Primary Propaganda News Outlets
The WSJ, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, are the three principle “opinion-makers” in the United States.
They set the tone and the editorial policy which then quickly percolates through the rest of the US news media.
In an age when “local” media no longer have their own national or
international reporters, they rely on the “biggies” to set up the
stories for them.
The Times, The Post and The Journal propagate the official government stories and the “approved” propaganda.
If “your government” wants to channel public opinion in a particular direction, it begins with these three papers.
The Post writes primarily for Washington’s political wonks and The
Times for bleeding heart Republicans who fancy themselves “liberals”.
The Journal, however, unabashedly caters to the ruling elite, the
moneyed class that owns, and, therefore, does not need to hold elected
office.
This class’s watchdogs monitor what we are saying; it is imperative that we also monitor what they are saying.
As scary as it seems, there are, indeed, many powerful people in
the world who share the raw capitalist views of the WSJ editors.
This newspaper influences the world’s thin upper crust.
Their editorials set the “talking points” adopted by the elite as
they defend the likes of the occupation of Iraq, beat drums of war
against Iran, champion the privatization of health care, social
security and education, or justify the madness of King George.
So, if you want to know what America's ruling class will think tomorrow, read the WSJ today.
Michael Vick & the Culture of Dog Fighting
From the boardroom to the sports and entertainment world, and from
the city to the country, upper, middle and lower classes are all
represented. The gangster edge of hip hop - rappers like DMX - has
intersected with the dog fighting culture.
Dog Fighting Cuts Across Race & Class in the US
It's difficult to know what to say about the Michael Vick story, and it might be wise to say nothing just yet.
It does, however, bring to the forefront some interesting bits of
history concerning what constitutes sport; the relationship of sport to
gambling; the confluence of sport and masculinity.
The evolution of what is seen as civilized and barbaric behavior; and the ways in which people react to that behavior.
More concern seemed to focus on cruelty to animals than to humans, a tendency still familiar to us today.
Cruelty to animals was increasingly described as uncivilized or barbaric, especially as a form of entertainment.
Social reformers — both evangelical Christians and humanitarians,
who saw this as part of a larger crusade to clean up society and infuse
it with Christian values — drove the attack on blood sports.
Laws did not succeed in stopping dog fights, they simply drove dog
fighting to the margins of society where it attracted those looking for
a thrilling and slightly illegal sort of activity, a characteristic
that seems the want of humans.
Dog fights, ratting, bear baiting, cockfights, bare-knuckle boxing
and eye-gouging fights, as well as many other less respectable and
illegal forms of sport and entertainment, became the province of males
in a 19th-century Victorian culture.
This development accompanied a growing fear of "feminization" of
the culture and a corresponding concern over "masculinity" among the
middle and upper classes.
For the 19th-century urban bachelor culture, and for the Victorian
gentlemen of the age, illicit forms of sport and gambling, along with
prostitution and drugs, filled their needs.
Victorian gentlemen moved in these circles as a right of passage
into adulthood, and the bachelor culture moved in these circles to
express their manliness.
In many ways, much of the same dynamic continues to fuel the
illegal blood sports in urban industrial and post-industrial cultures,
as do other sports that feature forms of ritualized violence.
This is not to say that the violence of football leads to other violence or to an attraction to dog fighting.
This segment of society is, in fact, only one part of the clientele attracted to dog fighting.
Most studies of contemporary dog fighting, as well as most court
and police records, indicate that dog fighting cuts across race and
class in the United States.
Multiple Orgasms: Hitting the G-Spot [Or Is It a Myth?]
The G-spot is the Loch Ness monster of sex. Does it really exist?
Where is it? Why are some women’s G-spot smaller or larger than others?
A doctor claims he's invented the "G-Shot", a medical procedure that
enlarges the elusive G-spot.
Is the Existence of the G-Spot a Male Fantasy?
One of America’s most famous sex therapists Dr. Ruth Westheimer
believes the G-spot is an idea that exists because of male chauvinism,
specifically the Freudian belief of “mature” and “immature” orgasms.
Freud believed that only sexual intercourse would cause a “mature” superior orgasm in women.
Orgasms that were caused by the clitoris were considered masculine and
“immature.” According to Freud, it was up to the woman to transfer the
orgasm from the clitoris to the vagina during penetration.
It wasn’t until the 60s when sex researchers Masters and Johnson
performed a series of tests on female sexual response and discovered
that the majority of the subjects were only able to achieve orgasm
through the clitoris compared to a small minority that were able to
achieve one vaginally.
What's Behind the Bush Regime's Latest Terror Scare?
It serves three basic political functions. It diverts public attention
from the disaster in Iraq and the social crisis within the US,
justifies a foreign policy based on militarism and war, and provides a
pretext for police state measures at home.
Terra! Terra! Terra!
The Bush Regime has set out to make fear and anxiety over terrorism the center of public life.
It hopes to appeal to the confusion of more backward sections of the
population in order to bludgeon popular opposition to its agenda of
militarism and political repression at home.
In so doing, Bush has enjoyed the support of the Democratic Party,
which, far from exposing this cynical attempt to manipulate public
opinion, has fully embraced the so-called “war on terror.”
The Democrats have frequently attacked Bush for not going far enough in “securing the homeland.”
There is no doubt that the brutal neo-colonialist foreign policy of
the US government has placed the American people in danger of another
terrorist attack.
However, the greatest threat to the democratic rights and safety of
the American people, and the people of the world, comes not from
Islamic extremists in the Middle East, but from US imperialism and the
warmongers in Washington.
Ed Strong
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
