MATTHEWGOODONLINE

I’ve been busy with rehearsals and exhausted afterwards, so haven’t been able to update the site at all. In fact, I haven’t even checked my email since Friday. Anyway, a few things…

Welcome to the new Canada. Today, in Halifax, the Prime Minister announced the Canada First Defense Policy, which is a major shift in Canadian military spending and commitment to global military affairs. It is, without question, extremely alarming.

Listening to the Prime Minister talk this morning I was deeply troubled at his alignment of economic growth with the bolstering of the defense industry – that it will benefit all Canadians, providing jobs. Of course, we wouldn’t dare nationalize the oil sector, but the government can promote the growth of the defense industry by spreading military contracts throughout the country. The Prime Minister also stated that export possibilities would also be providing economic opportunities – meaning that we’re going to start cashing in on arming others to help bolster our economy through the development of the defense sector.

When I have time to sit down with a draft of the policy I will comment further and in more detail.

Also of note this morning is the devastating earthquake that has struck China’s Sichuan province. An estimated 8,500 people are dead, though that number will most likely increase.

I’ll do my best to return to updating the site on a more routine basis in the days ahead.

Recently it was discovered that the Pentagon worked to place various retired military commanders at the disposal of various news networks as ‘analysts’. Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to such individuals as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates”, their role being to reinforce administration policy. It should also noted that the majority of them represent in excess of 150 military contractors as either lobbyists, consultants, board members, or senior executives.

In a free society, the willful usurpation of the integrity of the fourth estate by the military establishment is – what? What term would you use to describe the premeditated infiltration of the fourth estate by the military establishment for the purpose of promoting a military agenda? And, given that reality, how must we then seriously examine the redefinition of freedom itself?

The truth is that such practices are authoritarian. Ironically, while the spirit of the First Amendment is being tarnished, the practice can’t be condoned as illegal being that the media allows such individuals to appear, aiding in what David Barstow of the New York Times recently referred to as - “a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks”. In layman’s terms, it’s reverse embedding.

The issue is not whether it constitutes a crime, rather that the practice constitutes a concerted effort on the part of the current administration and the military establishment to control how information is presented. There is no questioning the fact that, since 9/11, the American media has largely entered into a very dangerous game in which it has been willing to sell itself out for access to whatever table scraps the administration is willing to offer them. Cast in an economic light, journalistic impartiality and objectivity has become a secondary notion compared to revenues, which makes it all the easier of a format to exploit. Thus, it becomes less about the quality of information and more about quantity. To achieve the latter, access is required to those in a position to provide information, no matter its basis. Add to that advertisers that are looking to be associated with media outlets that do not take chances, that sidestep the complexities of issues, and ensure that they are able to appeal to a wide demographic to ensure their survival, and you have the production of a pseudo-informational stream that is easily infiltrated and corrupted.

That, like it or not, is how the roots of authoritarianism can take hold in a society that believes its liberties sacrosanct.

I was going to mention this yesterday, as Paul Craig Roberts made mention of it in an article, but didn’t get around to it. Abid Aslam’s IPS piece deals specifically with the issue, so I’ll reference it instead…

“Members of Congress invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to U.S. armed forces, say nonpartisan watchdog groups.

David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, is to brief the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees on Tuesday and Wednesday. The latest findings are unlikely to have a significant impact on this week’s proceedings but could stoke anti-incumbent sentiment in this year of presidential and legislative elections.

Lawmakers charged with overseeing Pentagon contractors hold stock in those very firms, as do vocal critics of the war in Iraq, says the Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.

Members of Congress are required to report their personal finances every year but only need to state their assets in broad ranges.

Other top investors include Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican with holdings of 12.1 million - 49.1 million dollars; Rep. Robin Hayes, a North Carolina Republican (9.2 million - 37.1 million dollars); Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin (5.2 million - 7.6 million dollars); and Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat (2.7 million - 6.3 million dollars).

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat and former governor of West Virginia who chairs the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, invested some 2.0 million dollars in Pentagon contractors, CRP says.

Other panel chiefs who invested in defence firms include Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who presides over the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In all, 151 current members of Congress — more than one-fourth of the total — have invested between 78.7 million dollars and 195.5 million dollars in companies that received defence contracts of at least 5.0 million dollars, according to CRP.

These companies received more than 275.6 billion dollars from the government in 2006, or 755 million dollars per day, says budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The investments yielded lawmakers 15.8 million - 62 million dollars in dividend income, capital gains, royalties, and interest from 2004 through 2006, says CRP.”