So how do we have an honest discourse? How are all positions to be heard? Not though the media as it stands; with an ever-decreasing amount of companies running the show, and bearing in mind that they are not, by any means, altruistic organizations committed to the well-being of the grazing herd, the divergence of stories in the MSM is minimal.
Of course, Nutbags Athletic are not playing on a level pitch with their elected overlords. Establishment United can only harness the entire fire-power of the Western media – Rupert Murdoch alone can reach 4.5 billion souls – while the Nutbags are clearly have the upper hand as they coax broadband connections into life and lock their wheezing PCs on ‘Argue’.
However, there is no surprise that although the mainstream media are always on the side of truth, that truth is always on the side of the status quo. Be they laying down the Official Word for good and loyal patriots or fighting a rear guard action against wild-eyed anarchists, the MSM can always, up to a point, be relied upon to do Establishment United’s heavy lifting; even the multitude of balls-ups by the Bush administration have been given not much more than a cursory glance but that might just be, considering the multitude of sins they have to choose from, because there simply isn’t room.
The whole situation could change tomorrow if it suited the vested interests for it to do so, but it doesn’t, so the show goes on, and given the unstoppable force of the global media it is no great shock that Establishment United is ahead of the game; they have most of the star strikers and they not only own the rule book they rewrite it daily, and if they don’t like the referee’s decision, hey! They just ignore it!
But as these are the defining issues of our times and they must not be off limits for discussion and debate. Is the Iraq War going to explode exponentially and turn into a global conflagration, or is it the victory for democracy that the Coalition says it is? How can the voters of a liberal democracy be confident in the claims of the government if the tales coming out of the war zone are so diametrically opposed?
The Iraq war could be fought because the powers that be knew that their rationale for it was bollocks, and because of this they could change it around at will. They could never be upfront about the real reason, but fake reasons? Hey, they got them! How many do you want?
The logic that allowed the Iraq War to go ahead – the overwhelming threat of annihilation, the cost of doing nothing, the immediacy of the threat of annihilation, the cost of doing nothing about the immediacy of the threat – was shouted long and loud from every rooftop, and printed on the pulp of every tree.
It was inescapable, and those that argued were fools, cretins, appeasers – if we don’t face the threat head on, cried our rulers, we shall surely rue the day. Those that said we must be careful were brushed aside with a brute force that only the most determined can muster because, shrilled the western warlords, its all so obvious.
Of course we now know otherwise, but at the time, well… The thing is that many, many people at the time knew that the intelligence was dodgy, and it was proved to be; now, however, we have a new enemy, and once again we are face with the overwhelming threat of annihilation, the cost of doing nothing, the immediacy of the threat of annihilation and the cost of doing nothing about the immediacy of the threat, but this time Establishment United are not so gung-ho about its amelioration.
Now, careful is the watchword. Now, they want to make sure that the intelligence is absolutely perfect before we engage the foe. Now, they say, we really need to talk about it, and talk about it some more, because it really wouldn’t do if someone got hurt. 'Histroy' sniffed Australian John Howard just today, 'is littered with examples of where nation have over-reacted to presumed threats, only to their great long-term disadvantage', without it occuring to him for a nanosecond that this comment pertains just as happily to his government's Iraq excursion.
All good lawyers never ask a question if they don’t know the answer. However, the global warmists have asked a new question of Establishment United, and because they don't have an answer they like, our Dear Leaders control the damage by ridiculing the question, but neither Q or A will go away. However, no matter whether you run hot or cold on the subject, at least we are having the debate and the effect of the solar on the polar, once the exclusive preserve of dreadlocked enviro-vegies, is now on the dining table of every household on the planet.
Coming Soon – Part Three – How to clear it all up!
Petting Who? - First Published in The Skinny, 1 November, 2009 After a few hours of joyful motoring you might remember to let Oscar the trusty black Labrador-X out to do ...
7 years ago