MEDIA ROOTS – A brand new show on the RT America Network hosted by Abby Martin, ‘Breaking the Set’ seeks to smash through the Left/Right Paradigm set in the media and political establishment to find the middle ground: the truth. On the debut show, Abby calls out the Mainstream Media for not talking about military spending, interviews Retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor about the ‘inevitability’ of US intervention in Syria, highlights Desmund Tutu as the hero and Kathy Fairbanks as the villain, speaks to Producer Manuel Rapalo about the DNC coverage in the corporate press and explores ugly side of surveillance with the Automated License Plate Reader program.

Abby Martin hosts the debut show of Breaking the Set on RT America

***

LIKE Breaking The Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet

FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

OR SUBSCRIBE to the official YouTube channel @http://www.youtube.com/BreakingTheSet

MEDIA ROOTS – This set is dedicated to a real person emerging to lead the world’s resistance against imperialistic hegemony–a person not caught up in materialistic ideals or selfish desires. Hopefully this leader will be able to bring the world peace for centuries to come.

Love,

ATOP, Akkad the Orphic Priest

***This mix wasn’t made by Fluorescent Grey

All the featured music on the mix can be found through searching discogs.com or by emailing me: [email protected].

Track Listing:

Nathan Fake – Old Light
Team Doyobi – The Luminous Image
Holy Other – Tense Past
Blue Daisy X Unknown Shapes – Bedtime Stories (Don’t Stop)
Throwing Snow – Perca
Slugabed – Mountains Come Out of the Sky
Outer Space – 11:38
Hautlle – Feel Good Track of the Year
Yeasayer – Henrietta
Tinariwen – Tenere Taqhim Tossam (Four Tet rmx)
Lil Silva – Quest
Jam City – How We Relate to the Body
Keyboard Kid 206 – Live Righteous
Rustie – After Light (featuring Aluna George)
M Geddes Gengras – Air Solo
Tubeway Army – Praying to the Aliens
Animal Collective – Monkey Riches

***

MEDIA ROOTS – The Pentagon and the corporate media establishment are again attempting to control the 9/11 and War on Terror narrative by claiming that they are considering legal action against former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette (a.k.a. Mark Owen) for publishing his book No Easy Day. The supposed context for the publication of his story, scheduled for release on Tuesday, is that the veteran did not offer the manuscript to the Department of Defense for prior review and he now may face legal recourse from the agency. Additionally, his name was leaked by the Associated Press last week, resulting in possible threats to his life.

The book was originally scheduled for release on September 11 of this year. It was an attempt made by Owen to remain apolitical about arguably the most politicized event of the decade. But the current debate appears to be scripted for the history books as several hard questions about the death of bin Laden continue to be ignored and will most likely not be answered in the upcoming publication distributed by Dutton.

The first and probably the most obvious discrepancy is if military intelligence had known of his precise location for eight months prior to the raid, then why hasn’t more proof of his whereabouts been released to the American public? “Despite the intense surveillance effort the CIA was unable to obtain a photograph of Bin Laden or a recording of the voice of the mysterious man, presumed to be the al-Qaida leader,” states the Guardian the week after the raid.

With such precise knowledge of the bunker, why was bin Laden not captured for trial in a court of law? Attorney General Eric Holder answers that the operation was not only lawful according to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) but was simply an act of national self-defense. But in a nation where children are taught the belief of liberty and justice for all, it’s quite contradictory for this nation’s leadership to not protect and promote these ideals worldwide.

Furthermore, Owen recounts a scene where bin Laden may actually have already been dead upon their arrival. “At first it was funny because it was so wrong,” Owen reflected in his account of May 1, 2011. This version is in direct conflict with that of the White House in which bin Laden was allegedly reaching for a weapon at the time of the fatal shots. Owen confirms that the suspected terrorist was unarmed at the time of his death and their team may have just been on a kill mission.

But the greatest and most pertinent question has still not been asked: was Osama Bin Laden actually killed on May 1, 2011? This past March, the online hacker group Anonymous was able to obtain emails from the intelligence analysis group Stratfor which directly contradicts the official story about what happened with bin Laden’s body after the raid. While possibly the smoking gun of a White House cover-up, several news stories reported before the raid also directly contradict the official narrative. Below are a just few examples:

2001 – “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.” [Fox News]

2002 – “Pakistan’s president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.” [CNN]

2006 – “Saudi intelligence services seem to be sure that Osama bin Laden is dead. The elements gathered by the Saudis indicate that the head of Al Qaeda was the victim, while he was in Pakistan on Aug. 23, 2006, of a strong case of typhoid fever that led to a partial paralysis of his lower limbs.” [France’s Directorate-General for External Security]

2007 – “… he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” [Benazir Bhutto]

2008 – “The last relatively reliable bin Laden sighting was in late 2001.” [Time]

2009 – “What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror? Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.” [Daily Mail]

The War on Terror is riddled with unanswered questions that range in depth and consequence. From numerous eyewitness accounts of what actually hit the Twin Towers to this morning’s attack at a US military base, the corporate media hardly scratches the surface of investigation, often simply regurgitating government propaganda. But as more individuals combat societal ignorance, becoming proactively aware of the atrocities committed by their military establishment and the history of their empire, the War on Terror is destined to end.

Oskar Mosco for Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flickr user Ben Sutherland.

MEDIA ROOTS – Released nationwide on Friday, the documentary film Barack Obama: 2016 is not only highly critical of President Obama’s job performance, it again raises the question of who he is and what his view of America is in the world. While the film does not offer many certainties about the president’s potential second term in office, it does use his previous actions as a device for telling a story that many Americans may not be familiar.

The film, distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures, is written and directed by Dinesh D’Souza and based on his book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. It is very open about its conservative approach, which allows the viewer to set aside any perceived spin and focus on the information presented. Some ideas about the president’s past would excite conspiracy theorists as the production makes clear there are many more questions than there are answers.

After a brief description of his own youth in India, D’Souza begins his narrative with a brief comparison of his own life and that of Mr. Obama. Born, having graduated from college, and married in the same years as each other, the two lives appear at first quite parallel. What shapes their youth more than anything is their immigration to the United States and, in particular, their Ivy League education.

But what Mr. D’Souza cannot relate to is having not been brought up with a father. He does, however, appear to make an honest effort in learning the developmental psychology of such abandonment during childhood by interviewing a specialist and a former co-worker of his mother. Additionally, he uses Obama’s own words – literally Obama’s voice from the book-on-tape – from the book Dreams from my Father, to help paint a picture of an upbringing that often felt empty. But because of his mother’s compassion, “Barry” did have several male influences throughout his upbringing and it is this subject matter that seems to interest D’Souza the most. Who were these men and how come so little is known about them?

The film goes on to explore several of these relationships. As a young boy in Indonesia, Obama’s stepfather Lolo Soetoro may have helped foster a free spirit and as a young man in Chicago, Obama worked with Weather Underground’s Bill Ayers and listened to radical sermons delivered by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But it’s his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, which seems to be of particular influence on his development while remaining virtually unknown to most Americans. After a closer examination into this relationship, one might develop a keen insight into what is yet to come for the United States.

Two comedies, one theme

Game Change, released by HBO in March, confirmed what every rational American already knows: Sarah Palin is about as adept at managing a family as she is at answering basic questions from the press. While the film was officially denounced by both Senator McCain and Governor Palin, it was endorsed by one of Senator McCain’s former senior advisers and appeared to be a way for the Republican establishment to reconcile its 2008 campaign blunder. It hardly challenged viewers perceptions of the right wing and provided very little insight into future GOP strategy.

The Campaign has been in theaters for almost a month and offers viewers a slapstick parody of the election process. Distributed by Warner Brothers, the film provides a non-partisan approach to politics but does reinforce the corporate media establishment by providing several product placements of cable news networks. Many television pundits made cameo appearances including Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz of MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer and Piers Morgan of CNN, and Bill Mahr of HBO. (Interestingly enough, many of these personalities seem to have close ties to the White House. Mahr made news earlier this year after donating one million dollars to the Obama re-election campaign while Schultz claims he would donate to the president if he could.)

Political films released during campaign seasons will continue to leave an impression on the minds of voters and nonvoters alike. But as the left-right paradigm begins to lose traction with an increasingly alert citizenry, it is still uncertain if this same awareness will be applied when considering the corporate media establishment. For if citizens continue to consume political comedies produced by this entity just prior to an election, then their laughter will most likely translate into increased apathy of the electoral process and the elite will remain in control.

Oscar Mosko for Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flickr user Osipowa.

MEDIA ROOTS – This article by David Noriega, published on TheNewInquiry, vividly diagrams the pressures inherent on a young college graduate when he goes to work for the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board, wherein he investigates citizens’ complaints against NYPD officers. Where other areas that have the means use attorneys for the important task of holding peace officers accountable to citizens, the overextended CCRB provided steady employment for recent grads like Mr. Noriega, as long as they could accomplish the task of minimizing paperwork and consequences for the NYPD.

Younger, more inexperienced workers were more likely to follow orders and be amenable to a culture that valued exoneration of officers, discounting citizen grievances, and not taking a stand on controversial issues like stop-and-frisk. The author expresses some guarded hope, and lists some recent, albeit limited, improvements to the CCRB’s function. This cautionary tale will give you a glimpse of what it feels like to be on the inside of a powerless bureaucratic machine whose ostensible task is keeping the NYPD from abusing its authority. 

Laurie Kirchner for Media Roots

*****

THENEWINQUIRY – I will always remember the first time a cop lied to me. Or rather, the first time that I knew beyond a doubt that a cop was lying to me, sitting right there in the interview room with a tape recorder in front of him.

It was early in my tenure as an investigator at the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the city agency established in 1993 to investigate allegations of misconduct against NYPD officers. The case was a fairly straightforward stop-and-frisk incident near the massive New York City Housing Authority complexes along Avenue D in Manhattan. The complainant, a man in his early 20s, alleged that a plainclothes cop had stopped, frisked, and searched him after he stepped out of a bodega. He’d given a guy a cigarette, and before he knew it, the cop came up from behind him, grabbed him by the coat, and after a quick scuffle, pushed him against a wall.

I’d already interviewed the cop’s unusually forthcoming partner, whose testimony matched the complainant’s. That’s how I knew the cop was making stuff up. Lots of stuff.

Continue reading The Thin Blue Line

*****

photo by Jean-Edouard BABIN under creative commons