MEDIA ROOTS- Abby Martin, founder of Media Roots, speaks to students at San Francisco State University about the landscape of media censorship, the formation of her citizen journalism project Media Roots and why she is collaborating her efforts with Project Censored.

Abby Martin of Media Roots speaks with students at SFSU

Check out an hour interview with Abby for KZYX radio about the left/right paradigm and media censorship.

DISINFO– Wondering how much it costs to buy off the police department? In June of 2011, JP Morgan Chase gave the New York City Police Foundation the largest donation in its history. How the police show their gratitude will presumably determine whether they receive similar donations from companies in the future.

Via Naked Capitalism:

No matter how you look at this development, it does not smell right. From JP Morgan’s website, hat tip Lisa Epstein:

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation.

“These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work.”

Now readers can point out that this gift is bupkis relative to the budget of the police department, which is close to $4 billion. But looking at it on a mathematical basis likely misses the incentives at work. Dimon is one of the most powerful and connected corporate leaders in Gotham City. If he thinks the police donation was worthwhile, he might encourage other bank and big company CEOs to make large donations.

And what sort of benefits might JPM get? The police might be extra protective of your interests. Today, OccupyWallStreet decided to march across the Brooklyn Bridge (a proud New York tradition) to Chase Manhattan Plaza in Brooklyn. Reports in the media indicate that the police at first seemed to be encouraging the protestors not only to cross the bridge, but were walking in front of the crowd, seemingly escorting them across. Over 700 of the marchers were arrested, and the media has a rather amusing “he said, she said” account, with OccupyWallStreet claiming entrapment and the cops batting their baby blues and trying to look innocent.

We simply don’t know whether the police would have behaved one iota differently in the absence of the JP Morgan donation. But it raises the troubling perspective that they might have.

© 2011 Disinfo

Check out Media Roots photos from Occupy Wall Street.

Photo by Flickr user Sasha Y Kimel

MEDIA ROOTS- Obama’s jobs bill amounts to nothing more than a prop that his apologists will use to promote his re-election. His progressive critics, on the other hand, will bemoan its inadequacy, as they demand an FDR-like program of direct governmental employment. And so the sorry spectacle we have witnessed for the past several years will continue, all leading nowhere. Or rather, leading to further dire consequences for tens of millions.

The problem we face isn’t unemployment. The problem is that people are broke and the solution isn’t jobs, but income. With direct payments to all citizens, the government would at least begin to address the deeper problem of generalized insecurity, of which joblessness is simply one manifestation.

Enlightened government policy of this sort won’t be announced at a White House press conference. But is it delusional to contemplate revolutionary social change? Degenerating social conditions adversely affect a majority of citizens, and what is the response – to chase after neo-liberal illusions? Or to fund social entrepreneurs? Or to work towards change that addresses, without the constrictions of ideology, our real needs?

We are facing a bewildering set of catastrophes: climate change, resource depletion, and worldwide economic meltdown. It is no wonder that we are all uncertain where to start and what to support. However, if we can meet our basic needs won’t we be able to contend with all the other problems? It doesn’t take a Marxist to whisper in our ear that we are in the midst of a class struggle – we are not a country of fools some outside our borders think we are. We all understand the role of the rich who in pursuit of their gain undermine our survival. 

One hundred years ago the average person knew this too, but the difference between our great grandparents and us is that they saw the power of ordinary working people putting down tools and striking, sometimes winning and sometimes smashed by the armed might of the capitalists – the State. During the Great Depression ordinary people began taking control of their circumstances; some created combative unemployed councils that organized local, collaborative economies (California had hundreds of these groups) and others occupied factories threatening the bosses’ control and spurring FDR to legalize unions to prevent revolutionary turmoil.

Obviously, we do not live in such heady times. Who will replace the workers who once toiled in those now abandoned factories scattered across the country? The pivotal role played by the old working class finds no equivalent in our age of permanent unemployment. Is it possible for the solidarity of a previous age, based on hope and resistance, but founded on a shared commonality, to be resuscitated by recognizing our generalized insecurity? Could this become the motivating force for social change hidden in plain sight?

What unites immigrants, students, the unemployed, the semi-employed in temporary and part-time jobs and all of us in jobs who face speed-ups, downsizing and off shoring? In Europe a name exists for those in this situation of precariousness: the precariat. A dissident academic, Guy Standing, has just written a thorough examination of this new class: The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. The precariat is dangerous because, so far, its fears have only been addressed by the demagogic Right – the neo-fascists in Europe and the Tea Party in the US.

According to Standing, this new class has a tenuous grip on secure employment, with temporary contracts, no labor protections and no benefits. Or if they have a job, there is no guarantee it will last for years. These conditions lead the precarians to continuously job-hunt as a defensive strategy. They can’t expect to gain job experience as an asset for future employment and, as a consequence, a career with a professional identity fades from their lives.

Neoliberalism’s dogma of flexibility and adherence to market demands creates a centrifugal reality for the individual, destabilizing all aspects of life that define the personality, and that previously led to self-esteem. Values dissolve into attenuated opinions, friendships devolve into text messages, and love detours into pornography. Life hollows out in an endless pursuit of escapism (epitomized by consumerism) and insecurity generates fear of an uncertain future.

Ten years ago in Europe members of the precariat were the chain store workers, but today recent graduates find those jobs are unavailable. All across Europe and the US, the financial sector extracts its homage from governments as a policy of austerity that threatens even the most secure employment of all – government jobs. Can anyone doubt the continuing decline of the old working class, the industrial proletariat, and its succession by a growing mass of fringe workers, immigrants, and unemployables – the precariat? Standing estimates that in the West one-quarter of the population falls into this category, but if only those under thirty years old are counted the category swells to over half, or more. For the young the writing is on the wall, as they all know.

Jobs are scarce and will become even more so as technology continues to replace humans not only in manufacturing, but also increasingly in services. World trends for job creation, at least in the developed world, are discernable and really not contested, and to fly against them with solutions from another era merely demonstrates our inability to imagine another paradigm.

We need to take seriously the proposition that income must be separated from jobs. While this seems absurd in the context of US politics, it received a receptive hearing in the Nixon administration. At that time the fear of growing unemployment and major social unrest, like that seen in all major cities in the late 60s, prompted Washington to introduce a negative income tax to supplement income. Instead of paying taxes, the poor would receive federal funds to stay out of poverty; the federal Earned Income Tax Credit is a lame remnant of that policy. The oligarchs didn’t approve, and at about the same time both the explosive growth of poorly paid service jobs and the rise of the industrial prison complex sidetracked a more humane alternative.

While only a few academics are thinking along these lines in the US, in other parts of the world a basic income has been gaining adherence. The largest program based on this premise is in Brazil, where a modest stipend goes to families so that children can afford schooling. This may be a baby step of a program, but there are proposals to extend it. And other countries more generous benefits are contemplated. Here in the US we have a variation of this idea with the Alaska Permanent Fund that annually pays citizens approximately $1,000 apiece as their benefit from the sale of Alaskan oil.

Most advocates of a guaranteed income premise their program on a yearly subsistence paid to all without qualification, thereby with one program saving billions by ending a multiplicity of government assistance programs. Whether the funds raised for general distribution as income come from a small tax on financial transactions, or whether these funds come from the rent paid by corporations using public resources, or some other scheme or mixture of many sources, the point is that the money can be raised. The obstacle is not an economic issue, but a political one.

The assumption is that the guaranteed income would meet basic needs and be supplemented by employment, which could be part-time or full. If implemented, no one need be tied to a job for a whole year. For the young, in school, travelling, or experimenting with life’s choices, this sum might be sufficient to find meaningful engagement with others. We need to understand that this is not a scheme to avoid work, but to search out fulfillment in work. To in fact, redefine work away from forced labor as it’s conceived by most.

The long-range implications of this transformation of life’s current goal – to search for a job – address the environmental crises we face. How in fact will we contend with a world presented as a jungle, as a struggle to attain scarce resources? The reality of a life without an endless expansion of commodities must be met by transforming our values at some basic levels. The sages of all cultures have told us that we define ourselves by freely associating with others to discover our way of contributing to the commonweal. This is wise advice. We need to be free to follow it.

Bernard Marszalek is editor of The Right to be Lazy: Essays by Paul Lafargue (Kerr/AK Press). He can be reached at [email protected]

MEDIA ROOTS- Richard Clarke, former anti-terrorism chief under Bush, has given a new account of the 9/11 story that implicates the CIA for intentionally obstructing the investigation and withholding vital information that would have likely prevented the attacks. His testimony smashes a hole in the government’s ‘incompetence’ theory that rationalized their inaction. It also invalidates the mindset of ‘oh well, there was so much intelligence coming in that we couldn’t differentiate the real threats from the fake ones’, by pointing out that someone from the inside must have been purposefully obstructing him from doing his job. 

The filmmakers of 9/11: Press for Truth interview Richard Clarke about the revelations.

There are numerous things very telling about Clarke’s sudden revival with this information. His new, more frustrated demeanor hints at something deeper that he could suspect or possibly know to be true about the attacks. Clarke suggests that Saudi intelligence was involved, further connecting the dots between Bandar Bush and the Saudi Royal Family to 9/11.

Al Qaeda on US Government Payroll

Shockingly, Clarke also theorizes that the CIA tried to recruit a member of Al Qaeda who later turned out to be one of the 19 hijackers, proving that the CIA was well aware of Al Qaeda ‘cells’ prior to the attacks. His allegations add credibility to the theory that some of the hijackers could have possibly been on the US government payroll.

If one studies the JFK case, there are eerily similar consistencies with Lee Harvey Oswald’s background as a Russian intelligence agent or potential double agent working for the US. Oswald listed his address in the same New Orleans building as CIA Bay of Pigs co-organizer, Guy Banister. Similarly, five of the 19 hijackers were trained at secure US military installations in the 90s, and three of them listed their addresses at the Pensacola naval base in Florida.

Clarke astoundingly divulges a theory that George Tenant, along with up to 40 CIA agents (by his estimate), knew about attempts to get one of the hijackers on the CIA payroll as an informant up to four months before 9/11.

We don’t know for certain whether Clarke is telling the truth, but what we do know is that over time insiders like Clarke might feel safer revealing more pieces of the 9/11 puzzle. Possibly he is plagued with a guilty conscious, or maybe the US government is still using him to spread conflicting propaganda in order to manipulate the narrative.

Unsurprisingly, the corporate press hasn’t touched the explosive allegation. What is surprising, however, is the lack of coverage from the so-called ‘alternative’ media sites like Salon, Slate, and Wired. There seems to be an active campaign among both the progressive media establishment and the corporate news to censor such a revelatory story.

Who is Richard Blee?

The name Richard Blee comes up multiple times throughout Clarke’s video interview. He points the finger at Blee and accuses him of being a key player in withholding information that could have prevented the attacks. As more investigating is done into this case, hopefully Blee will be further questioned. For now, George Tenant, Blee and others accused by Clarke have already written a rebuttal to his allegations of the ‘lady doth protest too much’ varietal.

Investigative journalism like that done by Secrecy Kills and the 9/11: Press for Truth crew is rare. We give high honors to the people who dug deep into this story and look forward to their future revelations. Make sure to visit their website Secrecy Kills and listen to an hour long podcast detailing much more than what is discussed here. 

Written by Robbie and Abby Martin

MEDIA ROOTS- The vast majority of the world is unaware of the existence of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration was drafted after the atrocities of WWII and was the first global declaration of rights to which all human beings are inherently endowed. Its 30 articles have since served as the basis for numerous human rights treaties and laws. This is a beautiful video rendition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Human Rights Action Center. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Created by Seth Brau, Produced by Amy Poncher, Music by Rumspringa courtesy Cantora Records

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

***

Read the articles within the Universal of Human Rights, and learn more about Article 19 in particular, the article that stresses the universal right to communicate without barriers.