home / subscribe / donate / books / t-shirts / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
The Seed Thieves
Read Elyssa Pachico’s amazing account how the US patents office is trying to privatize crops that the world’s common heritage. PLUS Eugenia Tsao’s brilliant report on the global trade in psychotherapeutic drugs. PLUS Alexander Cockburn’s account of how Libya’s al-Megrahi, was framed by the U.S. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and t-shirts make great presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page
|
Today's Stories September 8, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Jeff Leys September 7, 2009 Vicente Navarro Bouthaina Shaaban David Macaray Paul Craig Roberts Jonathan Cook Conn Hallinan Walter Brasch Mark Weisbrot Carl Finamore C. G. Estabrook Website of the Day September 4-6, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Carl Ginsburg Jonathan Cook George Wuerthner Marc Levy Ray McGovern Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Joe Paff Gareth Porter Devin Beaulieu Anthony Papa David Ker Thomson Don Fitz Lee Sustar / Jim Goodman Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Helen Redmond John V. Walsh Charles R. Larson Mark Scaramella David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 3, 2009 Marcus Rediker Ron Jacobs Mike Whitney Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Saul Landau Anat Matar Tanya Golash-Boza Dave Lindorff Andy Worthington Website of the Day September 2, 2009 John Ross Vijay Prashad Rev. Jim Rigby Joanne Mariner Missy Beattie Soren Ambrose Diane Farsetta Nadia Hijab Shamus Cooke Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 1, 2009 Jeffrey St. Clair Paul Craig Roberts Mark T. Harris Dean Baker Jeffrey Buchanan Robin Mittenthal Ellen Brown Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day August 31, 2009 Pam Martens Anthony DiMaggio Bouthaina Shaaban Ray McGovern Joseph Shansky Greg Moses Brian McKenna David Macaray Brenda Norrell Paul Craig Roberts Beth Sherouse Website of the Day August 28-30, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Joshua Frank / Steve Early Michael Hudson Carl Ginsburg Saul Landau Dave Marsh Mike Whitney Dave Lindorff José Pertierra Joe Bageant Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Lee Sustar David Ker Thomson David Rosen Alison Weir Ron Jacobs David Swanson Udi Aloni Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 27, 2009 Andrea Peacock Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Ray McGovern Gideon Levy Shamus Cook Norman Solomon Marshall Auerbach Benjamin Dangl Kathryn Gray David Macaray Website of the Day August 26, 2009 Gareth Porter Dave Lindorff Dean Baker Laura Carlsen Paul Craig Roberts Laura Raymond / Jordan Flaherty Jonathan Cook Robert Bryce Danny Weil Cindy Sheehan John V. Walsh Website of the Day August 25, 2009 Gabriel Kolko Danny Weil Martine Bulard Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Bélen Fernández August 24, 2009 Danny Weil Neve Gordon John Ross Open Letter to Kenneth Roth Dan Bacher August 21-23, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Ray McGovern Carl Ginsburg Dave Lindorff M. Shahid Alam Ron Jacobs Eric Walberg No War on the Moon! Gilad Atzmon Crawdad Nelson David Yearsley Justin Frew Website of the Day August 20, 2009 Eugenia Tsao Dave Lindorff Yonatan Preminger Wajahat Ali Website of the Day August 19, 2009 David Michael Green Paul Craig Roberts Marshall Auerback Franklin Lamb John Ross Marjorie Cohn August 18, 2009 Michael Hudson Mary Lynn Cramer Jonathan Cook Uri Avnery Ralph Nader Bill Quigley & Davida Finger August 17, 2009 Ray McGovern Andy Worthington Patrick Cockburn Don Fitz P. Sainath Helena Cobban August 14-16, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Peter Linebaugh Esam Al-Amin Marshall Auerback Mike Whitney Paul Krassner Saul Landau Nikolas Kozloff Henry A. Giroux John Ross Jonathan Cook Isabella Kenfield David Rosen Ron Jacobs Wajahat Ali David Macaray Greg Moses Charles R. Larson David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 13, 2009 Eduardo Galeano Joanne Mariner Michael Donnelly Norman Solomon Russell Mokhiber Tim Wise Brian M. Downing Dave Lindorff David Manning / Miriam Cotton: Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day August 12, 2009 Michael J. Watts Bouthaina Shaaban Ricardo Alarcón Binoy Kampmark Paul Craig Roberts Alan Farago James Ridgeway Dave Lindorff David Macaray Niranjan Ramakrishnan Website of the Day August 11, 2009 Ricardo Alarcón Marshall Auerback Reza Yavari Winslow T. Wheeler Tim Wise Uri Avnery Deepak Tripathi Greg Moses Benjamin Dangl Dave Lindorff Website of the Day August 10, 2009 David Price Mike Whitney Alan Farago Conn Hallinan Russell Mokhiber Paul Krassner Sousan Hammad Jonathan Cook Ira Glunts George Wuerthner Website of the Day August 7 - 9, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Mike Whitney Elaine C. Hagopian Carl Ginsburg Miguel Tinker Salas Saul Landau John Ross Anthony DiMaggio Obama and the Israel Lobby: Origins of Power John Stanton Christopher Brauchli Legal Absurdities: Outing Three Strikes Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Franklin Lamb Bruce E. Levine Michael Winship David Macaray Stephen Fleischman Robert Bryce Robert Dodge, MD: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered Mark Seth Lender David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 6, 2009 Ishmael Reed Paul Craig Roberts William Blum Assassinations and Coups: Keeping Track of the Empire's Crimes Michael Donnelly Jonathan Cook Dave Lindorff Ellen Brown Website of the Day August 5, 2009 Dedrick Muhammad / Norman Solomon William Blum Gareth Porter Mary Lynn Cramer Jim Goodman Nadia Hijab Gretchen Kroth Steve Macek / Sarah Lazare Website of the Day August 4, 2009 Mike Whitney Dave Lindorff Patrick Cockburn Jonathan Cook Jeff Sher Dean Baker Andy Worthington Uri Avnery Mark Weisbrot Alvaro Huerta Website of the Day
|
September 8, 2009 The Furor Over Obama's Speech to SchoolkidsPersonality Cults, Indoctrination and InculcationBy LARAY POLK Domestic, political chaos is upon us. It is peaking with the controversy and collision brought on by President Obama’s scheduled broadcast to pubic schools this week. Broadly speaking, there are two distinct impulses at work. One impulse is generated by people who believe that social and political ills can be largely overcome by addition (i.e., more government spending, regulation and oversight will make life better for everyone). The other impulse is generated by people who believe that improvement will come by way of a reversal of ills and achieved by subtraction (i.e., less government spending, regulation and oversight will make life better for the middle- and upper-class). As a consequence, any semblance of democratic process is at a stand-still. For those involved in progressive politics, this latest clash is an accepted continuance of a deaf and dumb body politic that is largely out of tune with anybody who is not a corporation, lobbyist, or purveyor of thoughts that have been gathered from the bandwidth of mainstream media and special interest groups. Predictably, the fallout from the well-established machinations of power politics has pitted ordinary people against one another, leaving the general populace to viciously duke it out in a variety of public forums that are bereft of any resemblance of decent discourse. Those who arrive in mental and linguistic armor have no illusions about the battle. It is about the culture of decadence brought on by almost any form of progressive thought generated by liberals, and the spending of federal money, their money, on irresponsible people (Blackwater et al. fall outside this category). Those who come partially armored and equipped with alternative facts and discernible methods of argumentation, still believe that such verbal infusions will lead to some type of negotiation. It is clear, there is no room for progression of thought, leading to a progression in action, as a democracy would imply, because the conservative dissenters are interested in subtraction. The dominant dissent of the day is about breaking down the processes of democracy while simultaneously eking out token vestiges of capitulation. Equally guilty are those not willing to accept that those engaged in subtraction can only subtract from that which is known to exist. At the core of the latest upheaval is a superficial discussion on the topic of indoctrination. Across blog forums hosted by mainstream media, many of those who espouse fear of the possible indoctrination of school children by way of a presidential appearance, oddly enough, are uncritical carriers (i.e., a doctrinaire) of talking points provided by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Glenn Beck. While decrying the Obama personality cult, they dutifully disseminate the historically erroneous and slapdash selling points doled out by right-wing television/radio demagogues. As a result, comparisons between the intentions of Obama to speak with school children and the concrete and established facts of Hitler’s youth programs and Mao’s Little Red Book ensue. Is it highly improbable anybody using these analogies would actually be held accountable for the conceptual construction and content of their opinions. Yet, even if this were requested of them, it would be missing the point. The use of politically charged terms is meant as a subtractive force not as a vehicle for expanding discussion nor as a sincere offer of keen insight into political theory of a larger order. A broad description of indoctrination is that which is learned and accepted by the uncritical mind. One means of indoctrination is by inculcation, that is, to teach by repetition. Successful inculcation comes as a consequence of trusting the source, and by extension, accepting that which is being repeated as truth and a basis of valid argumentation. It also works by having contact with information that is uncritically accepted as truth which may or may not lead back to the originating source. If arguments offered in supposedly elastic discussions are essentially cut-and-paste rhetoric that can be tracked to a central source, then there is, more or less, a personality cult at work and attempts at indoctrination through inculcation are succeeding. The discussion then, is not one of an overall discontentment with personality cults and indoctrination--history and facts will simply not bear this out-- but, rather, a battle over preferences for certain types of indoctrination over others. If we could agree as a culture that it is possible that any president, based on his or her role as the POTUS, has the ability to indoctrinate young, impressionable minds by speaking to them directly in a school setting, why are so many determined to deny President Obama his opportunity to indoctrinate? Even among the least curious, one must ask why this issue of indoctrination is currently being brought up since there is an established precedent. In 1988, President Reagan spoke to students on political issues via C-Span. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush spoke to children about drugs via a live television feed. In 1991, he delivered another speech on the value of education via a telecast on CNN and PBS. In a prime-time news conference in October 2001, President George W. Bush went as far as encouraging children to become active participants in the war against terrorism, suggesting that they organize and raise money through established youth groups: “Before we leave, I want to make a special request to the children of America. I ask you to join in a special effort to help the children of Afghanistan. Their country has been through a great deal of war and suffering...I hope school classes or Boys and Girl Scout troops, other youth organizations will participate in any way to raise the money to send to the children. Wash a car. Do a yard for a neighbor. And I hope the adults will help them as well...Americans are united in this fight against terrorism. We're also united in our concern for the innocent people of Afghanistan." The encouragement of children to care for children in other countries and to actively engage in their needs can hardly be construed as malevolent. However, Bush, predictably, did not go into detail as to the full array of sources causing the “war and suffering” that necessitated US children to set about fundraising and delivering funds to the White House to help their peers in Afghanistan. If the issue were really a broader inquiry about the possibility of indoctrination of children by proximity, why are we not debating whether or not any high-profile politicians should have any direct access to children in public schools? Or the obvious fact that military recruiters have unimpeded discussions on foreign policy with school kids daily? Since the discussion is devoid of such expansive topics, then it is easy to surmise that the true aim of protest is to deny President Obama his chance to be a part of the legacy of televised, schoolside chats as established by Republican presidents since 1988. If the argument is perpetuated that it’s not President Obama per se speaking to children, but objections to the accompanying study plan suggested by the Department of Education, then it is time to consider that the White House has revised the wording. Dissenters made their disagreements known, the White House and Department of Education took them into account and revised the language accordingly. To a large degree, the democratic process worked. Compare this with the Bush administration. The absence of democratic process is best summed up by one of Vice President Cheney’s last interviews as an official office holder. In March 2008, when Martha Raddatz ask about how the administration’s positive assessment squared with a recent poll that showed approximately two-thirds of Americans believed the the fight in Iraq was not worth it, Cheney replied, “So?” Raddatz then asked, "You don't care what the American people think?" He responded, "You can't be blown off course by polls.” What Raddatz failed to follow-up with and Cheney failed to address, is that the poll numbers came after years of continuous dissent that had been occurring in weekly protests in the US and around the world before the preemptive war in Iraq ever began. Cheney’s utterance, “So?,” displays an arrogance and utter disdain for the people he is in disagreement with (two-thirds of the US population if the 2008 poll is believed to be marginally accurate) and by extension, the democratic process. It is hard to imagine the fallout if President Obama, in the face of being asked what he thought about any dissent from any quarter of the population here or abroad, replied in a similar manner. It is possible in a democracy to have an open discussion on the nature and power of personality cults, indoctrination and inculcation. Such discussions yield amazing results, if the conversation is sincere. If there is a lack of sincerity, then the stirring up of these topics is most likely intended to debunk the opposition by implying that their decision-making is not the result of a vigorous reflection of fact. One way to determine the presence of vigorous reflection is to engage in its processes in the company of others. If there are no social forums that support the means for reaching a consensus on what constitutes fact, then civil, democratic progression is not possible. The larger underlying issue is one of trust, and the very human dilemma of suspending judgement as it concerns someone or an entity whom we wish to believe is working in our best interests. What is currently passing as discourse is both subterfuge and salvo that is keeping us from a deeper discussion that might lead us to rediscovery of the most potent acts of democratic process: self-evident truth. The search for self-evident truth requires independence of mind, vigilance and active filtration; indoctrination does not. Self-evident truth has no viable vehicle if the “petition for redress” does not exist for all. Laray Polk is a multimedia artist and writer who lives in Dallas,Texas. She can be contacted at laraypolk@me.com.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Yellowstone Drift: Spell Albuquerque: Waiting for
Lightning
|