Five hundred and eighty years ago, Johannes Gutenberg introduced the printing press to the world. That single act created a free press which gave birth to the concept of freedom of speech. The two are inextricably linked; printing is a form of speech.
Gutenberg’s invention started the Printing Revolution, a milestone of the 2ndmillennium that initiated the modern period of human history including the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution, and began the knowledge-based economy that spread learning to the masses.
Such mass communication permanently altered the structure of society. Removing control of information from the hands of the powerful and delivering it into the hands of the disempowered.
The broad circulation of information, including revolutionary ideas, in many languages, undermined Latin’s dominant status and the authority previously held by those trained in Latin, it transcended borders, threatened the power of political and religious authorities, increased literacy breaking the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning, and bolstered the emerging middle class. It increased cultural self-awareness and cultural cohesion and undermined the authority of distant rulers and high priests.
His major work, the Gutenberg Bible was the first printed version of the Bible.
A global game-changer
Until 1439, Bibles were hand-scribed by rooms full of monks. There were virtually no mass produced books. Only an organisation able to fund these scribe factories could generate information that could be shared with others, in Latin. The Catholic Church was not impressed that Gutenberg made these scribe factories redundant.
But that’s just one enemy Gutenberg created. As well as destroying religious control he destroyed political control, which was largely aligned with the Church across Europe.
And then he destroyed the monopoly of the literate elite, creating educated populations where previously, powerful nobles had unchallenged control. Then, by supporting the local languages, all of which could be printed, he destroyed the dominance of Latin as the only language worth knowing.
Gutenberg was a game changer. He undermined the control of monarchs and the ruling class, the church, the political establishment, the Latin speaking elite, the educated upper-class, and probably also the authority and reliance on masters in every field of human endeavour as their previously spoken instructions, to a limited set of apprentices, could now be shared to the world in print.
Gutenberg destroyed the masters in virtually every realm by providing the means to expose knowledge to everyone. The genie was out of the bottle.
Imagine the masters’ anger.
Though anger could not save them from what Gutenberg had done.
From paper revolution to digital revolution
Today in 2019, 580 years since Gutenberg unleashed his printing press, the powerful are still trying to put the free press and freedom of speech genie back in the bottle.
Their present strategy is to make their knowledge, the element that is the key to retaining authority, as it was in Gutenberg’s day, secret, even Top Secret, and criminalising any action that reveals these secrets to anyone outside their circle of authority.
One of the ways this has been achieved is by enlisting the very core of what should be the free press, granting them almost monopoly rights to information dissemination and transmission and in exchange attaining for themselves the guarantee that their secrets will not be revealed.
Julian Assange is being persecuted. People can pretend all they want but the reality is that Julian is being persecuted.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, August 23, 2019. The US confirms that the Israeli government
has bombed Iraq, Bernie Sanders presents a plan for workers, and much
more.
The Israeli government has once again bombed Iraq. Monday, they bombed Balad Air Base where the Iraqi militia (Popular Mobilization Forces -- Shi'ite forces linked to Iran) have stored weapons. The Iraqi militias -- linked to Iran or not -- are part of the Iraqi government forces. The previous prime minister, Hayder al-Abadi, oversaw that incorporation. This was at least the fourth bombing the government of Israel has carried out on Iraq..
Israeli media first began reporting about this at the end of June. Dropping back to the July 30th Iraq snapshot:
How is this not an act of war?
Israel has expanded its operations against Iranian targets to Iraq, where Air Force jets have struck twice in ten days, a report said Tuesday morning.
Israel commonly conducts strikes in Syrian territory, targeting Iranian missile shipments meant for Lebanese terror group Hezbollah to use against the Jewish state, but strikes in Iraq by Israel have not been reported since the 1981 bombing of a nuclear reactor.
That's from Michael Bachner's report for THE TIMES OF ISRAEL.
Repeating: How is this not an act of war?
What if it was the US that was bombed?
Let's use Recep Tayyip Erdogan as an example because on his visit to the US he had his goons attack peaceful protesters -- and by the way, Barack Obama was president and refused to condemn that publicly. But Recep decides peaceful protesters are terrorists so he decides to send Turkish war planes over Baltimore to bomb the city.
We would rightly see that as an act of war.
How is this any different?
It's not any different. And now Lolita Baldor and Josef Federman (ASSOCIATED PRESS) report, "Israel was responsible for the bombing of an Iranian weapons depot in Iraq l[a]st month, U.S. officials have confirmed, an attack that would mark a significant escalation in Israel's years-long campaign against Iranian military entrenchment across the region." AL JAZEERA adds:
Earlier this week, the deputy head of the Iraqi Shia militias, known collectively as the Popular Mobilization Forces, openly accused Israeli drones of carrying out the attacks, but ultimately blamed Washington and threatened strong retaliation for any future attack.
Such attacks are potentially destabilising for Iraq and its fragile government, which has struggled to remain neutral amid growing tensions between the United States and Iran.
Al Jazeera's Natasha Ghoneim, reporting from Baghdad during the latest round of air raids, said Iranian-backed armed groups have been operating in Iraq with the full support of the government since 2014, when they joined the fight against ISIL.
"A new law that came into effect on July 31 requires all paramilitary groups to report to the Iraqi security forces, or put down their weapons," Ghoneim reported.
Alissa J. Rubin and Ronnie Bergen (NEW YORK TIMES) explain:
As the US has confirmed what was already out there, many are now issuing statements -- including former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki.
The Israeli government has once again bombed Iraq. Monday, they bombed Balad Air Base where the Iraqi militia (Popular Mobilization Forces -- Shi'ite forces linked to Iran) have stored weapons. The Iraqi militias -- linked to Iran or not -- are part of the Iraqi government forces. The previous prime minister, Hayder al-Abadi, oversaw that incorporation. This was at least the fourth bombing the government of Israel has carried out on Iraq..
Israeli media first began reporting about this at the end of June. Dropping back to the July 30th Iraq snapshot:
How is this not an act of war?
Israel has expanded its operations against Iranian targets to Iraq, where Air Force jets have struck twice in ten days, a report said Tuesday morning.
Israel commonly conducts strikes in Syrian territory, targeting Iranian missile shipments meant for Lebanese terror group Hezbollah to use against the Jewish state, but strikes in Iraq by Israel have not been reported since the 1981 bombing of a nuclear reactor.
That's from Michael Bachner's report for THE TIMES OF ISRAEL.
Repeating: How is this not an act of war?
What if it was the US that was bombed?
Let's use Recep Tayyip Erdogan as an example because on his visit to the US he had his goons attack peaceful protesters -- and by the way, Barack Obama was president and refused to condemn that publicly. But Recep decides peaceful protesters are terrorists so he decides to send Turkish war planes over Baltimore to bomb the city.
We would rightly see that as an act of war.
How is this any different?
It's not any different. And now Lolita Baldor and Josef Federman (ASSOCIATED PRESS) report, "Israel was responsible for the bombing of an Iranian weapons depot in Iraq l[a]st month, U.S. officials have confirmed, an attack that would mark a significant escalation in Israel's years-long campaign against Iranian military entrenchment across the region." AL JAZEERA adds:
Earlier this week, the deputy head of the Iraqi Shia militias, known collectively as the Popular Mobilization Forces, openly accused Israeli drones of carrying out the attacks, but ultimately blamed Washington and threatened strong retaliation for any future attack.
Such attacks are potentially destabilising for Iraq and its fragile government, which has struggled to remain neutral amid growing tensions between the United States and Iran.
Al Jazeera's Natasha Ghoneim, reporting from Baghdad during the latest round of air raids, said Iranian-backed armed groups have been operating in Iraq with the full support of the government since 2014, when they joined the fight against ISIL.
"A new law that came into effect on July 31 requires all paramilitary groups to report to the Iraqi security forces, or put down their weapons," Ghoneim reported.
Alissa J. Rubin and Ronnie Bergen (NEW YORK TIMES) explain:
The Israeli move also holds potential
hazards for the United States, whose troops remain in Iraq in the fight
against the Islamic State. Because the United States is a close Israeli
ally, Iraqis are quick to blame it for allowing the Israelis to carry
out attacks in Iraq.
A senior American
official said that Israel was pushing the limits with the strikes in
Iraq. Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss delicate diplomatic
matters, the official said the airstrikes could get the United States
military removed from Iraq.
As the US has confirmed what was already out there, many are now issuing statements -- including former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki.
Senior US officials told @nytimes that Israel has carried out “several strikes in recent days”,the most recent of which took place on Monday,north of Baghdad.
Former Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is warned of a"strong response" if it is proven that Israel was behind recent airstrikes.
Former Iraq PM warns of 'strong response' if Israel proven responsible for strikes: Nouri al-Maliki's comments come hours after U.S. officials confirm to NYT that Israel was responsible for bombing of Iranian weapons depot in Iraq last month dlvr.it/RBlG0Y Haaretz
Nouri was prime minister from 2006 to 2010. AP notes:
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is
warning of a “strong response” if it is proven that Israel was behind
recent airstrikes in Iraq.
In statements issued
by his office on Friday, he also said that if Israel continues to target
Iraq, the country “will transform into a battle arena that drags in
multiple countries, including Iran.”
Nuri al-Maliki: with the help of Iran, #Iraq will strongly respond if Israel is behind attacks on Hashd al-Shaabi HQs.
These attacks that the Israeli government has carried out are acts of
war. The militias -- linked to Iran or not -- are part of the Iraqi
forces. Attacking them is attacking Iraq. These are acts of war and
the Israeli government should be called out for their actions.
You can be sure that Nouri and others will begin to call out the current
prime minister for the attacks and his lack of response to them. Adil
Abdul-Mahdi is already facing criticism for his inability to improve the
lives of the Iraqi people or to end corruption -- he promised to end
corruption. RUDAW reports:
Iraqi parliament’s Sayirun alliance, headed by influential Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has upped its criticism of Prime Minister Adil
Abdul-Mahdi for what it says is his failure to live up to the promises
of improved services to Iraqis that it made upon appointment.
Frequent powercuts and an unclean, infrequent water supply have been a source of perennial discontent among Iraqis nationwide. Abdul-Mahdi has signed a series of redevelopment projects with multinational companies to repair the country’s electricity grid and sanitation system that have been ailing for decades, but Sayirun members say efforts have been to little avail.
“After a year of Abdul-Mahdi being in office, now is the time to look again at the government manifesto and work on it diligently,” Abbas Ileiwi, member of the Sayirun alliance, which is the Sadr-dominated bloc in Iraqi parliament, told Rudaw on Sunday.
Abdul-Mahdi’s administration has come up short in meeting the needs of the Iraqi people “who lack the simplest of the essential services,” added Ileiwi.
Frequent powercuts and an unclean, infrequent water supply have been a source of perennial discontent among Iraqis nationwide. Abdul-Mahdi has signed a series of redevelopment projects with multinational companies to repair the country’s electricity grid and sanitation system that have been ailing for decades, but Sayirun members say efforts have been to little avail.
“After a year of Abdul-Mahdi being in office, now is the time to look again at the government manifesto and work on it diligently,” Abbas Ileiwi, member of the Sayirun alliance, which is the Sadr-dominated bloc in Iraqi parliament, told Rudaw on Sunday.
Abdul-Mahdi’s administration has come up short in meeting the needs of the Iraqi people “who lack the simplest of the essential services,” added Ileiwi.
We'll note this Tweet.
Golly gee, we were covering this story on July 30th. What was MOON OF ALABAMA doing?
Hmm.
Oh, that's right. Showing up two days later to insist that "No, Israel Did Not Attack Iranian Targets in Iraq."
Well welcome to the party, MOON OF ALABAMA. Foods all gone but the
bar's still open so have a drink or two while you try to catch up to
reality.
In the US, the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Barry Eidlin (JACOBIN) notes:
Just as he did with Medicare for All, Sanders’s WDP will now set the terms of the debate around workers’ rights in the Democratic presidential primary. Whether they support or oppose the WDP, all the other candidates will have to respond to it.
The plan is a comprehensive effort to reorient labor policy around the idea that these policies exist to actively promote workers’ rights, as opposed to setting up the state as an ostensibly “neutral” arbiter to balance labor and management’s competing interests. It recognizes and seeks to redress the inherent power imbalance between workers and their employers, an imbalance that derives from the simple fact that an individual worker’s need to stay employed is greater than an employer’s need to keep that worker employed.
That’s also why it restricts employers’ ability to force workers to attend anti-union meetings, requires employers to disclose when they use anti-union consultants, and guarantees union organizers equal time in the workplace to talk with workers. Once workers have unionized, it also requires employers to negotiate a first contract or face binding arbitration. Additionally, it extends union rights to all public sector workers, and finally removes the arbitrary and racist exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from labor law protections.
The WDP recognizes that workers’ rights can only be exercised and enforced collectively. Too often, employers and courts have used a warped interpretation of individual rights to undermine workers’ collective rights. Nowhere is this more apparent than with “right-to-work” laws, which use the pretext of protecting individual workers’ right not to join a union to erode union solidarity. They do so by allowing individuals in unionized workplaces to avoid paying the costs associated with negotiating and enforcing the contracts from which they benefit. The WDP would close that loophole by banning right-to-work laws.
The WDP also promotes workers’ ability to exercise their collective rights by enforcing and expanding the right to strike. Sanders recognizes that this is “a worker’s line of defense.” It’s “the means that you have to tell your employer, ‘Hey, we’re serious.’” To that end, it bans employers from using permanent replacements (“scabs”) when workers go on strike, expands the right to strike to public-sector workers, and allows for “secondary boycotts,” where workers pressure their employer by taking action against economically linked companies.
The following sites updated:
No comments:
Post a Comment