Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Why Don't They Publish Us?

0 comments at 4:31 PM





From The Guardian and The New York Times to The Washington Post and Reuters, I've submitted several op-ed pieces and articles to the world's mainstream media outlets and newspapers over the past years. All of my submissions were responded identically: "Rejected"!

Intrinsically, it's an ambition of every journalist to reach out to a greater audience, achieve more exposure, make progress and improve his portfolio. Putting aside the primary motive of being renowned as a reference of public attention, the journalist aims to elevate his own viewpoint and advertise the way he looks into different matters as a precise and rectified account. The journalist is primarily looking for ways to exalt his own interpretation of stories and inculcate the reader a supposedly reliable, accurate analysis of a certain incident which is presumably "what he believes".

Thinking of methods to expand his coverage, journalist's principal purpose is to get in touch with the global audiences, instruct them on the basis of his own mindset, advocate a certain philosophy and denounce the other scopes of thought. This is actually how the journalist accomplishes his mission regardless of his ideological and reflective belongingness.

The inherent mission of a journalist is to enlighten the public opinions, help them distinguish the right from wrong and encourage the value of critical thinking. Although the journalism of 21st century has become an instrumental mechanism of disseminating falsehood, launching black propaganda and psychological warfare, the foremost responsibility of a journalist is to tell the truth even at the cost of his own defeat.

Anyway, I haven't come this long way to advocate the principles and fundamentals of journalism and sermonize about the basis of ethnic journalism; neither have I come to enumerate the responsibilities of a decent journalist and itemize his duties in respect of the public opinions. What I would like to discuss is the reasons why "they" don't publish "us". So who are these "they" and who are those "us"?

"They" are the chained, corporate media outlets whose interests are intertwined with together. "They" are the news networks, websites, magazines and journals who are afraid of the other side of story, so "they" prefer to withhold it from the public or distort it the other way.

"They" are the media outlets who are wise enough to recognize the difference between "nuclear energy" and "nuclear bomb", and that's why they use them interchangeably while translating the speeches of Iranian President.

"They" are the media outlets who are courteous and considerate enough to refer to the American President as President Obama and call the Iranian President "the hardliner".

"They" are the media outlets who feel free to run the most insulting and offensive cartoons about the Prophet of Islam whom some 1.5 billion people around the world venerate and glorify, because the "freedom of speech" allows them to do so. Interestingly, the same "freedom of speech" disallows them to publish a cartoon questioning the veracity of holocaust or an interview with a German political prisoner who has been jailed for 7 years simply due to his "visa overstay"!

"They" are the media outlets who can ridicule a 70-million nation by calling them "terrorists" collectively. "They" are the media outlets who can equalize a divine religion with radical terrorism, simply because they're free to express whatever they think by the virtue of "freedom of expression". "They" are the media networks who can invite the government opponents in a Third World country to break out into the streets, vandalize the public properties and stage a color revolution, because they have the authority and influence to do so.

"They" are those who can disregard the massacre of 1300 Palestinians as "collateral damage" and conflate the vicious carnage of Gaza with Israel's right to self-defense. "They" are those who can't ever tolerate for Israel only five minutes of the disastrous incidents which the Palestinian people are undergoing.

"They" are those who are affluent enough to finance the Arab media outlets in the Middle East to drop the name "Persian" off the term "Persian Gulf" because they know that the magnificent civilization of Iran is interweaved with the honorable history of Persian Gulf and Iranians are sensitive about this.

So, who is this "us"? It is us, who can't turn a blind eye to the atrocities of a racist regime whose existence is hinged on killing, destroying and devastating. It's us, who can't keep silent, remain indifferent and unconcernedly tolerate the offensive massacre of Palestinian people in the most brutal way. It's us who can't digest the double standards of the hegemonic superpowers. Why should the United States who has dropped hundreds of nuclear bombs on the heads of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and seized the lives of millions of innocent people impose financial sanctions on Iran which is trying to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes? What's the fault of millions of Iranian people who are in dire need of special types of medicine which should be imported from the European countries? It's us, who can't call these unilateral and crippling sanctions a respectful homage to the so-called virtue of human rights; if these medicines are not imported to the country, millions of "human beings" will be exposed to the risk of death; it's us who want to call the hegemonic powers to minimally respect the "human rights" which they've invented themselves.

It's "us", who don't classify people on the basis of their color, race, religion or nationality. We don't consider the black, impoverished Africans to be socially lower or less important than the sumptuous, well-off whites in the Northern Europe. We don't call the Muslims terrorist altogether simply because an irreligious, American-manufactured pawn named Osama Bin Laden carries out terrorist attacks all around the world. Who is unaware of the extensive relations between the families of George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden? Who can demonstrate that Bin Laden is a practicing Muslim? Who can demonstrate that he says prayers during the day and takes fast in the month of Ramadan? Who can rule out the possibility that Al-Qaeda is an American-funded group which is established to portray a brutal and inhuman image of the Muslims all around the world?

It's "us", who don't reiterate the obsolete threatening sentence of "all options are on the table". Unlike President Obama and his affiliated media outlets including, among others, Fox News and Voice of America we don't threaten any country of a nuclear strike and don't stage a propaganda project against any nation to demoralize them 24 hours a day.

There are countless differences between "they" and "us" and that's why they'll never publish something which is written by "us". The other side of story has to remain obscured and unrevealed routinely. It will not be a privilege for them to discuss something which is "out of context" or out of "popular interest", so it's not that much of a surprise to receive emails, telling us that "we receive many more submissions than we can publish; thank you this time, but we may regret that…"

In their eyes, our writings always contain a hoard of grammatical slips, factual errors, contextual deviations and whatever of the writing gaffes and inaccuracies you may visualize. That's why they don't publish us.

Kourosh Ziabari

Here's your answer Kourosh...,

http://www.rense.com/general44/sevenjewishamericans.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19
http://www.realzionistnews.com/

 

Nuclear Explosion Can Heal the Bleeding Wound in the Gulf of Mexico

0 comments at 4:09 PM

BEWARE ZEALOTS!!!














The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico will obviously take a special place in the history of the human civilization. Forward-looking people say that the disaster is a warning of the wrong way of the future development. Others say that it was just an accident which took place through the fault of specialists, who did not provide required conditions for safe exploitation of the oil well.

No matter how we may evaluate the catastrophe, it gives us a reason to think whether humans live and act reasonably and how we use our spiritual and physical gifts. Unfortunately, the conclusions are sad since they show our dullness and thoughtlessness.

It is clear that the measures, which are now being taken to lock the broken pipe, will not bring any result in the nearest future. The pressure of crude and gas is too high, it goes about hundreds of atmospheres. They now hope to contain the leak with the help of steel and concrete domes, but the hopes for that are tiny. It will be extremely difficult to mount the dome: the depth of the gulf is about 1.5 kilometers, and the “orifice” is small. It is impossible to find out what it looks like after the explosion. Crude is supposed to be pumped from the dome to the tanker on the surface of the gulf along a special pipe.

This is a very complicated an unreliable system. As far as I know there was no such an occurrence in the world practice of oil extraction. Therefore, anything can happen, and it is impossible to foresee everything. The oil leak will only strengthen since it is only going to accumulate underneath the dome and geological horizons.

The dome installed above the well will only give a short break in the liquidation of the disastrous consequences. What can be done next ? There are practically no variants because no one has ever done that before in such conditions.

It was only a matter of hit or miss which earlier resulted in the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, explosions in coal mines all over the world and also in the catastrophes which occur on a regular basis, but are very hard to liquidate. One may say that the American hit or miss has led to one of the most technologically complicated and horrific disasters.

It is practically impossible to block the leaking well. There are neither specific technical possibilities for that, nor any methods to liquidate such oil-well flowing.

The USSR had a sad experience in containing oil-well flowing in Central Asia. Two breakdowns occurred almost simultaneously. One of them took place in Urtabulak, where a gas torch was burning. The other one took place in Pamuk – a breakdown at an oil well. The two giant flames were extinguished with the help of nuclear explosions. They drilled two wells to approach the emergency wells under the ground and lowered nuclear devices into the wells. The troubled wells were blocked as a result of the explosions.

The work was extremely hard, but it was worth it. I took direct participation in the experiment and was personally present there during the explosions. The experiment was a success. The exploitation of the Pamuk oil well was launched again and nothing could remind of the disaster which had been liquidated with the help of nuclear explosions.

Afterwards, Soviet specialists conducted similar experiments in Turkmenia and then proceeded to worked-out deposits. The results were encouraging. Soviet specialists hoped that they could promote their technology to help other countries, the ones that signed the non-proliferation treaty but could use nuclear explosions in industrial purposes.

The US declined the program over the threat of radioactivity. As a result, the Americans offered to ban the use of nuclear explosions in peaceful purposes.

It now seems that a nuclear explosion could be the only way to contain the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. It is not ruled out that British and American specialists will find a new solution to liquidate such complicated disasters that, as it turns out, may occur to absolutely reliable platforms.

Extracting oil in oceans and seas has its pluses and minuses. It brings hydrocarbons for the chemical industry and fuel for cars – the cars that continue to conquer the human civilization. It seems that the number of cars in the world will soon be comparable to the number of people living on the planet. It is about time one should realize that cars no longer exist for people – people exist for cars. People fight for parking lots, territory for garages and get traffic jams in return. As a result, we have to pay enormous price for the comfort of movement – we sacrifice our ecology, health and the future of our children.

Oil wells drilled in oceans and seas slowly kill the planet. Thousands of kilometers of oil wells are like bleeding wounds on the surface of the planet. They result in numerous natural disasters – from earthquakes to volcano eruptions.

Oil leaks occur all the time. It will be enough to fly above any pipeline to see that. It is worthy of note that the West helps Russia build its own sea-based oil platforms. We already have several platforms near Sakhalin and will soon have more in the Caspian Sea. What if a similar disaster occurs in Russia too?

Vladimir Gubarev
Pravda.Ru

http://oilonthebeach.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Drill Off the Gulf Coast of Florida? - Consider This

One of our activists in Florida recently sent this response to a supporter of new offshore oil drilling:

Thanks for your letter.

You mentioned the Ixtoc 1 blowout in the Gulf. That spill released over 140 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html

This summary explains why environmental impacts were not as great as they could have been. Location and prevailing currents made for a lucky break - there was plenty of time to prepare before the mess came near shore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

Depending on the location of a blowout in the eastern Gulf, plus winds and currents, Florida's coastlines and sea life could be damaged for a generation. See NOAA study here as to oil impacts on mangroves. The only mangrove communities in the continental U.S. are in Florida (the entire west coast of Everglades National Park) and the study explains in detail why this ecological community would be the very worst place any sized spill could happen.
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/34_mangrove_complete.pdf

See also photos of major oil spill off the Australian coast this past summer from 'state of the art' oil rig only a couple of years old.
http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/wa-news/the-west-atlas-oil-spill/20090829-f34l.html?selectedImage=0

This NOAA image of the Gulf of Mexico shows the basic Loop Current - always subject to change depending on weather conditions:
http://www.texaspelagics.com/GOMocean/GOM_LoopCurrent.jpg

Offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf near Florida could well be a nightmare waiting to happen. Both the ecology and the economy of Florida would be hit very hard by a major spill. The risk is too great - the rewards much too small.

Finally, see this study which shows how even routine offshore oil drilling operations impact the ecosystem and sea life:
http://www.offshore-environment.com/oilbedford.html





 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)