[MrBill]

Now Mr. Bill,

There are some big differences between Singapore and the ME, geography, oil, and politics. Carter never threatened Singapore with the Carter Doctrine.

Yes, and China has never ruled out force to take Singapore, and we know that America would be forced to defend them, unless they bomb them first.

[seahorse2]

That is true, I'm just not sure Singapore is the same, though, as the countries in the ME.

One of the best books I have read in the last two years was Michael Klare's "Blood and Oil" about how oil has played such a tremendous role in America's foriegn policy. Explains to me at least, how the US backs dictators in Ubekinstan while at the same time and arguably very hypocritically wages "a war for democracy" in Iraq. Therefore, I just think the ME is a different situation than Singapore.

However, I have read the debate between you and Petrodollar and understand what you are arguing here, just don't think its the right analogy to make your point.

[MrBill]

That is true, I'm just not sure Singapore is the same, though, as the countries in the ME.

One of the best books I have read in the last two years was Michael Klare's "Blood and Oil" about how oil has played such a tremendous role in America's foriegn policy. Explains to me at least, how the US backs dictators in Ubekinstan while at the same time and arguably very hypocritically wages "a war for democracy" in Iraq. Therefore, I just think the ME is a different situation than Singapore.

However, I have read the debate between you and Petrodollar and understand what you are arguing here, just don't think its the right analogy to make your point.

in my own tongue and cheek way, I am showing that one can string together a whole bunch of facts, that are by themselves, true and verifiable, but reach the wrong conclusions just the same. but that is just me being immature ; - )

[Petrodollar]

but that is just me being immature ; - )

I concur.

BTW, perhaps you should shift your strategy from attempting to impungn my research and actually start criticizing the economists at the IMF. Why? Because they are arguing the same thing that I am about petrodollars - and the macroeconomic process that you deride as nonconsequential. Perhaps you can write a letter to the IMF attempting to correct their "conspiracy thinking" about petrodollar flows?...

Petrodollars heighten risk from global imbalances: IMF report

By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:07 AM ET Apr 13, 2006


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Petrodollars have returned to the world stage, and could play a potentially destabilizing role in the U.S. and global trade imbalances, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund released Thursday.

Petrodollars, just as much a part of the 1970s as bell bottoms and platform shoes, are dollars paid to oil-producing countries and then re-invested in major financial markets.

In the 1970s, these funds were deposited in big Western banks. This time around, it is more complicated. Petrodollars are being recycled through international capital markets and offshore accounts, partially because of the post 9/11 Patriot Act reporting requirements, the IMF said.

{Note: While the shifts to offshore accounts has occured following passage of the Patriot Act, it is also noteworthy to mention that in 1974 the CIA began classifying Saudi Arabian investments in the US as Top Secret. This furhter complicates analysis by the BIS and IMF re actual Saudi investments/petrodollar flows. BTW, Dr. Spiro wrote that there are no other nations whose US investments are classified by the CIA as Top Secret}

But these [petrodollar-related] investments have kept U.S. interest rates low, allowing the U.S. trade imbalance to persist, because there has been no pain from running large trade deficits.

{Mr. Bill, quick - you better contact the IMF and attempt to "dissuade" them of their flawed analysis...}

This only adding to the risk of an eventual sharp drop in the dollar, a spike in U.S. interest rates, and a recession, according to the IMF report. The report was one of the chapters of the IMF's World Economic Outlook released Thursday.

"Global current account imbalances are likely to remain at elevated levels for longer than would otherwise have been the case, heightening the risk of a sudden disorderly adjustment," the IMF said in the report, the World Economic Outlook.

And the U.S. has not had to adjust as much as it did in the past because inflation has remained subdued in face of high oil prices and petrodollars have kept interest rates low.

{Opps, there again the IMF is commenting on the link b/t the Fed Reserve's abnormally low interest rates in the face of massive debt which is in fact enabled by the incessant international demand/liqudity of petrodollars...}

The IMF estimates that capital inflows have depressed yields on government bonds by perhaps 3/4 of a percentage point. {at a veyr minimum...}

The IMF said that much of the $30 per barrel increase in oil prices since 2002 is likely to be permanent. The value of oil exports has more than doubled [sic] to nearly $800 billion in 2005.

(more on this link)

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/S ... mktw&dist=

[HonestPessimist]

While you are corrrect that the Internet is not yet filtered, but the airwaves (both radio and print media) and most of the news print is are most definitely heavily filtered, and unfortuately that is where the masses get their news. Don't take my word for it, just listen to the experts who know how the media works in the US:

You have failed to realize one thing: a media network (like CNN, FOX, NBC, etc.) is a private corporation that is in the business of controlling their own contents and distribute them for the public, according to that corporation's own business and service models it offers to the public. It is all about "marketing and selling" contents of their own. Much like a private artist marketing and selling his/her artworks to the public according to his/her own "business model" (for example: a theme/genre according to one's own beliefs).

You cannot tell a private corporation how to run its business/service just because you don't like the way it acts and functions contrary to your own personal beliefs. If Fox News wanted to control, filter and distribute their contents, that's their business, not yours. If CNN does the same, that's their business, not yours. It's the same for every private media company in the world.

The problem with your concerns about "five companies controlling what we read, see and hear" is that you have no control over how a private media company does its business and service offerings to the public. The public will take what the company's offering and it's up to the public decide for themselves. There is nobody or no law telling you that you must read, see and hear what this or that private media company offers.

YOU decide what contents you read, see and hear from any private or public-owned media company in the nation or the world. YOU decide for yourself. Don't take those words of high-mighty celebrities and "experts" for granted so easily.

PETRODOLLAR WARFARE:
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar

http://www.ens-books.com/reviews/petrodollarreview.html

http://www.hopedance.org/new/book_reviews/r160.html

DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOU ARE MARKETING AND SELLING YOUR OWN "CONTENTS" TO THE PUBLIC??!

What is your business model?
- to present your own "contents" according to your researches and findings to the public. YOU control your contents.
- to sell and market your contents according to your own beliefs and perception. YOU distribute your contents.

Did your editor and other supporters of your book offered their opinions or filtered your contents?
Did anyone tried to stop you from getting your book published, financially or forcefully? Answer truthfully please.

Do you wanted me to control your contents based on what I like and what I don't like from yours? No?

You cannot tell a private company what to do completely. You can criticize them, boycott them or scold at them or sue them under valid legal reasons.

[HonestPessimist]

While you are corrrect that the Internet is not yet filtered, but the airwaves (both radio and print media) and most of the news print is are most definitely heavily filtered, and unfortuately that is where the masses get their news.

Okay, here's this "heavily filtered" news: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191806,00.html

Note the Associated Press report in that Fox News page.

Compare it to the rest: http://news.google.com/news?q=Associate ... s&ct=title

I see not much differences among the news media reporting what the AP reported. Heavily filtered.... indeed.

[CrudeAwakening]

I prefers a more direct and original opinion instead of a copy-n-pasting hack pulling too many quotes, statements, URLs or charts from somewhere just to prove a point.

What, you can't handle the fact that Petrodollar produces EVIDENCE to support his position?

[HonestPessimist]

I prefers a more direct and original opinion instead of a copy-n-pasting hack pulling too many quotes, statements, URLs or charts from somewhere just to prove a point.

What, you can't handle the fact that Petrodollar produces EVIDENCE to support his position?

Evidence to support HIS arguments. There are many books written and published by authors that produced evidence of various sorts to support their arguments/positons which can be challenged, disputed, criticized, accepted or considered.

Are Matthew Simmons' works any more factual and argumentative than Petrodollar's?

Do you suppose that David Icke's books are anymore factual and evidential to support his position that there is a giant alien conspiracy behind the whole shebang?

[CrudeAwakening]

Well, I think it's only natural that he produces evidence in favour of his position, it's up to others to criticise and produce countervailing evidence. That way we get a debate going.

For example, there's a mountain of evidence that the corporate media filters and censors stories, but you only presented your view. Yet you seem to think PD shouldn't do the same. Let's apply the same standards to ourselves as we would to others.

[Petrodollar]

Crdue Awakening,
Thanks for pointing out the obvious about evidence and fact. I can't help that I am an analytical, evidence-based person, that's my personality, that's my training, and that's how I make a living. I beleive that facts must dictate reason and rationale. I'm not a huge fan of John Adams, but he was absolutely right when he stated:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770, (1735 - 1826)

HonestPessimist: I'm not sure that you fully grasp that the entire raison d'être of the corporate media has become centered upon enhancing corporate profits. Providing actual news has been sidestepped with a bombardment of "infotainment." How did this system come about? Simple, advertisements on TV, radio, and print want to encourage consumption, which builds profits for the corporations that own the media, and thus the corporate media has been reduced to a mechanism - not to inform us of serious and unpleasant issues that might reduce our consumption, and ergo, corporate profits - but rather to talk endless about the trivial and vile while encouraging more and more consumption. Period.

Peak Oil is case study number 1.

Awareness of peak oil may cause a decrease in consumption from the citizenry, which has an adverse impact on business and banking, so the subject is not seriously debated in the coporate media.

Global warming, petrocurrency competition, growing US and thus global economic imbalances, the real-on-the-ground facts of the quagmre in Iraq - all that serious stuff is discussed openly on the Internet and some alternative media outlets, but generally ignored by the corporate media b/c "it is not good for business." This is so self-evident that I quite watching TV years ago (other than C-SPAN) and hardly listen to the radio either except for a couple of small stations, and yet many people consider me rather informed of current events.

The Internet is truly the last and only bastion of unfiltered free speech in the US. I've managed to win 2 Project Censored Awards over the past 3 years (an award that which requires peer review and a vote by 40 to 50 faculty professors, may of whom are experts in journalism). So I know a little bit about how the media works in the US, and how news is filtered whenever it shines too much light on the powerful interests that drive geopolitics, economics and warfare.

Indeed, the stifling corporate influence in the US was reiterated by PBS commentator Bill Moyers upon his retirement after 30 years in TV journalism. He warned of the transformation he had witnessed:

You don’t get rewarded in commercial broadcasting for trying to tell the truth about the institutions of power in this country .… I think my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted journalists, but they’ve chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that trims their talent to fit the corporate nature of American life. And you do not get rewarded for telling the hard truths about America in a profit-seeking environment...We have got to nurture the spirit of independent journalism in this country, or we’ll not save capitalism from its own excesses, and we’ll not save democracy from its own inertia

Anyone who is naive enough to still belief that the US still enjoys a reasonably free media like we did 30 years ago in the Watergate era needs to do 2 things:

1) Review the annual survey of Reporters Without Borders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders

2) Read Into the Buzzsaw. This fascinating book from the actual journalists and insiders who are warning us that everything has become heavily filtered (which is what the US intell services going back to Operation Mockingbird have desired all along).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159102 ... oding=UTF8

Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press (Paperback version released October, 2004)

From Publishers Weekly
In this uneven yet illuminating anthology, editor Borjesson succinctly explains the journalist's predicament: "The buzzsaw is what can rip through you when you try to investigate or expose anything this country's large institutions be they corporate or government want kept under wraps." Indeed, if members of the general public read this book, or even portions of it, they will be appalled. To the uninitiated reader, the accounts of what goes on behind the scenes at major news organizations are shocking. Executives regularly squelch legitimate stories that will lower their ratings, upset their advertisers or miff their investors. Unfortunately, this dirt is unlikely to reach unknowing news audiences, as this volume's likely readership is already familiar with the current state of journalism. Here, Murrow Award-winning reporter Borjesson edits essays by journalists from the Associated Press to CBS News to the New York Times.

Each tells of their difficulties with news higher-ups as they tried to publish or air controversial stories relating to everything from toxic dump sites and civilian casualties to police brutality and dangerous hospitals. Some, like BBC reporter Greg Palast's, are merely rants against "corporate" journalism, but others, like New York Observer columnist Philip Weiss's, will serve as meaningful lessons to nascent and veteran writers alike. Most of the sentiments here are especially relevant given the current reports of the war in Afghanistan and questions of their validity, making this timely and essential reading for students and scholars of journalism. (Mar.)Forecast: With Bernard Goldberg's Bias riding high on bestseller lists, Borjesson's offering on news media manipulation is bound to attract serious attention and sales.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From School Library Journal
Adult/High School - For this edition, three of the original essays were removed and four new ones added. Many others have been updated, making the book even more pertinent and timely, notably with Michael Levine's contribution on the nation's drug war and Jane Akre's account of her legal battle with Rupert Murdoch over the broadcast of her story on Monsanto's bovine hormone.

Each of the new chapters documents how journalists have experienced increased censorship in the aftermath of September 11th: Dan Rather speaks frankly of the pressure to report "friendly" news or risk being labeled unpatriotic; Charles Reina, formerly of Fox News, reveals the existence of "The Memo," a daily Bush-era e-mail "addressing what stories [would] be covered" and how; and MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield relates how her candid, extemporaneous personal observations on media coverage of the Middle East (given in a lecture at Kansas State University) drew the ire of corporate executives. Most disturbing is Charlotte Dennett's analysis of how the media "missed the context" between the Bush administration's war on terror and "the Great Game for oil."

In her new introduction, Borjesson notes that the current state of American journalism makes it even more important that the work of investigative journalists and media critics be unreservedly and widely disseminated. As before, Buzzsaw provides a vital perspective on the First Amendment right to a free press and its endangered status today. - Dori DeSpain, Fairfax County Public Library, VA

Indeed, the whole "Long War/Phoney War" concept has been bought into by huge section of the uninformed masses percisely because the media is not doing its job. Iraq is the tragic outcome, and Iran is now on the radar of the power elite. People die when the media fails to do its job.

Honest Pessimist wrote:

You cannot tell a private company what to do completely. You can criticize them, boycott them or scold at them or sue them under valid legal reasons.

Yes, and I do boycott all corporate media and most radio stations too. But if we had honest politicians and presidents they could and should use the anti-trust laws to break-up the media monopolies that threaten the republic. (note: their were 50 independent news sources in 1983, down to 10 in 1997, and now down to only 5 - see the pattern? Do you even see the threat?). Secondly, Congress could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which was undone by the Reagan administration back in 1987.

Anyhow, I've read enough of your posts to know that you are I view the world somewhat differently. If I back mine position with too many facts and quotes. So be it. I'm a proud member of the "reality-based community" as opposed to the "faith-based community" (and I'm not talking about religious faith, but unfounded and rigid economic and political ideology be it about Peak Oil, economics, or media censorship, )

IMO, the fait of a nation can not be seperated from the fate of that nation's media. Sadly, this is not understood by the 5 corporate entities and their directors/owners. The Long/Phoney War is percisely what the founding fathers tried to warn us against - the threat to freedom and liberty when corporations control the media and the media is filtered...

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe.

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

— Thomas Jefferson, author of the declaration of Indepedence, US President 1801–1809

[HonestPessimist]

HonestPessimist: I'm not sure that you fully grasp that the entire raison d'être of the corporate media has become centered upon enhancing corporate profits. Providing actual news has been sidestepped with a bombardment of "infotainment." How did this system come about? Simple, advertisements on TV, radio, and print want to encourage consumption, which builds profits for the corporations that own the media, and thus the corporate media has been reduced to a mechanism - not to inform us of serious and unpleasant issues that might reduce our consumption, and ergo, corporate profits - but rather to talk endless about the trivial and vile while encouraging more and more consumption. Period.

I concurred that there are too much corporate marketings and "infotainment" bombardment from most of the media networks but this is a capitalist society where the art of doing business is about making money through various means and advertising/marketing just happened to be one of the main means of reaching out to customers.

If we go by your logic/approach in addressing and ending corporate marketings that encourages consumption and gain profits, meaning the US economy would take a huge hit in the guts and every marketing/advertising company would have to lay off people en masse, which would put a major lock to all printing and broadcasting productions, eventually causing printing and broadcasting company to lay off their people en masse, causing people to stop going to grocery or retail stores because there are nothing on TV, newspaper, magazine, radio or the Internet to motivate them to buy.

In this conclusion, you would be responsible for the end of the US economy, thus impacting the global economy across the board and the bottom line. Congratulations, sir!

But hey... I'm just hypothesizing.

In real life, most regular folks wouldn't give a shit about what you think and go about their businesses. There's money to be made! Excepting your beloved, slavishly devoted fans here.

Anyhow, I've read enough of your posts to know that you are I view the world somewhat differently. If I back mine position with too many facts and quotes. So be it. I'm a proud member of the "reality-based community" as opposed to the "faith-based community" (and I'm not talking about religious faith, but unfounded and rigid economic and political ideology be it about Peak Oil, economics, or media censorship, )

I finally figured out what's your real agenda with your book and your various posts: you're just looking for Blame.

Face it, Petrodollar, the whole world's a giant kitchen mess and you're looking for who's to blame for the gigantic mess. Is it your wife? Your kids? Your dog? You? Your free-loading cousin? Me? Rogerhb? Montequest? Corporations? The government? God?

I don't look for blame for the whole damn kitchen mess. We all need to clean it up without looking for who's to blame and I think we need to quit looking to blame anyone or everyone for the damn kitchen mess.

[rogerhb]

If we go by your logic/approach in addressing and ending corporate marketings that encourages consumption and gain profits, meaning the US economy would take a huge hit in the guts and every marketing/advertising company would have to lay off people en masse, which would put a major lock to all printing and broadcasting productions, eventually causing printing and broadcasting company to lay off their people en masse, causing people to stop going to grocery or retail stores because there are nothing on TV, newspaper, magazine, radio or the Internet to motivate them to buy.

So capitalism is incompatible with democracy? Interesting. Which to choose, which to choose....

I don't look for blame for the whole damn kitchen mess. We all need to clean it up without looking for who's to blame and I think we need to quit looking to blame anyone or everyone for the damn kitchen mess.

Remember "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it". Sure you can fix up the mess, but if it returns back to the same form have you achieved anything?

[HonestPessimist]

So capitalism is incompatible with democracy? Interesting. Which to choose, which to choose....

You're confusing the issue. If a democracy propose to reject capitalism, what is its chance to survive life without capitalism?

Remember "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it". Sure you can fix up the mess, but if it returns back to the same form have you achieved anything?

Keep cleaning up the kitchen every day.

[rogerhb]

You're confusing the issue. If a democracy propose to reject capitalism, what is its chance to survive life without capitalism?

Ah, the narrow view of the American.

Democracy == political system
Capitalism == economic system

You can have a capitalist dicatorship, and you can have democratic socialism.

[CrudeAwakening]

HP, there are many people (but not you, I guess) who consider that the increasing corporatisation of the media erodes the democratic foundations of our society.

Instead of "the news", we increasingly get thinly disguised opinion pieces designed to push the agenda of those at the top (I'm particularly thinking of FoxNews, but it's spreading). And our attention is diverted away from matters of extreme import (Peak Oil, just to think of one), to superficial matters of no substance, such as Brad Pitt's latest affair. The aim of the news media is increasingly to entertain, rather than to inform.

Now, a democracy functions best when the citizenry is informed. We can see the results of an uninformed citizenry by observing the number of Americans who still think Saddam was behind 9-11:

More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris ... sp?PID=544

That was in February 2005, but is still pretty scary. These respondents are uninformed, and ignorant concerning a critical foreign policy issue with ramifications for the entire world. Do you think the media are entirely blameless for this state of ignorance? How can the government claim to have a mandate from the people when its people don't understand the issues at stake? Can a democracy really function as intended when vital information is withheld from and 'spun' to its citizenry?

[Petrodollar]

HonestPessimist

Face it, Petrodollar, the whole world's a giant kitchen mess and you're looking for who's to blame for the gigantic mess.

Your use of absolutisms fails to convince.

You need to read my post again. Regarding the media, I have two specific reforms (also found in my book, plus a whole lot more):

1) Use Anti-turst laws to break-up the five corporate media conglomerates and bring us back to the baseline that we had 20 years ago (50 independent sources of news). If Thomas Jefferson or even Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, I'm sure they would concur

2) Re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine.

Both of these reforms could be enacted through legislation if we actually had a Congress and President "by the people and for the people." Your post about "crashing the US eoconmy" is just plain crazy talk - absolutism in full display, but again, you and see and think about the world differently. I'm okay with that, are you?

My 3rd recommendation would be more funding for C-SPAN and BBC type news coverage, instead of pro-consumption corporate "infotainment."

This of course leads us to the larger question of the US campaign finance system - which is unique in that no other western democracy allows corporations and special interests groups to "contribute" hundreds of billions of dollars to politicians during every 2-year election cycle.

In conjunction with consolidation of the media into the hands of a few, our structually flawed campaign finance system and the ridiculous notion of "corporations personhood" has brought us to the brink of Peak Oil with only a minority of people have even heard of this phenomenon, nevermind truly understand it. What the masses do believe is the Long/Phoney War and that "Osama bin Saddam did 9/11..."

Regarding today's US media conglomerates, the lack of public service airtime creates a situation where radio and television advertising airtime is the largest expenditure for any aspiring politician. In order to compete, politicians turn to corporations to pay for this airtime, and in return a corrupt quid pro quo is expected on legislation that impacts those corporations.

A legislative agenda to benefit the general public is rendered irrelevant in this system where the vast majority of campaign contributions come from special interest entities — especially the powerful military-industrial-petroleum-banking conglomerates. Ironically, the concept of corporate personhood is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to protect ex-slaves but was twisted to give artificial corporate entities the legal rights and privileges of human beings — but without the accountability.

Of course the founders and even Vice Presidents 60 years ago openly spoke about their dangers to democracy when the coporations control the media and grow more ppwerful that the state itself. In 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to “write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?” His answers appeared in the April 9, 1944, issue. Compare his analysis to the situation we find ourselves in today:

The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power ….

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy .… They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Corporations do not receive a ballot and cannot vote, but with their own interests, they have political positions on certain issues. So instead of having one vote per individual, they make massive “donations” to influence politicians and elections. The scale of these donations (bribes) far outweighs those from all personal donors by a factor of 10 to 1.

This flood of money steers the democratic process away from the expressed interests of voters, especially on issues directly relevant to the corporate donors’ interests. Environmental, energy, tax, and foreign policies represent the principle abuses that run contrary to the interests of the common citizenry — and contradictory to basic US principles. During each election cycle, most members of Congress raise more than $1 million from private business interests. This influence on the political process is growing. According to the nonpartisan Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service, in 2004 lobbyists spent a record $2 billion selling their positions to the President and Congress.24 (Lobbyist spending was $1.9 billion in 2003, $1.7 billion in 2002, $1.5 billion in 2001, and $1.5 billion in 2000).

This is correctable if "corporate personhood" were deemed both illogical and un-Constitutional, and that more public funding of elections was allowed (which is common in other western demoncracies). Interestingly, from the founding of the nation and during the Civil War, great Americans realized the dangers of such unchecked power. We need to heed their wisdom.

But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil, which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.
— James Madison, US President 1809–1817

Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
— Abraham Lincoln, US President 1861–1865

[HonestPessimist]

You're confusing the issue. If a democracy propose to reject capitalism, what is its chance to survive life without capitalism?

Ah, the narrow view of the American.

Democracy == political system
Capitalism == economic system

You can have a capitalist dicatorship, and you can have democratic socialism.

With that, you have too much restrictions in both systems and there will be no further innovation and improvement in the society. Can all corporations be restricted by a democratic socialist system? Can all peoples be answerable to a capitalist dictatorship for survival?

[HonestPessimist]

Now, a democracy functions best when the citizenry is informed. We can see the results of an uninformed citizenry by observing the number of Americans who still think Saddam was behind 9-11

I'm one of some Americans who suggested Saddam privately approved the attacks, not behind or involved in the attacks. Hell, American soldiers took snapshot photographs of mural paintings of Saddam smiling along with the depiction of the 9/11 WTC attacks during the 2003 Iraqi invasion. These were depicted in some of Saddam's palaces and government buildings thereabout.

Do you think the media are entirely blameless for this state of ignorance? How can the government claim to have a mandate from the people when its people don't understand the issues at stake? Can a democracy really function as intended when vital information is withheld from and 'spun' to its citizenry?

Nobody's perfect. Petrodollar is wrong. The whole world IS a giant kitchen mess needing to be cleaned up and I don't care what he says about absolutism. It's the frigging, indisputable truth.

Stop polarizing the issues. Stop looking for blame.

[HonestPessimist]

Your use of absolutisms fails to convince.

This isn't about absolutism. This is about you not seeing my point.

You need to read my post again. Regarding the media, I have two specific reforms (also found in my book, plus a whole lot more):

Your reform ideas are commendable and thoughtful but are they actionable enough to change for the long term? Perhaps. But you're asking for more restrictions and the last thing we need is a much more restrictive governmental system under a presumedly reformed Congress and the office of the President (if we goes along your reform suggestions.)

I am against any and all forms of governmental restrictions on the public and private matters, business, media and information, regardless of whose administration from a major political party. With the exception of national security and defense matters, of course.

1) Use Anti-turst laws to break-up the five corporate media conglomerates and bring us back to the baseline that we had 20 years ago (50 independent sources of news). If Thomas Jefferson or even Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, I'm sure they would concur

Perhaps they could. Their thinking and perspectives were the byproducts of their times, unlike today. Both had supports from the some members of the press and businesses. It may be fine to desire more independent news sources in the old days but I stated much earlier in this thread about the Internet, now there are more independent news sources you can get from anywhere in the country and from the world. You're focusing on the five major corporate media conglomerates to be the source of all the problems but you seem to keep missing the fast little boats sailing around 'em.

2) Re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine.

Both of these reforms could be enacted through legislation if we actually had a Congress and President "by the people and for the people." Your post about "crashing the US eoconmy" is just plain crazy talk - absolutism in full display, but again, you and see and think about the world differently. I'm okay with that, are you?

As I just stated, I'm just hypothesizing. I look for patterns and see how all the patterns connect from point a to point b to point c and so on united by common factors and creating rippling effects onto other different patterns. Let me give you a basic example:

One man and his family like to shop at Target or Kohl's all the times. His family depends on him for survival and living-hood since he has a good-paying job and he is good at his job. They care not a whit about the world except themselves (and their own families and friends).

A single woman working two jobs to pay off student loan and health bills. She cares about the world and her friends but not great with her family because she is pregnant with a kid out of wedlock and a father of that kid doesn't wanted to do anything with her. She likes to shop at Target since she works there and get discount. Her second job is telemarketing services.

Above two people (two different patterns) have a common factor: Target. The man and his family (pattern 1) and the single pregnant mother (pattern 2). They both have 2 more common factors: living-hood and survival. Their patterns are connected. The man and his family shop at Target. They purchased something with the cash registerer handling and bagging their items: the single pregnant mother. The money from the man's goes to Target, along with all other money from other customers on a daily basis, then in turn Target distribute the money to pay the vendors, operation expenses, marketing expenses, then salaries and wages for all of their employees, right down to paying the single pregnant mother. Her survival and living-hood depends on what the customers buy from Target so she can buy something from Target with discount for whatever she needs for her and her unborn baby and save the rest for other expenses. Her second job helps pay parts of the bills and student loan. Un-noticably and unwittingly, patterns connected and united by common factors.

Everything is patterned by everyday actions, decisions, exchanges and thinking by the people of all walks of life. People are affected by patterns and common factors they've never realized or noticed at all.

My 3rd recommendation would be more funding for C-SPAN and BBC type news coverage, instead of pro-consumption corporate "infotainment."

That would be nice. However, I learned that those who watch C-SPAN and BBC type coverage are in the minority. The majority of people like to see real, engaging or even dramatic entertainment to make it worth watching. I have watch C-SPAN or C-SPAN 2 on an occasional basis and sometimes I caught myself dozing off. Sometimes, they're boring and long-winded. Maybe a flaring confrontation between two opposing representatives on a C-SPAN coverage would be enough to catch my attention! But I doubt it. :D

People also like to watch sports, by the way. I'm quite certain Tom Jefferson and Ted Roosevelt would have enjoy watching sports, too.

By the way, I noted that you currently lives in Bethesda, MD (from your book). Bethesda is quite affluent, very nice and expensive. A lot of stores catering to the wealthy, upper middle class families and hip young urban folks. My sister and my brother-in-law went house-hunting in Bethesda and wanted to live there but the housing costs were too high. They settled for a nice house near the CIA HQ.

I grew up in Fairfax, VA and have been to Bethesda some times in the past. Cheers.

[rogerhb]

With that, you have too much restrictions in both systems and there will be no further innovation and improvement in the society.

Why, of course, once people don't use the American Way we all stop thinking. I forgot that, yup, you got me.

Can all corporations be restricted by a democratic socialist system?

Certainly, you return to the original role of a corporation, "temporary and for the public good".

Can all peoples be answerable to a capitalist dictatorship for survival?

Well, what's it like in the US now?