by ignoring the situation after the Soviets left, we inadvertently allowed the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. A more accurate reading would note that after the Soviets left we continued to fund and organize groups that we would later deem terrorists, including the Taliban. We had no problem supporting these religious fundamentalists both during and after the Soviet occupation.
Nevertheless, if one looks at the world objectively instead of through Berger’s indoctrinated view we must see the similarities between the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan and America’s invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter). In both cases the population of the invaded country overwhelmingly opposed the invasion and continued occupation. And likewise both invasions were based on imperialist interests even though invading leaders provided benign official justifications.

No one in their right mind would suggest that the Soviets should have stayed in Afghanistan, at any point of their occupation. If we adopt the principle stating that we must apply the same moral standards to ourselves that we apply to others, then we must not even entertain the idea of continued occupation of Iraq. If it was wrong for the Soviets, it is wrong for us. We must leave now.

It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. is unfazed by its apparent role in the death of around 600,000 Iraqis. After all, it isn’t the first time American intervention has caused such great casualties, at least this time the victims aren’t mainly children.

Iraqi deaths are just as important as American deaths, and the World can not afford to wait for the U.S. casualty toll to reach 600,000. All of these deaths are surely in vein and they will never be justified, no matter how long we stay in this illegal war.

Many critics of the war say that although the war is a mess we have a responsibility to stay and fix the situation. This imperialist attitude completely ignores the opinion of the Iraqi people (and incidentally the American people). Invading countries don’t have rights. They do, however, have the responsibility to follow the will of those living in the invaded territory. Their wishes are very well known, about 90% want immediate withdrawal.

America can still help clean up the situation. For starters, leaving will immediately help cut down on violent attacks, at least that is what most Iraqis think. After that, America owes huge reparations to help Iraq rebuild what we destroyed.

If Iraq is to avoid impending civil war and salvage at least some form of democracy, Americans must force their leaders to withdrawal immediately.

The U.S. Congress passed landmark legislation this past week:

#1 The U.S. flagrantly rejected international law and its own constitution by passing a law giving the president the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without a trial. The law nicely complements the Bush Doctrine which asserts America’s exemption from international law. The senate rejected a last minute amendment that would allow suspects to challenge their detention after being held for a year without trial.

This bill provides justifications for the administration’s current actions that were recently contested by the Supreme Court. Thousands of detainees are being held currently without being charged and without a trial.

Current detainees include alleged suspects like Ali Sher, a Pakistani rickshaw driver who has been held for 17 months without a trial. After Sher’s disappearance, his family members are “under great mental suffering” from not knowing anything on his whereabouts and many have turned to antidepressants. His eight and half month old daughter has never met her father. Ali Sher is currently being held without charges.

#2 Congress authorized $533 billion dollars in defense spending. The bill was overwhelming supported in the House, and the Senate voted 100-0 to pass the bill.

The U.S. spends considerably more than any other country in the world on defense, and last year America spent more than the next 46 highest spending countries combined.

Meanwhile, a record number 37 million Americans are without health insurance and 27 million are living under the poverty line.

This legislation is a prime example of how the government transfers money from the public to corporations. Most of the $533 billion appropriated will end up in the hands of Corporate America through various government contracts.

#3 Congress authorizes construction of a 700-mile anti-immigration fence.

This legislation and other anti-immigrations acts show the contradiction of NAFTA and other American sponsored free trade agreements. After NAFTA destroyed the economy of Mexico, millions of Mexicans have traveled north in hopes to feed their starving families.

Although those who advocated NAFTA were eager to cite Adam Smith for justification, an honest look at his writings show that Adam Smith called for the free movement of labor when he wrote on free trade. In rejection of Smith’s free trade, America has criminalized individuals who cross the border, and this latest piece of legislation has taken extreme xenophobic measures to keep poor migrants out.

The fence bill had strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Earlier this year a Zogby polled showed that 69% of Americans and 90% of Mexicans oppose construction of a wall. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times reported last month that only 25% of Americans approve of the Congress.