My remarks are related to the problem of media as a factor in the war system but not focused primarily on that. I have experienced first hand as a journalist and as an author how the corporate news media hews to a set of well-delineated lines in the coverage of issues of war and peace that systematically block out all data that conflict with those lines. I’d be glad to talk about my experiences especially in covering Iran and Syria in Q and A.
Prison inmates around the country launched the first nationally coordinated work stoppage on Sept. 9. In their own words, these heroic inmates have gone on strike “not only [to] demand the end to prison slavery, [but to] end it ourselves by ceasing to be slaves.” (iwoc.noblogs.org, April 1)
Countering military recruitment in the nation’s high schools confronts an ugly mix of a distinctively American brand of institutionalized violence, racism, militarism, nationalism, classism, and sexism. It confronts the greatest problems in American society.
Ralph Nader interviewed Jill Stein on September 17, 2016. Ralph and Jill discuss the corporate ownership of the media and the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties, preventing public disclosure of third-party candidates and their proposals for a better America.
GUILLAUME LONG, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, said the last decade of the citizen revolution in his country had shown that to achieve development it was necessary to do the opposite of the prescription of the neoliberal hegemony. Ecuador had been able to recover the faith and hope of a country that had been destroyed, and that could be reflected in tangible results for its people, notably in the reduction of extreme poverty and inequality. The Powers of hegemony had appropriated widely used words and given them meaning to impose a political and moral agenda on the planet. The word “development” was not just a technical issue, but a political one, especially when it came to the redistribution of wealth. “Human rights” included economic and social rights, not just political ones, and were violated not just by States but by multinational corporations as well.
On this week’s episode of On Contact, Chris Hedges discusses the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement with Israeli human rights activist Miko Peled. They discuss the global campaign to economically and politically pressure Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian land, grant equality to Arab-Palestinian citizens and allow Palestinian refuges the right of return to their homes. RT Correspondent Anya Parampil examines the history and breadth of the BDS movement.
In this episode of Redacted Tonight VIP, Lee Camp interviews Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges. They jump right into it concerning startling evidence about how the US has become a corporate totalitarian state, compared to the democracy it claims to be. They go on to discuss how the two-party system duopoly is leading to the demise of our country. Hedges also explains just how dangerous it is for leftists to vote for Hillary Clinton, even with the specter of Donald Trump looming in the background. This information is explosive. Enjoy and share.
“Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
George Bernard Shaw
Change is a word that both intellectuals and the intelligentsia of America are discussing in these times. However, one is justified to wonder what kind of change they mean. As a rule when intellectuals/liberals speak of change, they mean reform (and not enough of it, at that: that is, the leisurely conforming of the lives of the collective with their own. The radical, politically-socially committed intelligentsia means something else and their thought and conclusions take another avenue of meaning: their aim is transformation or, if you prefer, radical change. However, it is an unfortunate paradox that no more than liberals, the intelligentsia does not always know what to do with its convictions.
The battle between Sanders and Clinton over the term “progressive” presented an opportunity to discuss some history. Now that Sanders is supporting the very person who misappropriated the term it is even more important to define what does progressive mean, if it is more than a euphemism for the vague term “liberal.” This article argues on the contrary that “progressive” has a very precise meaning conferred by its history.