On Brexit, Trump and Reality – Who's Winning, Losing and Why?
What role do the media play in constructing our reality?
Is social media a force for good?
*Pedlars might be spelled "peddlers"
Clinton and DNC Trumped by Own Dirty Tricks
I was one of a small group of individuals who thought that the Brexit vote would have Britain leave the European Union. I also was not surprised at the recent US election result which saw Hillary Clinton trumped by her own Machiavellian plans. This article from the US site Salon explains why and how she tripped up:
Obama's Legacy Bigger Eternal War, Renditions, Drone Assassinations and NDAASuch provisions breach all human rights norms. This and many more points are made by Dolores Vek about the previous Obama, Bush and Clinton presidencies, in the following article castigating the alarmist liberals who feel suddenly threatened by the spectre of fascism under a Trump presidency and a GOP controlled Congress:
The Guardian's Offending ArticleBut what is the issue, why were people so pissed with the establishment to vote for Brexit and Trump? Well in Britain The Guardian's Andrew Smith has the answer, it's the masses of people who gain their news and information from social media rather than the traditional media sources (dominated by capitalist owners), in his article published 7:34pm GMT Friday 25 November, “The Pedlars of Fake News Are Corroding Democracy.”
My Comment Disappears - Guardian Censor StrikesI might add that The Guardian is not the worse offender in this regard, however the article was on their webpage and so they got my ire. There were about 700 comments on the article when I got to it Saturday afternoon NZ time, nevertheless I felt motivated to make a contribution. You won't find it in the comments section of the article because the moderator(s) removed it for failing to meet the Guardian's Community Standards: https://www.theguardian.com/community-standards
Press Complaints - Self Regulation at The GuardianI've emailed the Guardian's moderators seeking an explanation. I've followed this with several follow up emails providing further context. I sense that no answer will be forthcoming which motivates me to commit the saga to posterity herein. To close the record I'll include those emailed follow up comments and publish this online.
A. 3:15am Tuesday 29 November 2016
What redress do you propose?
B. 12:04pm Tuesday 29 November 2016Dear Guardian moderator
As surely as 9/11 pointed up the myriad failures of official agencies in Washington, it also revealed the abject failure of the news media... We had failed to warn the American public of the storm clouds approaching our shores. And in failing to do so, we betrayed the trust of the public.##
Which brings me to this... premeditation and planning...
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions...**
What more can one say? Lots, but let's leave it there, case made - Hypocrisy rules!Last word from the community opinion editor of The Guardian, just came in 12:14am Wednesday 30 November: