BartBlog

Excerpt:

How many times have U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan killed exactly 30 enemy fighters? The answer may surprise you.

Early this week, a little known blogger known as The Security Crank, made an interesting observation. In 2009 alone, there were at least 12 reports in U.S. and international media that cited U.S. and NATO military claims that exactly 30 militants were killed in either air strikes or other military operations in Afghanistan.

According to the blog, “hopping onto Google News and typing “30 Taliban” or “30 suspected militants” brings up literally dozens of stories each year, stretching back at least to 2005. Indeed, thirty seems to be the magic number when it comes to arresting or killing off Taliban and other militant fighters in Afghanistan.” A quick search reveals that is true.

When most events occur once, it is usually the truth. Twice may be a coincidence, and a third time begins a pattern. Anything more than that and it is time to start questioning, which our mainstream fails to do in many respects time and time again.

So why does the number 30 come up so frequently? Is that enough casualties to justify a military attack, yet not enough to draw international attention? An article in the LA Times may provide some insight.

So the likelier explanation is that the Pentagon does not know how many insurgents were killed in any of these strikes, perhaps because distinguishing insurgents from civilians is no easy task. And the 30 number seems like a safe bet: High enough to justify the air strike, but not so high as to seem suspicious or overblown.

All I know is that if I came up with the number 30 – 12 times in one year, I would be rolling in Vegas instead of writing for the Examiner.

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Eradicating-the-Taliban-exactly-30-at-a-time

Excerpt:

While the Senate appears to be backtracking on a public option in heath care reform, the public seems to want to move forward with one.

A new CBS poll finds that about 59 percent of Americans support the inclusion of such a provision in any health care reform bill, while only 28 percent hold a negative view of it.

This finding comes despite the fact that a whopping one billion dollars was spent by corporations on political ads this year, most of which were targeted at destroying health care reform.

Once again, big money wins in Washington. If you think that’s bad, just wait until we get to climate legislation, where the petroleum Industry, some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the history of civilization, thanks to enormous federal subsidies, have a direct financial stake in the outcome.

The world’s most profitable corporations benefit mightily from U.S. government welfare, your tax-payer dollars, to the tune of some $72 billion over the last seven years in permanent subsidies.

Brad Friedman says it well when he states: “It’s horrible, an abrogation of what the Founding Fathers likely had in mind (nowhere, to my knowledge, does the support for unbridled corporate spending as “free speech” come into play in the Constitution at last read) and yet all signs suggest it’s only going to get far worse before it gets any better — if it ever does.”

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d9-Most-Americans-still-want-a-public-optiondespite-millions-spent-in-ads

Excerpt:
Many people who follow politics may have heard of organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity and Patients United. But very few have heard the names David and Charles Koch.

That is because these billionaires like to stay under the radar in name, but their funding of political action organizations is a giant blip on the political radar screen if one watches and pays attention.

Billionaires David and Charles Koch have been financial leaders in opposing anything that resembles a progressive agenda for years. They have been looming in the background of every major domestic policy dispute this year, and may be the most effective opponents of President Obama’s policies. For example, as health care reform protesters descended upon Washington last month, few were aware, as they were greeted with dough nuts and coffee, and handed protest signs and talking points about socialized medicine, that a right-wing billionaire had paid for the meals, buses, or salaries of the helpful guides.

Much of the fierce opposition to health reform can be credited to Koch organizations. As the health care debate began, AFP created a front group, known as Patients United, that dedicated itself to attacking Democratic health care reform proposals. The Koch brothers clearly have a financial stake in blocking reform. Koch Industry oil refineries are major carbon dioxide polluters, and George-Pacific, a Koch Industries timber subsidiary, is one of the largest contributors to the loss of carbon-sink capacity.

According to the EPA, Koch Industries is responsible for over 300 oil spills in the U.S. and has leaked three million gallons of crude oil into fisheries and drinking waters. So there are clear economic interests in why the Koch brothers would want to block regulatory enforcement, clean energy, labor, and other reforms. But part of their opposition stems from a long family tradition of funding conservative movements to shift the country to the far right.

Hate has manifested itself once again in tea bag rallies and town hall meetings across the nation. While the corporatists reap the benefits, the people do their bidding. Rage can be productive if directed at the proper targets. But misdirected rage is counter-productive, and a certain segment of this nation has been led in the wrong direction by a few billionaires.

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d9-The-money-behind-the-madness

Excerpt:
While the Obama administration made the decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by adding 30,000 more troops, polls throughout 2009 show a U.S. public divided on whether the war is even worth fighting, let alone in need of escalation.

Yet the mainstream, corporate media has marginalized opposition to the wars, making it seem as if few oppose the wars, when in fact a majority of Americans do oppose the wars.

The same sort of dismissal of anti-war sentiments is evident on network and cable TV news as well. After cheerleading the American people into war in Iraq by endlessly repeating claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, it is obvious that corporate media in the U.S.a is pro-war. The real question is: Why?

There is no simple answer, but looking at trends in U.S. journalism in the past 30 years can provide insight. Simply put, there are five reasons that U.S. corporate media is pro-war, marginalizes anti-war sentiments, and omits and/or distorts the truth: 1) Self-censorship by journalists. 2) Censorship of journalists by superiors. 3) Adherance to the profit motives of parent companies. 4) Fear of losing access to government sources. 5) Censorship by the government.

When five corporations control all of U.S. media, and at least one (GE) actively profits from defense contracts, how can we expect a diversity of opinion, let alone the truth?

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d6-Corporate-media-marginalizes-opposition-to-war

Excerpt:
According to a poll released on Dec. 3 by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, almost half of Americans believe that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally” and step out of other countries’ affairs.

In 1964, the institute found that only 18 percent of Americans supported such an isolationist approach. For the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality (49%) says the United States should let other countries get along the best they can on their own and not interfere in their affairs. In December 2002, just 30% agreed with this statement.

If President Obama is looking for something that transcends the left/right, conservative/liberal divisions over health care reform and Afghanistan policy, he might try isolationism. This finding marks the first time in four decades that such a large number of Americans oppose US foreign policies.

Back in 1935, a Marine who won the Congressional Medal of Honor twice, Gen. Smedley Butler said, “We must take the profit out of war. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war. We must limit our military to home defense purposes.”

Perhaps spending billions on rebuilding the American economy instead of bombing, occupying and rebuilding countries on the other side of the globe would generate higher approval ratings for Obama, save lives, help restore our image among the international community, and help Americans.

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Poll-49-of-Americans-think-US-should-mind-its-own-business-internationally