Iran and North Korea - War, Politics, Media and Reality

Skipping Nine Chapters of

 a Ten Chapter Story

Why bother with the middle of the book

 when your hair's already on fire?

First of all, if the domestic corporate media has convinced you that the h-bombs are practically "already flying" with respect to Iran and North Korea, relax. MeanMesa can promise you that there is "more to the story" -- much more.

To begin, let's take a moment to "set aside" the "news" -- you know, the "news" that has been telling us about the inevitable horror of an equally inevitable nuclear war with North Korea. Once we're a little past that nightmare, we can strive to accomplish a similar "mood shift" about the Iran situation.

Is it an undesirable "outcome" for North Korea and Iran to develop their own thermonuclear arsenal? Of course it is. However, the question goes on a little further. Every question which will be decided by probabilities always "goes on a little further" than the mere title of the story.

For anyone wondering where in the world MeanMesa's startling thermonuclear conflict equanimity might have originated, be advised. These old bones went through decades of minute to minute, terrifying "Mutual Assured Destruction" [M.A.D.] during the Cold War. During these long nights and surreal days the rhetoric between the "players" was, suspiciously, consistently similar what we hear now.

Of course one conspicuous dissimilarity was that none the US Presidents serving through these years was casually manifesting the dangerous, daily impulsivity the current White House is showing us this time. However, we have seen even this before. Petty autocrats and dictators, particularly when they find their power slipping, have long understood the tactical advantage of at least appearing insane. Blood soaked soldiers in various "armies of usurpation" have repeatedly toiled to "image" themselves as fanatically "oblivious to their own deaths" by strapping on suicide vests and the like.

Terror only becomes effective strategically when the population of a potential adversary is terrified. If a remote dictator can't accomplish this on his own, there's always the US domestic media to help. American audiences seem to have a very unusual appetite to be terrified.

Since the corporate media relies on the ratings of "audience interest" being titillated by the presentation of such stories, matters which should reasonably be classed as "necessary for consideration," "meriting mitigation" or "requiring quick response" are transformed into "nightmare movies" with scripts providing gruesome details of every possible horrific outcome at every juncture-- usually, plus a few "extras."

Quite beyond the incoherent bumbling of the US "executive leadership" the shockingly cynical media treatment of the current interplay with both Iran and North Korea amounts to nothing more than a self-serving, industrial grade "nightmare movie making" machine. The set, script and cast are all artificial -- useless for any possible reason other than inciting terror.

The incentive for opportunistic politicians' appetite to terrorize the public is, at least, somewhat understandable. However, the incentive for the corporate media's similar appetite is a very strange one. Network ratings go up when audiences are frightened, and network executives -- including the shiny "news" presentation stars -- know this.

The World With Iranian and North Korean H-Bombs

There may not actually be that much difference.

First and foremost, it would be an excellent time to step off our chairs -- leave the noose where you tied it to the ceiling -- and make a sandwich. "Things" will, definitely, change if these two admittedly rambunctious countries test a credible ICBM with a nicely miniaturized H-bomb warhead. Both Iran and North Korea have "blood in their eyes" and a truly creepy obsession for "getting even" with the United States.

While plenty of debate has already passed with respect to both the causes and the "validity" of these decades old, bitter resentments, neither North Korea nor Iran has shown much noticeable restraint when it comes to delivering terrorism, weapons and other mischief to any empty loading dock to be found. In fact, should either or both become armed with these weapons, we can almost count on a serious dose of resentment driven nuclear proliferation.

Happily, even given all this "dark prophecy," there will be no new reason to assume that  thermonuclear war will be the inevitable next step. The United States is and old hand when it comes to living with M.A.D. at the hands of the old Soviets. We have experience.

Since we apparently intend to "dive" right into this, experience will probably important -- especially since we have only a frail skeleton of a politically castrated State Department and an frighteningly incompetent President.

Election 2012: Are We Too Dumb for a Free Press?

MeanMesa's 2012 Apologia

Now that the election is behind us -- at least, apparently behind some of us -- MeanMesa must now make an admission of sorts.  During more normal campaigns, MeanMesa loves to campaign, loves to pass out campaign message cards throughout the neighborhood, loves to argue with folks from the opposing sides of things.  

MeanMesa was and is a proud voter registrar, licensed in New Mexico to undertake that important task.  This season that resulted in registering 41 voters, often voters who required re-registration because they had recently moved since the last election in 2010.  That 41 registrations included 6 for Republicans and 11 for Independents, and accounted with some satisfaction, even those encounters were accomplished without the wild partisan rancor which was clearly the first impulse.

However, this time around, MeanMesa was thoroughly filled with an infuriating torment not experienced recently.  The anger level this time was so high that no candidate could have reasonably expected to benefit from MeanMesa's usual eagerness to, shall we say, "mix it up."  The best, that is, the most constructive decision was to simply stay home.

Of course, there are always moments in any campaign.  This time?  Not moments.  MeanMesa's ensuing state of mind watching this election could only be described as a state of "standing rage and horror."

Two issues were the instigators of this unhelpful state.  First, the public media's conduct during this latest election was a disgusting display of monumental cynicism and arrogance.  Second, there actually were matters which fully deserved the complete attention of the American electorate, urgent decisions, which were never addressed.

The result?  The Republic was "flying blind."

Let's take a look.

The 2012 Election Was a "Free Press" Failure

One of Six Lies Constantly Aired in Romney Campaign (image source: Veracity Stew)

This may seem like a rather bitter comment, but let's review just what went on during the campaigns.

The "free press" is designed to function in roughly the same pattern at the "free market."  In that market, goods and services are offered, purchased and consumed.  If those paying for and consuming the goods and services are satisfied, they return for more.

If, however, these market or media consumers are not satisfied, what follows is the almost mythical neo-con creature called the "market correction."  The "free market" gets to be "free" -- in this case, without regulation -- because when the value of something falls below the price of that thing, the "free market" simply and automatically "corrects" itself, and the consumers buy something else.

This is exactly the logic -- granted, ideological logic which is usually perhaps too pure to always be entirely functional -- which theoretically justifies our country's great reluctance for any legislative preemptive interference in the production of such products.  The vaguely defined acceptable exceptions to such a ban on interference arises with products which are intentionally fraudulent by design, products which threaten peoples' lives and health or products which threaten the Republic.

Colgate Palmolive is not allowed to produce and market botulism flavored tooth paste, snake oil carcinogenic baldness cures or brief case sized h-bombs.

The "free press" has definitely been just this outrageous before, so what was different this last time?  After all, unlike the consequences of the Hearst Yellow Press of the past, we didn't start a war with Spain or Nicaragua even between our own North and South halves this time.  We did, however, probably come fairly close to starting one with Iran.

That would be, "starting a war with Iran" not because we needed to fight Iran, but because the prospect carried a certain momentum of political advantage -- not to mention the associated profits from military procurement..

In MeanMesa's view, 2012 was, actually, a far more dangerous dalliance in the art of media driven incendiary flamboyance, deception and danger than the reportage which incited the Spanish American War.  The "infuriating part" mentioned above has everything to do with what happens when there was no "market correction" to campaign media products even when there clearly and desperately needed to be one.

During the Romney/Ryan campaign, there were no dissatisfied consumers among the GOP population who symbolically "voted with their pocket books"  and demanded something more realistic and productive.  In other words, there was no compensating "market correction" for a campaign media product which should have been quite unacceptable to its target audience.

All those Republicans, 47% of the nation's population, listened to the statements and proposals of the Romney campaign and had no trouble voting for the man and the party.  If the "market correction" for the "free press" idea had been performing as it was traditionally intended to function, the media consumers who ultimately voted Republican would have insisted on something of better quality -- far better quality -- to have come out of the GOP's wildly financed campaign.

Worse, with a billion dollars worth of Citizens United "walking around money" in their pockets, the Republicans effectively stifled any possible constructive campaigning which might have come from the Democrats' side, too.  Democrats in the 2012 campaign had some questions to answer themselves, but with the crazy people on the other side throwing balloons full of blood every minute in a relentless twenty four hour saturation campaign, those questions never saw the light of day.

All through this, the media simply kept "playing ball."  Why was that?

Taking Media Ownership "Down the Rabbit Hole"

Here's one clue.

At the rather impressive site for Injustice Facts  we find this note about media ownership in the United States: [http://factcheckinginjusticefacts.wordpress.com/about/]

"There are 1500 newspapers, 1100 magazines, 9000 radio stations, 1500 TV stations and 2400 publishers owned by only 3 corporations."

It would be painless enough to simply shrug the shoulders and consider the above to be nothing more important than an interesting anecdote, an innocent and more or less predictable development of "the natural course of events" in a lassaiz faire economy.  That may well be an acceptable explanation, but there is a seriously dark, seriously sinister side to this "innocent" development when its effect is to fundamentally undercut the democracy.

However, right here let's divide this business into two parts, one for each of the players.  "Players?"

Who has the nation's wealth? (image source)

Yes.  One of the parties involved here is clearly the oligarch class with their corporate infatuation with finally accomplishing total ownership of the nation.  As of this posting these "fun loving, risk taking" corporate oligarchs have managed to consolidate the lion's share of the entire wealth of the country under their control.  This situation has grown worse since the chart (above) was made in 2007.  [It's present here because it is so extremely straightforward.]

A similar situation -- also quite predictable -- follows this same pattern as we examine the income of Americans.  Those with the largest incomes see those income rates rise while the incomes of the "lesser classes" are actually declining.

The $27 Mn income rates for those in the little orange box is AVERAGE. (image source)

Now, we've all seen charts of this sort before, but there is remains just a tiny tidbit of "fact facing" to do with this post.  This post is not merely an invitation for visitors to simply join in for more complaining.


The "blue" folks in the first diagram and the "orange" folks in the second diagram intend to own everything before they are finished with us.  They've already made an impressive start.

However, in 2012 these oligarchs are not yet bold enough to make a country-wide attempt at something akin to an outright coup.  Lacking the bravado to move to simply quash the electoral democracy, we find these interests in 2012 meddling with the election and voters at state levels.

Don't be confused.  Every act of voter suppression and disenfranchisement we saw in the 2012 election originated with the "blue" and "orange" crowd.  There may have been some soothing confusion from the feathers and fog around the details, but facts are facts.  The oligarchs have an obvious ambition to finally eliminate the democracy.

And, since the elimination of the democracy turns out to be just a little too frightening for them at the moment, the next, safest, thing for their attention is the manipulation of the electorate.  That scheme needed media ownership to get off the ground.

At this point, it's already well off the ground.

During the conduct of the Romney campaign, the commercial media rolled over like a "lumber camp whore."  Not once did a single commercial network issue an order to its star pundits to ask a "follow up" question from Romney.  It wouldn't have mattered if such an order had been given, Romney would not have answered.

Normally, we would assume that this arrogance would have resulted in a massive "market correction" by media news consumers, but we saw that this didn't happen.  The agonizing tableau just continued, day after day, oozing its way through the most awkward of moments of candidate silence without missing a beat.

Barack Obama made a mistake as he entered the first Presidential debate.  He assumed that it would be a debate, but it was not.  The "hired guns" among the commercial media pundits rushed to proclaim his performance a loss.

At that precise moment the cash flowing from the "blues and the oranges" from the charts above had already reached the billions.  Interestingly, that massive flow of money, we now see, included plenty of Saudi royal money and Chinese "foreign corrupt practices" bribes and gambling money gleefully shielded by Citizens United, a ruling from a Supreme Court just as much in the "blue and orange" pockets as the media.

All this "free press" sell out would never have been possible without another set of "players."

The "Other" Players

We could have expected the media consuming public, religiously turning on the tube in an effort to educate themselves before casting their ballots, to fairly quickly reveal their intolerance with the prospect of being so cheaply manipulated, but we didn't see this.  When MeanMesa says "we didn't see this," we are addressing the extremely unexpected complacency of the 47% of voters who so tacitly just accepted this treatment.

MeanMesa, prior to this election, would have naively presumed that no more than 5% or 10% of the electorate would have ever gone along with treatment so amateurish, cynical and brutish, that is, would not have been at all interested in having anything to do with a candidate or campaign so insulting.

It would be a mistake, a grave miscalculation, to look at this anomaly in the wrong time frame.  What occurred in 2012 required a voter demographic which had been cultivated and groomed for years prior to the oligarchs' "big move."  They didn't begin this fight with this election or with the Citizens United ruling or with the coup d'etat by their Supremes in 2001.  This fight was already road weary when the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards were going up in the illiteracy zone.

You can't come up with voters like these in a matter of just a few months or years.  It took decades.

And, those who have ambitions of destroying the democracy have been at this for decades, working hard.  The stakes were -- and are still -- astronomically high.

Poverty. illiteracy, malnutrition, stagnation in public education, Jim Crow Laws, racism, intimidation, voter disenfranchisement, misinformation and outright corruption -- not to mention the dedicated "leadership" of the dirty shirt preachers and half-witted coaches -- have all served to "soften up" and "prepare the field" in the oligarchic anti-democracy campaign.  When American civics could only be taught with textbooks from the Texas School board library, the dies was cast.

The quality of citizenship continually descended.

An exaggeration?  More ranting and raving from MeanMesa?

Explain why millions of Americans listened to what Mitt Romney said and then voted for him.

Part One - An Overview of Education Reform

President Obama once said, "If something were easy, it wouldn't wind up on my desk."

We can go a little further as we consider the basic premise of that comment. In any particular challenge to the country, and, hence, to the President, the work will inevitably include two parts, that is, in the sense of students around here, each effort will inevitably include a Primary and a Secondary Model.

The Primary Model will deal with the specific substance of the challenge. The Secondary Model will be equally critical, entrenched in the interpersonal aspects of the challenge. You know, politics.

Education reform will be no exception.

Not only will President Obama have to create a plan which will directly address the immediate threat of US educational failure, he will have to formulate that plan in a way which will address the "multiple constraint environment" in which it will ultimately be hosted and executed.

"Multiple constraint environment?" Secondary Model?

Yes. The Primary Model will deal with the material changes which will be required to re-establish a functional educational system -- it will include all parts of the reform other than the political lubricant required to enlist the American taxpayers, the Congress, the teachers, the parents, and, of course, the hill billies. The Primary Model is the substance of the changes necessary to start producing educated students. More about that later.

However, we all know that whatever the Primary Model might be, putting it in place will have everything to do with the success of all the aspects of the Secondary Model.

How will people see the plan? How accurately will people gauge the  pressing necessity of it?

Will they be enthusiastic supporters or will they fight any proposal "tooth and nail," inebriated with an out of date, aging, neo-con ideology, bombarded with vacuous "talking points" and crassly manipulated by every scare tactic which can be applied by those who, caring nothing about the future of the country, will selfishly pay any price to recapture political advantage?

As the program is being designed, its final success will be a mix of the two components. It can never work if the essential nature of it doesn't address concrete matters of classrooms, text books, students, parents, teachers and graduation rates, but it can also never work if the people who must support it can be convinced not to support it.

In the words of Ed Schultz (The Ed Schultz Show, KABQ 130 AM, Albuquerque, 4PM to 7PM weekdays), "The rocks come with the field."

The whole thing is complex enough that MeanMesa could make posts as long as the Manhattan phone book on the subject. However, let's try to stay focused on what we consider the essential facets of the undertaking. This means, "Don't be too critical of our treatment of the matter just because you think we've left something out of the soup."

Is Obama Over Reacting?

To set the stage, MeanMesa presents the following background. First we can suggest a quick review of a couple of earlier posts on this blog concerning both the issues of substance and the political challenges.

Obma's Next Stink Hole: Educational Performance Testing

http://meanmesa.blogspot.com/2009/03/bd87our-next-stink-hole-educational.html

The Surrender of Critical Thought

http://meanmesa.blogspot.com/2009/08/surrender-of-critical-thought.html

Now, to assuage those visitors who might think MeanMesa has, once again, "fallen off the wagon" of our normal genteel equanimity while blowing the horn for our own posts, we have tried to select just few videos which might validate our -- and, perhaps, Obama's -- extreme concern about this topic. For background preparation, spend a couple of minutes with the videos at the other end of these links. They speak for themselves.

A short little "speech" from Michael Savage and some of his listeners:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJkOz3afFY&feature=related

A You Tube short from Kieth Olberman's show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXAzp9J9Hic

Although the subtle messages in these videos might seem just a little "out of sorts," this quality of discourse would never be possible among a populated electorate.  

THAT is the focus of this series of postings on education. When the citizens appearing in these videos are invited to explain what has brought them to these positions, they are only able to offer only the "talking points" which have incited their anger.

That is the foundation of Obama's commitment to critical education reform and this series of MeanMesa postings.

And, to lighten things up a little here at the very end, from Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/the-dumbest-things-beauty_n_476548.html#s70706

Why include such a hilarious thing in a posting about education reform?

Well, there is a point -- one which is made clearer by a PBS coverage of a week or so ago.  In the PBS News Hour story, the women who flew bombers and fighters to the front lines in WW2 were being honored  by the President and the Congress. 

 The video from PBS News Hour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june10/wasps_03-10.html

The context for a beneficial comparison surfaces right here.  Could these theoretically educated beauty queens contribute in a similar way when the nation needed their help?

Worse, given the personal development of such beauties,  would they?  We begin with the context of education and education reform, but we are almost immediately confronting matters of being.  Human beings have to, well, be, and that undertaking in this culture means being educated.

Please join MeanMesa for the whole series of postings on education reform.