Introduction to How to Sell a War

Here is a little more background about this topic:

I have been distressed about the amount of propaganda in and around America for quite a few years. Whether the topic is creating enemies to gain support for a war, or generating a multi-pronged attack on an individual in public life, or attempting to create hatred and marginalization against a segment of the population, to cast aspersions on a group with scapegoating as a goal. Propaganda is pervasive in American and, indeed, international life.

My goal here is to help anyone who reads the essay see the patterns of a propaganda campaign, here described as a method to create popular support to start a war, but the patterns for war propaganda are widely used in other contexts. I just want to make it so you, the reader, can somewhat immunize yourself against a propaganda campaign, and motivate you to get both sides of the issue so that you can make an informed decision. Informed decisions defeat the intent of the propagandist, no matter the source.

Many of the source documents are old and out of print. I did a search on Amazon.com and found all of them. Some were expensive and only one copy was in the Amazon database. I recommend a major metropolitan or univesity library.

I intend to do follow up shorter essays to focus on a specific method or tactics of the propagandist. OD1

QuestionItNow Blogs

First post

This is my first post ever. I put up an essay on propaganda today. Click the White Papers box to access it.

I made an error when I attributed the Author of Keep the Home Fires Burning as Allen Lane, the Author is Cate Haste.

I also failed to acknowledge Daniel Marshall and Melissa Menzies, who had written biographies of Harold Dwight Lasswell. Their work, which I found on the University of Texas website introduced me to the concept of channeling in the dissemination of propaganda.

I also wish to thank a late professor who introduced me to the work of Harold Lasswell.

QuestionItNow

Censure, Impeachment, and Accountability

As we are all well aware, the world changed radically on September 11, 2001. A rag-tag bunch of suicidal fanatics ushered in a new era of fear and denial that is unlike anything most of us have ever experienced. The initial military response of invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban (with the stated objective of destroying Al-Qaeda) was strongly supported world-wide.

Events following the Afghanistan mission have lead many at home and abroad to question the honesty and integrity of the United States political system and its ability to offer legitimate checks and balances.

This week, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin introduced a resolution to Censure President George W. Bush. It reads "Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans." Others, most notably Congressman John Conyers of Michigan have called for the impeachment of Bush and others.

At times like this it is helpful to utilize a reference such as Dictionary.com to help clarify what these resolutions actually mean.

cen•sure n.
1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

cen•sured, cen•sur•ing, cen•sures
1. To criticize severely; blame. See Synonyms at criticize.
2. To express official disapproval of: "whether the Senate will censure one of its members for conflict of interest" (Washington Post).

Basically, censure is an official slap on the wrist. However, this symbolic gesture may lead to further actions in the future. “A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the president thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable,” Feingold said.

im•peach ment n.
Usage Note: When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.

"There are just too many unanswered questions, and too much blood of our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, our friends and lovers to just blindly follow without concern or care. I will never abandon my need to correct what can be corrected and hold accountable those who have erred. I am not afraid to say I have doubts about what we have been told about why we are in Iraq and I have serious concerns about how we are taking care of the Veterans in this country, not to mention how we will take care of those who are currently serving. There is a price tag for everything, what are you willing to pay for truth? Your freedom? Your children? You liberties? Your job? What?

We are all concerned about the safety of our troops and their families and as we move though the weeks and months ahead, I want to ask you to contemplate the global repercussions of what the War in Iraq has created and how many more American tax dollars, troops, and truths must be sacrificed in the name of combating terror." - Tony Trupiano

ac•count•a•ble adj.
1.Liable to being called to account; answerable. See Synonyms at responsible.

"All I’m asking for is accountability, and the system we have for that is called Impeachment." – Tony Trupiano Impeachment, Be Unafraid

Let us not forget that President Bush and elected officials, our public servants work for "We the People." Shouldn’t all Americans demand accountability from their employees?

Pay Attention
ask questions
Speak Up!
QuestionItNow

Dubai Port World – An American Security Risk???

The recent buzz about the acquisition of P&O by a Dubai company has centered on the perception of risk and the impression that a company from UAE cannot be counted on to support American anti-terrorism efforts. As much as I dislike to politics of the Bush administration, they are, at first glance, bang on in their approach. The precedent has already been set. The US does not have any requirements put forth by legislation that limits US port operations to American companies. The fact that P&O is a British company does not guarantee that the company is fully behind US anti-terrorism programs. They are, like any other corporation, driven by profit. DP World is a UAE company, but this doesn’t imply that the company supports anything other than its own profit. Without enacting legislation to ban foreign-operated corporations from running US ports, we cannot ban DP World from US port operations.

That said, the issue of this acquisition has implications well beyond security. Look at who the players are who are profiting from DP World and their association with President Bush. The New York Daily News has provided details (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html). John Snow is Bush’s Treasury Secretary and was responsible for signing off on the sale of P&O to DP World. Shortly after leaving CSX to join Bush’s cabinet, CSX Railroad sold its port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion. David Sanborn, who was just nominated to head the U.S. Maritime Administration, currently runs DP World's European and Latin American operations. These links to DP World and the secrecy in which the Bush administration has operated suggests (strongly, in my opinion) that the Administration preferred not to have the details of these relationships made public.

It makes you wonder who really is profiting from these transactions!!!

QuestionItNow Blogs