Beyond the haze of philanthropy

The goal of the World Hunger Relief Week is to bring awareness to world hunger, which is what I will do over the course of this posting. Yum! Brands, the parent company to Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, Long John Silver's and A&W restaurants designated October 14th-20th of this year as World Hunger Relief Week, and are using donations received by customers and their employees to provide meals to the starving. However, despite the good intentions apparent on the surface, the reality of the situation is far more deceptive, which I can account for with a first hand perspective.

I am an employee of Pizza Hut and have been all throughout college on into grad school, and am appalled by the hypocrisy Yum! Brands is positioning itself with in fighting to eradicate world hunger. Pizza Hut disposes of unfathomable amounts of edible product everyday keeping up with stringent, self-imposed freshness guidelines. It is a very wasteful and inefficient operation, save for the primary goal of turning a profit. Pans of unused dough are baked off every morning then disposed of (baking them off makes them easier to remove from the oiled pans, but alas, you are left with a cooked product); pre-made, unused buffet pizzas are tossed, and the salad bar is flipped on a time based schedule. I couldn't put an estimate on the amount of food that is wasted which could otherwise be saved and used to feed the starving, but it would be enough to make a sizable impact if preserved on a large scale basis. Yum Brands claims to own nearly 35,000 restaurants, so it is not difficult to imagine how much food is being wasted if the waste is 35,000 times as great as what I have witnessed. However, preservation isn't profitable, and that is the bottom line to a company like Yum Brands! It would be too expensive and counterproductive for a fast food chain to feed people for free, but if philanthropy were the goal, they'd have the means.

Now I know what some are thinking: at least they are doing something. But only if it were that simple. We're talking about a company here that has earned $2,607,000,000 in gross profit in the past four quarters, which is a little over 2 and a half billion dollars for those unable to grasp that many zero's. And of that profit, they donated $50,000,000 to fight world hunger in 2006, or roughly 2% of that total. Keep in mind that their donations are tax deductible and serve as a great public relations tool, so it is a cost saving measure. So while this is being positioned as an unselfish, praise worthy initiative, it is also a very profitable venture as well, and is much more business minded than socially minded. Just check out their website. There are logo's littered all over the place. They are much more interested in the credit for the deed, rather than in the actual deed itself. This is just another form of advertising, much cheaper by the way than traditional print or television campaigns, and makes for good PR.

http://www.fromhungertohope.com/

Despite the bad rap that cynicism has developed over the years, I am a firm believer. You don't believe me. Consider the company Altria, the parent company to Kraft foods and Phillip Morris, and the imaging building campaign it embarked on in 2000. After years of receiving bad PR for being in the tobacco industry and deceptively contributing to millions of deaths by underscoring the health hazards of smoking, Phillip Morris, in an effort to paint a new image, donated roughly $60 million to various social causes such as to disaster relief funds and to fund minority education. Now this seems great on the surface, until it is realized that Altria spent about $100 million on their campaign advertising this deed, or nearly twice the amount spent on the actual charities. There is a real problem with this. Remember when as a child your parents told you to let your actions speak for themselves, and that actions speak louder than words. Well, that's bad PR as an adult, and as adults, we must take motives into consideration. Why pretend that these companies are acting out of nobility, when there is an inherent selfishness to their philanthropy? I just can't accept capitalistic corporations claiming to fight for social causes, when it is these very same capitalistic corporations which do not act socially unless there is a selfish motivation. Couple that with the fact that capitalism is a driving force of world hunger, and Yum Brands is really looking like the hypocrite.

I recently viewed "Capitalism and other Kids' Stuff", which is a must see, and came across this startling statistic from the World Health Organization (WHO) over the course of the documentary. According to the report, over 20 years ago the WHO estimated that there were enough resources and means available to feed the world 12 times over, but that instead, we had a famine in Ethiopia. What does that say about our morals? That despite the ability to do real good, we choose our economy instead.

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

Our government actually pays American farmers not to farm land so as to keep the price of certain crops at a high level, and it is as corrupt of a system as there is in this country. This will eventually turn into a whole separate posting itself, but our government actually spent $25 billion on aid in 2005 for farmers, a portion of whihch went as payments for not growing crops, so as to keep the price of the crop high by preventing the market from becoming over saturated. In short, there are not enough consumers in this country with cash to consume all that could be produced. This is inhuman. It is obscene to give $25 billion dollars away to esentially reduce production, only for the purpose of keeping the price of agriculture up to sustain higher profits, when real people need food to survive. People are starving to death, and our government follows the money. We have the means, but we do no good. No wonder so many outside this country hate us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

My point isn't to paint a bad image of Yum Brands, but to point out that it is non-sensical for a capitalistic enterprise to claim to be aiding the fight against world hunger, when the very system that allows this enterprise to flourish is responsible for such vast, unfathomable famine. That coupled with the fact edible food is tossed away at disturbing amounts further questions the integrity of such a campaign. If Yum Brands were really concerned about fighting world hunger, they would enact practices in their stores which weren't so wasteful, which preserved edible food rather than destroying it. How can one not become cynical when looking at how the elite operate?

digg it

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Beyond_the_haze_of_philanthropy

The United States government as a for profit business

Blackwater USA, the "private security" firm operating as mercenaries in Iraq, represents the complete, absolute breakdown of the capitalist system. Federal tax dollars are being used to employ private citizens to fight in an undeclared war, all within the framework of capitalism. In plain english, Bush is redirecting tax payer dollars into the hands of an organization his party will be receiving political donations from, thus completing this cycle of profit. Only Bush could privatize murder. That's private citizens capitalizing by taking human life. The founder of Blackwater USA, Erik Prince (an inherited billionaire whose parents made numerous financial contributions to conservative interests), has political ties to the Bush administration and has received over $1,000,000,000 in government contracts since the invasion of Iraq, the majority of which have been no-bid. This calls to mind the billions of dollars in no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton by former CEO of Halliburton turned Vice-President of the United States Dick Cheney. We're talking Billions of dollars here, all changing hands "legally", with real human life being lost in the process, all of it being falsely paraded as a fight for freedom. Our government is operating as a corporation, harvesting tremendous, almost unfathomable profits right in front of our eyes, outsourcing this business venture to the private sector. At this point, how can our government be seen for anything other than a for profit business?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/scahill
http://www.iraqfact.com/zPic_blackwater.html


That's easy. Our government itself isn't making any profit. However, the ones administering it's rule are. That's the key difference preventing our government from being labeled as a for profit business. Special interests are a fact in our government and economy. You give me a few billion dollars in contracts and I'll finance your next campaign, and I'll collect this six figure salary along the way. That's what this war is about: money. Any way you slice it, there is no way to deny this. Many of Blackwater's mercenaries earn over $1,000 per day. It's tough to find that kind of pay anywhere. There is a commercial interest in continuing this war, and so long as profits are plentiful, the special interests will be as well.


It is disturbing that president Bush has been able to hire a private army to do his will. Consider all he has done during his presidency. He misrepresented the truth behind the cause of 9/11 to the American citizens and the rest of the wary world. He made up a connection between Bin Laden and Iraq that didn't exist, that he knew full well didn't exist. He told the world that he had evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, only to never find them and never atone for this mistake. He has since refused to accept responsibility for this, and argues that we must continue fighting in Iraq since we are already there, ignoring the fact that we never should have been there and that the only true solution is to recognize whatever government comes to rule in Iraq and assist in rebuilding what we have destroyed, while at the same time ceasing our mission of global imperialism. He continues today to make the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, continuing on as if he has done no wrong in the process and that all of his acts are justified. And now this. Lacking a legitimate army to do his dirty work, Bush has found a way to harvest people for cash, putting them to work on the battlefield in a real life game of Command And Conquer. This is the most distorted capitalistic venture to date, and it just shows how far we have degenerated as a culture.

We need to do a 180 in this country, and it needs to happen fast. Once upon a time capitalism served a purpose, offering tremendous growth and potential for the citizens of this country. However that growth and potential has been over-consumed with too many people fighting over a pie that is slanted towards the wealthy, leading to a vicious cycle of power and greed, environmental destruction and murderous imperialism misrepresented as the goodwill deed of spreading freedom. The only freedom being spread is the freedom to profit however one can using any means necessary, allowing those with the most money to call the shots at the expense of the great majority. And now we have Blackwater USA, the commercial killers of capitalism. And It's all in the name of money.

See this war for what it is, and our politicians for the interests they answer to.

digg it!

http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_United_States_government_as_a_for_profit_business

A resolution condemning congress

As the United States Congress has preoccupied itself recently with condemning irrelevant concerns such as a political ad aimed at general David Petraeus by the organization MoveOn, and more alarmingly in currently attempting to pass a resolution declaring Turkey's attack on the Armenians at the end of WWI a genocide, creating a rift that does not have to exist, I feel it is fitting to pass a resolution condemning this outdated, self serving organization, seeing as real unjustified deaths continue to occur under their watch while they focus on events from the 1920's. What is going on here? How can congress, who failed to do their job in holding the executive branch in check when president Bush illegally invaded Iraq (congress is required to declare war, though they made no declaration and did nothing to prevent Bush from pursuing war), who continue to fund and approve outrageous budget allotments for this illegal war and occupation, condemn Turkey for an act that occurred nearly a century ago, when they have overseen over a million casualties from this illegal war in Iraq? Very soon the death toll in Iraq will exceed the 1.5 Armenian deaths congress is attempting to call attention to. Their concern should be with the life that has yet to be taken, not on shallow political resolutions. They would be better served to issue a resolution condemning themselves.

In a recent poll, the approval rating of congress was a paltry 11%, making president Bush's 24% approval rating seem relatively good. It is no surprise that only 11% of the country approves of congress's actions with the irresponsibility in decision making they continue to demonstrate. There are those who confuse this country for a democracy, but if that were the case, the elected leaders would reflect more than 1/4 of the nations views, which Bush can't even claim. Seeing as 89% of the nation disapproves of congress, how can they democratically be representative of the whole? They represent themselves, the upper class of our nation, the wealthy elite, not the general welfare of the American people, nor any people for that matter. Since congress will not condemn itself, here is the resolution the American people should pass regarding this irresponsible entity:

Whereas the United States Congress serves as an integral part of a system of checks and balances in the United States Government,

Whereas it is the responsibility of Congress to issue declarations of war,

Whereas it is the duty of Congress to put a stop to an unauthorized war,

Whereas it is the purpose of Congress to police the President's actions when such blatant deceptions and disregard for precedent occur,

Whereas no action has been taken by Congress to put an immediate halt to this illegal occupation of Iraq,

Whereas no action has been initiated by Congress to hold those responsible for this illegal war in misleading this country on the facts: President Bush, Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to name a few,

Whereas an unresolved injustice is occurring in Iraq and Congress is focused on WWI,

Whereas time was actually spent by the paid elected members of Congress to condemn a political ad by the organization MoveOn,

Therefore be it resolved that you piss us off Congress, and do little other than stuff your pockets full with a six figure, tax payer funded salary, and whatever special interests you can get your hands on.

Be it resolved that you had a duty to ensure that our President was leading us down the proper path, and you allowed him to create a war that never had to be, which didn't have a shred of evidence to support it's need.

Be it resolved that as you attempt to place blame on the country of Turkey for horrifically killing 1.5 million Armenians at the end of WWI, you have blood all over your hands in a reality as equally unjust.

Be it resolved you are failing this country by allowing these crimes to occur.

Therefore, you are no longer needed. The people can do without you, a better job in fact, without the six figure salaries and endless political corruption. There are other ways, more democratic ways to run this country, rather than the bureaucratic mess misguiding us.

Be it resolved you are equally responsible for this unjustified massacre in Iraq as the irresponsible leaders who brought us here. This war is a crime against humanity, and it's your responsibility to invoke your power to stop illegal actions you have control over. Our president lied, and in the process has killed so money, and you have done nothing about this.

Be it resolved that 11% of this nation hasn't a clue what they're talking about.

The rich getting richer: the end of democracy

In 2005, 21.2% of all the income earned in the United States was taken in by the top 1% of the population, while the bottom 50% of the United States population earned just 12.8% of the total wealth, according to new data released by the IRS.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/12/news/economy/income/index.htm?section=money_latest

According to the report, this is the widest the gap has been between the rich and the poor since the 1920's, an era ill-famed for the great depression. It's common sense that when the super wealthy take too much of the pie for themselves while the majority of the population struggles to survive economically, a time will come when demand cannot afford supply, when there simply will not be enough money in the lower classes to support the production put forth by the elite. The economy will stall as a result and we could face another great depression. This is where president Bush and the wealthy elite are deceptive when claiming our economy is thriving. It is, but only for a select few, with the rest getting screwed over as a result.

For the record, president Bush blames the income disparity on "skills gaps" between the classes, a distorted viewpoint which offends the intelligent. Without economic opportunities which lead to educational opportunities, the lower classes of society are not given a chance to compete on the same stage as the classes born into wealth and opportunity. A child born in the inner city will not receive the same opportunities and examples to live by as a child born into wealth. This is not a result of the failure by the parents of the inner city child nor the school system of the child as Bush infers. It is a failure by our government in reworking the tax laws as they did under Reagan, which cut back taxation for wealthy corporations and individuals, redirecting money away from social priorities like education and health care into the pockets of the wealthy. It is a result of flawed tax laws which disproportionately favor wealthier neighborhoods, where higher income areas are able to afford higher quality education. It is all connected and deceptively intended. Our current tax laws favor the elite, offering tax breaks and incentives which take away from the social framework of our society.

The tax breaks given to the Elite in the last 30 years in this country have served to elevate the upper class so far above the other classes, that they can simply afford to bribe politicians and pay for propaganda, deceiving our nation into this current murderous rampage in the Middle East. None of the wars we have escalated or become involved with since WWII have been just or noble campaigns, though they have been a profitable enterprise for our deceptive Elite, and the disparity between the classes, the unequal profit taking occurring over our heads, has led us down this path. There is no democracy when one class so thoroughly dominates the others, where money makes right and backs down to no fight. This is why we are in Iraq. It's also why we went to Afghanistan. Wake up America. Our Elite are the bad guys. They invoked the Taliban to strike for the role our government played in the Afghanistan civil war, not only for spurring on the war, but retreating after the Soviet Union fell apart and refusing to partake in rebuilding the land that our country and economy used and destroyed. It does not matter that this happened behind our backs, it matters that it happened and nothing has been done about it. There is a real connection between the role of the wealthy and the process of politics, between the conservative tax codes and the super concentrated wealth. We're being taken to the bank, and it's high time America realizes what is occurring and why it is. This is no report to take lightly.


digg it
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_rich_getting_richer_destroying_democracy

Examining how propaganda infiltrates the American cultural perspective Part 3

My goal in breaking down this interview is to show how seriously flawed the media is in this country, to expose the deceptive techniques of propaganda used by our elite which misinform our nation and to reveal that the current forms of mass media are no longer suitable for a functioning democracy. Much of what is reported today is backed with an agenda, and we can no longer count on the Elite owned media outlets to practice proper, unbiased research. This is the only explanation I have for Scott Pelley's dreadfully misinformed interview, as his words and questions indicate he has an agenda to push throughout the interview. Consider where I left off last time:

Pelley: "What trait do you admire in President Bush?"

Ahmadinejad: "Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways."

Pelley: "What do you admire about him?

Ahmadinejad: "He should respect the American people."

Pelley: "Is there anything? Any trait?"

Ahmadinejad: "As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire?"

Pelley: "Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man, for example, as you are. I wonder if there's anything that you've seen in President Bush that you admire."

Ahmadinejad: "Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man?"

Pelley: "Very much so. As you are."

Ahmadinejad: "What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn't sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed. Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don't think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth."

Pelley: "I take it you can't think of anything you like about President Bush."

Ahmadinejad: "Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman's private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or a determined man. I'm not aware of that. I base my judgment on what I see in his public life. Having said that, I think that President Bush can behave much better. There were golden opportunities for President Bush. He should have used them better."

Consider what Pelley is driving at here, the notion that president Bush is admirable because he is a religious man. Pelley's question is loaded, but even more so is his response. What kind of inference is this, that non-religious people are not admirable? Ahmadinejad's response once again though cuts right through the heart of the question, refuting Pelley's assertion. It's always baffled me that Bush has been able to play the religion card while killing millions of people on the other side of the world. No he is not a religious man, save for election time. A truly religious man would not be as reckless with human life as Bush has been. This is one Pelley probable wished he had back. He's at his worst though during the next few questions.

Pelley: "I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me, quote, speaking to you, that you've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush's words to you. What's your reply to the president?"

Ahmadinejad: "Well, President Bush is free to think as he pleases and to say what he pleases. I don't oppose the freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of speech. President Bush is free to say what he pleases. But these would not change the truth. So that President Bush knows the Iranian people are dearly loved today. We can very well put this to the test to find out who has become isolated. Again, maybe one of my friends could go to another country and a friend of President Bush could go to the same country, find out which one of us is isolated. You're free to choose any country you like. I don't think that President Bush has said these things. Rather, I prefer to think that this is your impression of what the president has said."

Pelley: "I'm quoting the president directly for the record."

Ahmadinejad: "This is a direct quote? So, well, this tells me that there's a great divide between us."

Pelley is offensive here, resorting to verbal warfare with the president on another nation, insulting Ahmadinejad on television in his home country of Iran. There is only one purpose to this question and it is to incite Ahmadinejad into firing back at Bush. This is irresponsible journalism and downright politicizing. It was an excuse for Pelley to take a shot at Ahmadinejad, and he wasted nothing taking that shot. It should be apparent by now that Pelley has an agenda to fill. After baiting Ahmadinejad with questions pertaining to the Iran hostage crisis and leveling Ahmadinejad with more threats of war, Pelley continues his verbal assault, and is again put in his place by Ahmadinejad.

Pelley: "If sanctions do occur, if another round of sanctions occur, you will continue to enrich uranium behind closed doors, I take it."

Ahmadinejad: "This is not going to happen. I have talked extensively about this. Nobody is able to impose an unlawful course of action on the Iranian people. The Iranian people will not abide by that, accept that. And it will not serve their interests to do that. Both the American government and other countries, it helps them if they are friends with Iran. As a friend, I need to tell you to take this route. Again, you're free to take any route you want. And you would have to, you will have to go with the repercussions. So these past few years, what has it gotten you? And the conditions will not change to benefit them; I assure you of that."

Pelley: "Would an attack on your nuclear sites, in your opinion, give you leave to attack U.S. forces in the region or the U.S. mainland?"

Ahmadinejad: "Who is going to attack this country?"

Pelley: "President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary."

Ahmadinejad: "I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. But if they insist on what they are saying right now, this will not help them. Again, nobody can hurt the Iranian people. And history tells us that the people who have been less than kind to the Iranian people, they have lost out. What I'm saying, I am being very sincere here. I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie. I am supposed to tell the truth. What I'm saying is that President Bush's conduct in Iraq is wrong. And his wrong conduct is behind his party losing the previous elections. This is very clear. The American people are very much dismayed with the behavior and the conduct of the present administration. They are not dismayed with Iran. In fact, the two nations are very close to one another. An example of that would be the letter sent to me by an American scholar a few days ago."

Pelley: "You mentioned telling the truth as a Muslim, and as you know so much better than I do, Verse 42 of the second sura: "The truth shall not be obscured by falsehood, and those who know the truth must tell it." But when I ask you a question as direct as "Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?" you you dance all around the question. You never say "yes." You never say "no."

Ahmadinejad: "Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator. And you are . .. "

Pelley: "I am just a reporter. I am a simple, average American reporter."

Ahmadinejad: "This is not a Baghdad prison. Please, this is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is Iran. I'm the president of this country. Well, I think that I've gone beyond what you've asked me, above and beyond. And I think that if you speak to your job as a reporter, what I have said so far, again, goes above and beyond what you ask me."

Pelley: "One last thing. So important for the American people to understand. When your airplane approaches Manhattan this week, you will look out the window and you will see that the World Trade Center is gone. Many Americans, Mr. President, to be frank, believe that you look out that window and you say to yourself, "Good. Somebody got 'em." They believe our countries are enemies."

Ahmadinejad: "Well, you shouldn't speak on behalf of the American people. I can speak on behalf of the Iranian people, but you cannot speak on behalf of the American people. Why do you insist on doing that? Why do you not allow the American people to speak for themselves? Why? Let them speak for themselves. The people gathered around the White House a couple of days ago. They spoke whatever was in their hearts and minds. Are they not American citizens? Hundreds of thousands of people have rallied against the war. Are they not citizens? Our government at the time expressed its condemnation. We issued an official communiqué condemning that incident. How can you, in your mind, accuse and condemn others? Well, if an Iranian person for that matter had done the same thing, it would have been shameful, and it would not have been fair. So, again, this is not fair. Maybe this is your point of view or also perhaps your editor's point of view. And you are saying that the American people are saying these things. The American people still don't know who was behind the bombing of the Twin Towers. Many books in the U.S. have been written about the incident., and there are questions circling in your society. Once you go back, go to the streets, ask the local people who was behind this, what were the reason for that? And, again, I fail to see why you continually say “the American people.“ I have the latest surveys. Eighty percent of the American citizens say that the American government knew about the attack beforehand. They had information."

Pelley: "You don't believe that, sir."

Ahmadinejad: "I'm not making a judgment here, mind you. I'm not being judgmental. That's not important for me. What is important for me is to find out why this happened. We can take a course of action which ensures this never happens. Why should we manage the world like this? It's very possible for us all to be friends, for the world to be in peace, and for the family of man to love one another and to not hate one another. So who propagates these ideas, I ask you. We should all be friends. We should deal fairly with one another, respect one another. Nations do not have any problems when it comes to interacting with one another. Unethical politicians make war. Nations don't make war. We're saying that you should allow our nations to be friends with one another. We condemned that incident right there and then. Why should many innocent people be killed? For what reason? Well, behind this building there is another building, a building which in 1360 Iranian calendar, some 25 years ago, the Iranian president and the prime minister in the office, they were blown up by terrorists, a bomb planted by terrorists. And the president and the prime minister burned in that bomb, by that bomb. And, again, this is very regrettable that those terrorists, which were behind that bombing and other assassinations in this country, can freely have access to American officials are being protected by the American Army in Iraq. So this country is a victim of terrorism throughout its history. So you cannot produce even one document, a single document, about terrorist action on the part of the Iranian government or Iranian officials. We are very clear in our position. We say that we spiritually support the right of the Palestinian people and also independence for Iraq. We have nothing to hide. We are very much opposed to the Iraqi occupation. Again, we have nothing to hide. It's very regrettable that many thousands of people were killed in the Twin Tower incident. We have announced time and again. And what we are asking is can we do something that ensures this never happens? And the answer is "yes." We can do that, providing a number of parties do not establish terrorist organizations and set them off on nations. We know who is behind terrorist organizations. You know full well who is behind a number of terrorist organizations around my part of the world, that is. Who provided them with logistical support, political support? It's a very well-known fact they have made and created these terrorist organizations themselves."

Pelley: "Who, sir?"

Ahmadinejad: "It's very clear. Very clear."

Pelley: "Make it clearer. Name the names."

Ahmadinejad: "I don't want to name names. I don't want to name names. But the terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, who is behind them? And what intelligence organization belonging to what country is behind them? This is very clear."

Pelley: "Shall I say CIA and the United States? Will that . . ."

Ahmadinejad: "Well, maybe you know something that . . . The relations and the developments in this part of the world are somewhat clear. I don't want to say something which would agitate and fan the flames of the situation. What I'm saying that this is shameful. My country is a great victim of terrorism. We very much oppose terrorism. As I said, we oppose terrorism. Why? Why should innocent people be killed? For what reason? We are saying that each and every person should be respected regardless of their color, creed, what country they come from, what language they speak. We're all fellow human beings. We should be respected. Why some parties ask more than their fair share? Why do they insult nations? They shouldn't do that. This is not right."

Pelley: "Would you reestablish . . ."

Ahmadinejad: "If I may. Who created secret prisons in Europe? You don't know that? Did Iran establish those prisons? This one is very clear and the documents have been revealed. Why are they creating secret prisons? If the law provides the possibility to establish these prisons, go ahead. Why this skullduggery? So this is, again, very clear."

Pelley: "Would you reestablish diplomatic relations with the United States? Is that something you want? Something you would do right away?"

Ahmadinejad: "Well, our foreign policy is a policy which says that we should have relations with all countries and nations. Before the revolution, this country was much damaged by American policy. Our late imam said that we will not have relations with two countries: one, the apartheid regime of South Africa; the other, the Zionist regime. We like to have relations with all countries. The American administration cut off relations themselves unilaterally. The Carter administration perhaps they were thinking that this would be to their benefit. But this didn't happen. We would like to have relations with all countries based on mutual respect. This is the very basis of our foreign policy. I think that we are done."

Pelley: "You have been generous with your time, Mr. President. Thank you for your time very much."

Ahmadinejad: "Good luck."

Again, Pelley is called out for attempting to speak for the American people, which is how he has unsubstantialy attempted to represent this entire interview. He again infers that Ahmadinejad has "American blood" on his hands, once again without evidence, and is taken to town by Ahmadinejad for his interviewing techniques. It's all how the quesiton is phrased, and Scott Pelley has managed to administer an entire interview based on assumptions and propaganda, offering not fact but accusation, and has not acknowledeged Ahmadinejad even once in correcting many of the false notions he has presented. There is no reason to go to war with Iran, though all the reasons not to go to war are found in this interview. The media isn't interested in the facts, they are interested in allegations that support war. Since our media is for profit, they follow the money, and there are fortunes being made through our warring. Those in charge of the media outlets are acting on this. This interview should not be seen as anything other than an attack, and the American people need to realize they are under such attack. Democracy only works if the public is informed, and it is obvious we are being intentionally misinformed. Our country is for profit. So are it's morals.

Examining how propaganda infiltrates the American cultural perspective Part 2

Continuing along with the previous posting, the interview Scott Pelley administered to Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad was demeaning and biased. Nothing substantiated was brought up by Pelley, leveling unfounded accusations at Ahmadinejad time and again, ignoring the responses given by the Iranian President while continuing along with a guilty until proven innocent mindset. Again, a link to the entire transcript is listed below this paragraph. Pelley continues his assault:

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-60-minutes-interview-full.html

Pelley: "Mr. President, we appreciate your thoughts. Some people watching this interview, frankly, will think that you're dodging the questions because many of the questions that I ask you are fairly straightforward "yes" or "no" questions. And let me try this one again, if I may. Will you pledge tonight to do everything in your power to prevent Iranian arms from entering Iraq? Can you make that pledge?"

Ahmadinejad: "Well, I think you have been charged with a mission to repeat a sentence over and over again. My comments are very clear. I think that you should go back and take American officials to task. Use the same force you're using right now so that they take the troops out."

Pelley: "is that a "yes" or a "no," sir?"

Ahmadinejad: "If you are to take sides, well, I don't know. Well, you shouldn't tell me what kind of answer I should give to you. You're free to ask me questions. I didn't put any limitations on your questions."

Pelley: "True."

Ahmadinejad: "I'm free to give my own answers. I think that all of us should go to American officials and ask them: "What are you looking for in Iraq? Let's be clear. Why have you stayed behind? Why are you accusing others? And your policies have created insecurity. You are behind terrorism. So once you correct your ways, these things will take care of themselves. Why are you using a road that goes to nowhere? Use the correct road."

All interview long Pelley continues to ask Ahmadinejad complex questions of great gravity, yet he expects only one word answers and ignores the proper explanations. If he is going to be making fact less accusations, he has to accept detailed refutations. The Iranian President is especially blunt when telling Pelley that he has been charged with the task of repeating the same question over and over again, and in particular, that Pelley should use the same tactics he is using with Ahmadinejad on the American government and President. Talk about hitting the nail on the head. You would never see Bush getting grilled with the type of questions Pelley is assaulting Ahmadinejad with. Why is that? Because the media is under the control of the Elite, who are profiting off of Bush's economically inspired wars. It is the media's responsibility to ask such questions of our leaders, yet they have failed in that capacity in every way. Though Pelley didn't mean to, he reveals here very clearly that the media is operating in a biased manner, that the mainstream media has never held Bush in check over anything he has done while in office, and in doing so, they have helped to facilitate his destructive, merit less warring policies. One gets the feeling that Pelley is almost working for Bush, like a personal spokesman. America needs to learn about such blatant forms of propaganda, in how it is intentionally spreading ignorance. Continuing on with the interview.

Ahmadinejad: "We support the rights of all nations. We love all nations. And the message of the Iranian people is friendship with all. In our history, we have never attacked another country, occupied another country. This is a peace-loving nation. And you should remember that we are living within our borders. And people who have brought troops from thousands of miles away, they are the ones who should be held accountable and responsible."

Pelley: "Mr. President, you say you love all nations. I have to assume that includes the Nation of Israel."

Ahmadinejad: "Israel is not a nation. Well, we like the people, yes, because they are victims as well. They used to live in their own countries, in their own cities. They were given empty promises, false promises. They said that we are going to give you jobs, we are going to give you security. And they pushed the local Palestinian people out and made them refugees and also made refugees of another community. In other words, from thousands of miles away, people have been emigrating to this country and they are living in fear every day. And we feel for them. Last year in my speech I said that the Zionist entity should open the borders and the gates. Let the people decide where they want to go and settle. They are good people as well. We have no bones to pick with them. We are against terrorism. We are against wrong policies. We are friends with all people, Jewish people, Christians, different people of different faiths. We are, well, we're in contact with them. Here in Iran there are Jewish communities; there are Christian communities; we're all friends. Also, non-Muslim countries, we help them when a natural, let's say, calamity breaks. We love all people. We are opposed to Zionism, occupation, terrorism, dropping bombs on behalf of people when they are inside their own homes, killing men, women, and children. Very openly I have said time and again that I oppose these."

Pelley: "If the Palestinians reach an agreement with Israel for a two-state solution, will you then recognize Israel as well?"

Ahmadinejad: "Well, the decision rests with the Palestinian people. This is exactly what I'm saying."

Pelley: "What would you do, sir?"

Ahmadinejad: "What I'm saying is that you should allow -- oh, please, let me finish my thought. What we are saying, our solution for Palestine is a humane one. We are saying that you should allow the Palestinian people to participate in a fair and free election and determine their own fate. Whatever decision they take, everyone should go with that."

Pelley: "And if that decision . . ."

Ahmadinejad: "No other party must interfere. We are not telling the Palestinian people what decisions they should take. Let them make their own decision. Whatever decision they take, we will go for that."

Pelley: "And if that decision is a two-state solution, you're good with that? You could support a two-state solution?"

Ahmadinejad: "Well, why are you prejudging what will happen? Let's pave the ground first for a free and fair choice. And once they make their choice, we must respect that. All the people, all the Palestinian people must be given this opportunity, allow them to make their own decisions. Let us not tell them what course of action they need to take."

Pelley: "You have said in the past that you have 3,000 centrifuges in a line producing highly-enriched uranium. Do you have more now?"

Ahmadinejad: "No. Our plan and program is very transparent. We are under the supervision of the agency. Everything is on the table. We have nothing to hide."

Pelley: "Transparent? Sir, it's been hidden for more than 15 years. You've been operating a secret nuclear program. It's nothing if it's not secret."

Ahmadinejad: "Who is saying that?"

Pelley: "Well, the IAEA. You've, in fact, agreed with the IAEA to confess what you've done in secret over the past years. It is not transparent, sir."

Ahmadinejad: "Very good. I think that you are not familiar with the structure and the laws and the regulations of the agency. The agency is supposed to do two things. One, supervision. The other, support for the member states. The agency is supposed to supervise and ask questions and we respond. Interestingly enough, in all agency reports, you will read that there are no signs of diversion on the part of the Iranian people. In no reports. But naturally, the agency has questions to ask. And when it comes to that, interestingly enough, compared to European countries and other countries, the questions they ask us are far fewer. They have scores of questions to ask other countries. But the U.S. and a number of other countries are politicizing matters. They don't want us to progress, to develop. So maybe it would be best if you ask the agency how many questions they have asked the U.S. and European countries for that matter. Scores of questions. Because they are producing bombs, new generations of nuclear bombs, they are fabricating those. And our activities are very peaceful under the supervision of the agency. We have provided the largest amount of cooperation to the agency. And what we are doing is very transparent."

Pelley: "For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb?"

Ahmadinejad: "What are you driving at?"

Pelley: "Simply that, sir. Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?"

Ahmadinejad: "Do you think that the nuclear technology is only limited in a bomb? You can only build a bomb with that?"

Pelley: "No, I appreciate the differences, sir, but the question is limited to the bomb."

Ahhmadinejad: "It has different uses. Well, you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What needs do we have for a bomb?"

Pelley: "May I take that as a "no," sir?"

Ahmadinejad: "Please, let me finish my thought. It is a firm "no." I'm going to be much firmer now. I want to address all politicians around the world, statesmen. Any party who uses national revenues to make a bomb, a nuclear bomb, will make a mistake. Because in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would have resolved the problems the Americans have in Iraq. The U.S. has tested new generations of bombs, many thousands of warheads you have in your arsenals. It's of no use. And also the Zionist entity, they have hundreds of warheads. It's not going to help them. The time of the bomb is past. The parties who think that by using the bomb you can control others, they are wrong. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don't need the bomb. For 28 years we have defended ourselves in the face of enemy onslaught. Every day we are becoming more powerful. And, again, we don't need such weapons. In fact, we think that this is inhuman. So can you please tell me why the U.S. government is fabricating these bombs? Do you want to provide a more welfare, happiness to the people through the bomb? Are you going to deal with global poverty? Or do you want to kill people? So our belief, sir, tell us and also our culture, because of these, we are very much opposed to the killing of people. This is very clear."

After backing briefly off of the terrorist allegations, Pelley again, in an effort to smear Ahmadinejad as much as possible, drills him on the hot talking point of Israel, a topic he knows is of great importance and conflict to Ahmadinejad. Zionism isn't something that is discussed in this country, and when it is, few ever speak out against it. Perhaps it's because the Zionist movement happened before most alive today were born, and it is a de facto reality for these very people. Perhaps it's because no one born in this country was forcibly evicted from their homeland to make way for a foreign group of people. The Zionist movement was an awful, immoral black eye in modern human history and is responsible for much of the instability in the Middle East today, and western powers such as the United States were behind its movement. The Palestinians were forced out of Jerusalem so the Jewish people could have a Jewish homeland. The international community felt this was needed after WWII, as the Jews had no where to go after the Holocaust, though the movement had been in the works for quite a while before WWII. While the movement was beneficial for the Jewish people, it forcibly evicted the Palestinians from their land, sending these people into the surrounding foreign lands. The Zionist movement has very much affected the Middle East and Ahmadinejad, and is far from something that should be righteously accepted without thought for what it truly meant. Israel has been an imperialistic pawn for our country since we helped create it. It's been our link to the middle east with Isreals powerful military support. I disagree with Pelley's self righteous approach to the question. Ahmadinejad has a right to oppose Zionism. Continuing on:

Pelley: "At the moment, our two countries may very well be walking down the road to war. How do you convince President Bush, how do you convince other nations in the West . . . ."

Ahmadinejad: "What two parties are walking towards war?"

Pelley: "Iran, the United States, Western countries. France this week . . . ."

Ahmadinejad: "Who says that?"

Pelley: "France this week said that war might be indicated. How do you convince these Western powers that you are not pursuing a bomb?"

Ahmadinejad: "You haven't read the latest news, I have to say. It's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? What reasons are there for the two countries to go to war? We have a logic which we have announced for some time now. We very much oppose the behavior of the U.S. administration. We think it's wrong. And we are saying what we feel, and you are free to say what you feel. And people have a right to choose. Why should we go to war over that? If having said that is a part of a psychological warfare plot. The American people are well familiar with these plots. You shouldn't make the American people afraid needlessly. There's no war in the offing. And also I think that certain American officials do not want friendly relations between the two countries and the citizens of the two countries to visit each other. Last year we requested for a direct flight between the two countries because we want to promote trade, promote cultural activities, and also people-to-people contact. But the American government opposed that. There is no war in the offing. Again, this is psychological warfare. If you have differences of opinions, you can use logic to resolve your differences."

Pelley: "You can show the world today that you are not pursuing a bomb. All you have to do is give the order. Open your nuclear facilities. Let the United Nations inspectors in there today and prove that there is no bomb program. Why not take that course?"

Ahmadinejad: "I think that you are a little bit behind the day's news. You might have been away on an assignment. I don't know."

Pelley: "I'm familiar with the day's news."

Ahmadinejad: "The reports say that we have been complying. And they are inspecting all of our sites every day. What more am I supposed to do? So, I try to be as frank as possible, but . . . ."

Pelley: "You're opening the sites slowly over time, sir. People say that you're just trying to gather as much highly-enriched uranium as you possibly can."

Ahmadinejad: "No. No. No. Well, should you say this, make these accusations or agency inspectors? Inspectors have said, that we are saying that Iran has not diverted; there's no diversion here, in other words. Again, let me repeat. We have not diverted from a peaceful path. This is what the agencies think. There is a solution here, however, a very simple solution. The countries that have atomic bombs should destroy their stockpiles. And that would make everyone happy. You shouldn't accuse others needlessly, and you shouldn't lose your temper and make life miserable for others as well. They have made mistakes and have diverted themselves. They think that others will do the same. There are many countries which have the technology. Five or six have diverted from the peaceful path, road, rather. So those five or six should return to the correct path. If certain parties think that they have rights which go beyond the normal rights that any nation should have, that will be problematic. I think that the American government should appreciate that it is like any other member of the international community, respect the views of the agency. It's very regrettable to see that certain U.S. officials have insulted the very clear positions taken by the agency, and they have lost their temper. And also they have made threats. They have attacked the director general of the agency. That is shameful. If you think that the agency is a reputable one, you should allow it to go ahead with its business. Why should you, or the agency, for that matter, repeat the words of the secretary of state? Rather, what they need to do is report the facts, the truth. So the problems of the American politicians is because they are interested in their own interests. And they want the rest of the world just to say "yes, sir" and go along with whatever they say. That is finished. It's in the past."

This is perhaps the most troubling part of the interview for me, where Scott Pelley, a member of the media, is threatening Ahmadinejad and Iran with war. It is offensive that Pelley would take it upon himself to pump up Ahmadinejad with such a serious threat when he is in no political capacity to do so. He clearly oversteps the bounds of media acceptability, and enters the dangerous zone of political warfare with the President of a foreign nation.

After all the accusations Pelley has been making towards Iran regarding creating nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad is very succinct and correct with an observation he makes, which Pelley refuses to even acknowledge. The solution to the nuclear problem is very simple: the nations which possess the nuclear weapons need to destroy their stockpiles before hypocritically creating a double standard by demanding that other nations not explore nuclear technology. Iran very well could be creating a nuclear weapon, but it is not them the world should be concerned about. If there is any country to concern ourselves with, it is the country I am a citizen of, the only one in the history of the world to actually use an atomic bomb, a country which is in the midst of waging a series of unjustified imperial wars since the end of WWII, a country which had no justification to go to war with Iraq, which won't require substantiated justification to go to war with Iran. We are a nation of double standards, and it's high time we give the respect to the rest of the world that we so hypocritically demand for ourselves. Consider the rational our government is attempting to brainwash the American people with. Bush is making the case that we will need to proactively strike Iran if they do not cooperate with the demands that we place on their nuclear development, that it is somehow justifiable to kill others before they have the chance to kill us. This mindset is sick, and it is the rational behind the propaganda currently emanating from Bush and media representatives like Scott Pelley. We cannot attack before being attacked, which is what our government did to Iraq and is intent on doing to Iran. This interview is a revealing look inside the mind of the conservative pro-war movement.

I was hoping to do this entry in two parts, but I will now need three to complete. I want to make it very clear that our United States government is and has been waging a psycholigical war on the American people since manipulating the misunderstood events of 9/11. The same tactics that bought over American sentiment for invading Iraq are being employed by the same administration in the early stages of propagandizing for war with Iran. Pro-war advocates like Scott Pelley have determined their own self-serving version of history to live by, and as such, the American people are bombarded with ignorance, kept from the truth of an understandable situation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be labeled an enemy simply for standing up to our country's aggressive imperialistic actions in the Middle East. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not our enemy. Dangerous? Perhaps, but only in response to the danger our country presents to the stability of the Middle East and to the human rights of his country. Listen to what the man is saying! We are messing in others affairs, waging wars and killing millions of innocent people since the end of WWII, parading as defenders of freedom, but in reality exercising our own freedoms and interests in suppressing others. If we step up to the plate and stop terrorizing the Middle East, if we disarm ourselves of our nuclear arsenal, than and only then will we have any ground to stand on in the international community. This isn't un-American to say this. Our country wasn't always this aggressive and immoral. See it for what it is. The media is not reporting this war responsibly. The truth needs to be made known. I will conclude my argument in the next entry.