*******Alice in Videoland: Looking Through a Rectangular TV Window into an Alternative Universe
Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites
Paul Joseph Watson
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, May 17, 2010
Cass Sunstein, who wrote a white paper calling for “conspiracy theories” to be banned, wants to legally force Americans to “do what’s best for our society” and dilute their own free speech.
Disturbing audio has emerged of White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a previous white paper called for banning “conspiracy theories,” demanding that websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs.
In an audio excerpt of an interview which was posted on the Breitbart.tv website today, Sunstein discusses how conservative websites should provide links to liberal websites and vice versa or even how political blogs should be made to include pop ups that show “a quick argument for a competing view”.
Sunstein said that if this system couldn’t be implemented voluntarily, “Congress should hold hearings about mandates,” which would legally force people to dilute their own free speech. The Harvard Professor also said that blogs should be forced to list a random draw of 25 popular websites, such as CNN.com.
“The best would be for this to be done voluntarily,” said Sunstein, “But the word voluntary is a little complicated and people sometimes don’t do what’s best for our society,” he added (emphasis mine).
“The idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort….an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better,” Sunstein concluded.
As we previously reported, in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the Harvard Professor who is currently President Obama’s head of information technology in the White House called for “conspiracy theories,” that is any political opinion which didn’t concur with the establishment view, to be taxed or even banned outright.
In a set of proposals designed to counter “dangerous” ideas, Sunstein suggested that the government could, “ban conspiracy theorizing,” or “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories”.
So-called “conspiracy theories that Sunstein said could be subject to government censorship included beliefs held by the vast majority of Americans, such as the notion that the JFK assassination occurred as part of a wider plot.
In his white paper, Sunstein also cited the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government censorship.
Ludicrously, the Harvard Professor even characterized as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
Essentially, Sunstein wants it to be written into law that the government can dictate the very nature of reality to Americans and that their opinions can only be voiced at best when accompanied by mandatory federal propaganda or at worst that Americans can be silenced entirely by federal decree.
This callous disregard for the First Amendment represents a fundamental threat the very fabric of the country and is even more alarming considering the position of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan with regard to free speech. During the Citizens United vs. FEC case, Kagan’s office argued that the government can ban books and political pamphlets. In separate writings, Kagan argued that the government could “disappear” free speech it deemed to be offensive.*******
By William Bowles
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19188
Global Research, May 16, 2010
Strategic Foundation - 2010-05-12
“The fantasy of the faraway place, the fantasy of the skin, the fantasy of being somebody else” — John Berger, ‘Ways of Seeing’
Sometimes, and not often enough, insights, understandings and new ideas just pop into your mind, unbidden. How? I have no idea but as the brain apparently operates somewhere on the quantum level, figuring out how it happens I suspect is and always will be impossible. Somehow, watching television interferes with this process, specifically the bit (or is it bits?) of the brain that can distinguish between fantasy and reality.So anyway I'm watching TV, flicking through the channels and come across yet another ‘reality’ show (if ever there’s case for misleading labeling this is it). This time it’s yet another refreeze of the courageous ‘entrepreneur’ genre called ‘High Street Dreams’ (BBC1, 10 May, 2010). Two families fight it out to launch their ‘brand’ on the High Street, that is to say in two giant shopping centers. One family is trying to launch a prepackaged burger called I think Muddy Feet or maybe that was the ‘brand’. The other, the name escapes me, chili sauces. So much for the power of branding.
Both families go through a process somewhat akin to ‘Dragon’s Den’ though more genteel, but replete with cliffhanging suspense (that ubiquitous TV ‘pause’, the music ominous and low key as the camera cuts from one fearful yet eager face to the other). Then come the tears, hugs and ‘high fives’ as they complete stage one of the process of ‘making’ it. All made possible by the army of talent buried away somewhere in Television Centre. A fearful talent, doing the ‘Devil’s work’ as they used to say, who really have no idea what havoc they’re wreaking on the public’s collective cerebellum.
Guided by a marketing expert and other specialists they have to pitch their product to two supermarket chains. Will they, won’t they, succeed? Silly me, of course they do!
Is this reality with the camera (director) peering intensely and provocatively into a made up world composed of ‘real’ people, struggling to succeed in our dog-eat-dog world? Worse still, what are the odds that the Beeb will invite you into their digital Alice in Videoland? Not unless you come across well in the weirdly distorting aspect ratio of Videoland, where the ugly look great and beautiful look, well weird.
As I’m watching this fusion of multiple ‘realities’ I realize that TV operates as an alternate universe to ours and we look in through a small, rectangular window, glued voyeuristically to images of ourselves as either, who we would really like to be or conversely, damn glad that we’re not. The thing is, it looks just like our world, how can it be anything other than real? There’s a real supermarket with real shoppers eating real samples of burger on cocktail sticks and tossing back little cups of chili sauce.
*******An alternate reality that has the surface appearance of the world we really live in, that is to say, the contestants are not ‘actors’, well at least they’re not members of Actors Equity and they have real products to sell. Above all, they’re hungry. They’re just like ‘us’ or so it would seem, with their dreams, desires and fears hanging out like a dog’s tongue on a hot day for all to see.
I find the entire process humiliating and embarrassing but hey, I was born in 1945. But so enticing is this alternate reality that it’s impossible to resist. People you don’t know will come up to you on the street and ask, ‘Don’t I know you from somewhere?’ I know because I got caught out in the South African version of ‘Candid Camera’ one Sunday morning as I tried to have my breakfast and read the Sunday’s in Rosebank Mall. I saw the end-product once and my words were mostly bleeps as I figured out what was going on. It was hilarious, well in hindsight it was.
Either way we get sucked into this alternate universe that epitomizes the nature of capital, a world where ‘success’ is possible, for a few anyway. Operating in a closed loop, television reality and the physical reality are intertwined. So complete is this illusion that our reality ‘outside’ the studio is totally transformed by the medium and this is never more apparent than with the presentation of the ‘news’, never mind ‘High Street Dreams’.
In every sense this past election was played out on television, with the print media doing ‘backup’. Whether the ‘debates’ affected the outcome is neither here nor there, as the script had already been written, on television, through the way the ‘news’ presents the issues and critically what issues to push to the ‘consumers’, sorry electors.
The major bone of contention between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives as they spar for position, has been electoral reform, conveniently abbreviated by the media to AV or Alternate Voting system (obviously it’s just too complicated to explain in a soundbite to an uninformed viewer). The Tories want yet another ‘inquiry’ whereas the Lib-Dems want a ‘Referendum’. (It seems finally, that were a deal done between the two parties, then the public will be presented with only one kind of ‘reform’ via a referendum to vote for or against.)
“Labour say if the Lib Dems back them they will put the Alternative Vote system into law and then hold a referendum asking voters if they want a proportional representation voting system - a key issue for the Lib Dems.” — ‘Hung parliament: Lib Dems and Tories locked in talks’, BBC News Website, 11 May, 2010
So too with the economics of capitalism. The meaning of ‘national interest’ is a given when used in the ‘news’, namely it’s what the business class want and it’s spokes people for the business class who get to talk about the ‘national interest’.
There is no alternative presented let alone debated. Any other view—than preserving the status quo—that lives out in the real world, has no ‘Access All Areas’ badge to Videoland.
Depressingly, there seems to be no way out of this situation unless our public media are completely transformed, the Internet notwithstanding, which while contributing an outlet for independent news and analysis, is no match for the corporate/state stranglehold on the media. Don’t forget they’re online as well, another universe where technology and corporate control are in the same hands and utilizing similar skills and resources to those they use to construct Videoland.