Hagel described Palestinians as ‘chained’ and ‘caged,’ but ‘NYT’ can’t touch the issue

Israel/Palestine
on 35 Comments

I’m endlessly surprised by the New York Times. Today the paper assembles seven foreign-policy “debaters” to put forward questions for Chuck Hagel whose confirmation hearing as Secretary of Defense is tomorrow. And not one debater raises the Israel/Palestine issue! Israel is mentioned in relationship to Iran, but not in relationship to the occupation of Palestine and what that means to US interests in the region. There are no suggested questions on how the lack of Palestinian freedom affects the US and its military. Yet it is Hagel’s views on Israel that could derail his being the next Secretary of Defense. Why didn’t the Times even broach the issue? It really is the third rail; and this inattention increases the likelihood of violence. 

The neoconservatives are happy to have this debate. So am I! I think our side (coalition of left and realists) will win. As the Weekly Standard reports, Hagel said in 2003 that Israel keeps “Palestinians caged up like animals.” As I report below, Hagel said in 2007 that Israel has kept the Palestinians “chained” for many, many years.

What does the Times want to talk about? Debater C. Christine Fair asks about Pakistan. Fred Kaplan says Hagel was wrong about the surge in Iraq (a war Kaplan fell for, when falling mattered), then asks about the “insurgency wars” that we might get “roped into.” Tim Weiner asks about threats to Israel:

If Iran develops a nuclear bomb, would it create a strategic parity in the Middle East, as a counterforce to Israel’s arsenal? Would the world be safer, or more dangerous, as a consequence? Do you believe nuclear weapons can be used in battle, or have they become political symbols of power, serving solely to deter an enemy from attacking?

Andrew Bacevich has a realist injection, warning off the Israel lobby, but that’s all.

Below is Hagel during the Iraq war surge in ’07, which he opposed, questioning why the U.S. should “put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.” At 5:30 or so he speaks about Palestinians being “chained”:

“We have totally destroyed our standing and reputation and influence in the Middle East…. We don’t need more American troops…. The human element….But when people have no hope, when they have despair, little else matters. This is not about terrorists do not like freedom. Tell that to the Palestinian people, who have been chained down for many many years. Terrorism is not a strategy, it’s a tactic… Terrorism… is not a belief, like democracy or monarchy, it’s a tactic…. When American loses the trust and confidence of the world, it makes the world more dangerous…”

Update: The Washington Times wants to talk about Israel. It has a piece by Israel lobbyist Kenneth Timmerman, with this cartoon of Hagel as a cheerleader for Iran.

Hagel as cheerleader for Iran
Hagel as cheerleader for Iran
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

35 Responses

  1. seafoid
    January 30, 2013, 10:20 am

    When faced with a seemingly intractable problem, it is important to understand what is perpetuating it.

    And Zionism is the answer in the case of the Palestinians.

  2. Les
    January 30, 2013, 10:44 am

    Our media uses the word “occupation” rather than “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel/Palestine. One can arguably adust to occupation but it is utterly impossible to adust to ethnic cleansing which is nothing but slow speed extermination.

    • Mike_Konrad
      January 30, 2013, 12:27 pm

      One can arguably adust to occupation but it is utterly impossible to adust to ethnic cleansing which is nothing but slow speed extermination.

      The problem here is this: Palestine and Israel cannot co-exist?

      One or the other must prosper. This is an ugly truth.

      Had the Slave owning South won the Civil War, the North itself would have disintegrated into separatist regions over the recriminations for the failure to save the Union. Either the UNION would survive or the Confederacy?

      There are times in history when it gets this ugly.

      Ireland could be re-united without any damage to Britain.

      Sometimes the solutions are clean.

      But if Scotland and Wales separated, the United Kingdom would sink.

      Sometimes the issues are stark.

      Likewise, either Israel will survive or the Palestinians.

      This is ugly. Someone is going to take a major hit; one side or the other will be hurt and hurt badly, with only individuals surviving, and the national existence being exterminated.

      This may not be right. It may not be just; but it is what it is.

      You all know this if you are honest.

      Do you seriously believe that if the Palestinians ever get the upper hand there will not be recrimination against the Jewish citizens of Israel? Do you seriously believe that if there was a powerful Arab majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, that many Askenazic Jews would not flee to the West, leaving behind only the Sephardic Jews, who are the least guilty of the lot, to fend for themselves against an enraged Palestinian community, many of whom would be bent on revenge.

      So you have to decide now if Palestine’s existence is worth the destruction of Israel, because that is what you are asking, if you are honest.

      Be honest.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 2:53 pm

        The problem here is this: Palestine and Israel cannot co-exist?

        One or the other must prosper. This is an ugly truth.

        it’s your ugly truth. you’re only telling us about yourself. don’t imagine anyone here thinks you’re an authority just because your voice is authoritarian. you’re a mouthpiece, an operative. probably funded. this hardly makes you an authority of anything. try starting a blog and see what kind of follwing you get. or have you already? is this your brilliant analysis mike konrad? link to americanthinker.com

        ship them off to south america? and if so why are you writing anonymously?

      • Mike_Konrad
        January 30, 2013, 4:08 pm

        it’s your ugly truth. you’re only telling us about yourself. don’t imagine anyone here thinks you’re an authority just because your voice is authoritarian. you’re a mouthpiece, an operative. probably funded.

        My answer:

        I am not an operative. Neither am I Jewish. I just know history.

        this hardly makes you an authority of anything. try starting a blog and see what kind of follwing you get. or have you already? is this your brilliant analysis mike konrad?
        link to americanthinker.com

        My answer:

        Actually, though I am one of the first to come up with this idea, I am not the only one.

        Your solution will create a nuclear war. Whether or not Israel has a right to exist – which I believe it does – it will launch nukes before it goes down.

        Is it so evil to suggest that the Palestinians be set up in a part of the world where Arabs have ALREADY SET THEMSELVES UP; and where Arabs prosper?

        ship them off to south america? and if so why are you writing anonymously?

        My answer:

        I use a pen name for personal reasons.

        My views are

        1) Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.

        2) I do not make an issue of the Palestinians outside Israel

        3) Jerusalem should not be divided.

        4) Judea and Samaria, what the world calls the West Bank, are historically Jewish. Israel has a right to annex them, if Israel starts enfranchising the Arabs on the land.

        Where I differ with classic Zionism is

        A) Israel made a mistake in giving power to the rabbis. For ex: They determine who can marry Jews. A man who has a Jewish father only cannot marry a Jewish woman.

        What they really have is a rabbinical state, not a Jewish state. They should define Jewish along ethnic, not religious lines.

        So while I support a Jewish state (along Herzl’s ethnic understanding), I do not agree with the present interpretation of it as a Jewish state (along the rabbinical understanding).

        B) Since such a buyout program where the Arabs are paid handsomely to move to South America would benefit the Jewish people of Israel, the World Jewish Community should pay for it, especially since the rich Arab states won’t. This gets me a lot of criticism from some Jewish people, but the only alternative is to let the problem fester.

        C) Israel should also start enfranchising those Arabs willing to learn some Hebrew; and should be fair about issuing building permits.

        I do agree that Israel does commit excesses; but it is done in a context of an existential threat.

        However, I harbor no illusions about the tolerance of the Arab side. They have none.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 4:25 pm

        oh we’ve caught ourselves a live one. it’s not everyday we get a new poster promoting Moishe Feiglin’s move em out plan. The Palestinian Buyout Plan Gains Steam

        The only solution is moving the Arabs by means of reimbursed voluntary buyout. Involuntary removal — ethnic cleansing — would require a war. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt would not accept the Palestinians willingly. Such a war might be more expensive than the cost of reimbursed relocation.

        So the only questions left are:

        1) Where to move the Palestinians?

        2) How much to pay them to move?

        you skipped the section on ‘how to move them’. perhaps you’ve neglected to consider the possibility palestinians won’t cooperate with moving to south america mr anonymous. and what kind of personal reasons could possibly prevent you from disclosing your name on this ridiculously racist theory? aren’t you proud of your achievements? could it be your mother would disapprove? i doubt it. most likely you don’t want people tracking your funding.(i noticed you didn’t claim not to be)

        Your solution will create a nuclear war.

        yes, we’ve all heard of the samson option, which will inadvertently be our fault if israel doesn’t get its way? is that your theory? how compelling/not. and you don’t even know what ‘my solution’ is. but do tell us how israel is just not like south africa, and the will of israel’s racists is just stronger and their enemy is so much more bloodthirsty and therefore we should kowtow to israeli demands. and by all means please buttress your theory with nothing more that informing us you’re right and if we’re honest with ourselves we’ll admit it. because that’s such a winning argument. btw, i saw your blog, linked at the base of your article. so please enlighten us as to whom your buyout plan is allegedly gaining steam with? naftali bennett?

      • sardelapasti
        January 30, 2013, 4:39 pm

        “So while I support a Jewish state (along Herzl’s ethnic understanding), I do not agree with the present interpretation of it as a Jewish state (along the rabbinical understanding).”
        Nice act as genuine Rosenberg-type caveman genocidal racist. Would be hard to imitate.

        “I am not an operative.” You should be. On our side. Write more often.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 5:06 pm

        “Your solution will create a nuclear war. Whether or not Israel has a right to exist – which I believe it does – it will launch nukes before it goes down.”

        Then there is your problem, not the Palestinians. The problem is that the world has let a handful of crazy people hold on to nukes to defend an apartheid state.

        “I use a pen name for personal reasons.”

        Yeah, tough times we live in. Used to be, one could spout the kind or raging, racist bull that you do and no one would give a damn. A lot of old Klansmen have your same problem.

        “Is it so evil to suggest that the Palestinians be set up in a part of the world where Arabs have ALREADY SET THEMSELVES UP”

        They were. It’s called Palestine. And it was great until a horde of European Jews invaded the place and messed it up and stole the land.

        “Since such a buyout program where the Arabs are paid handsomely to move to South America would benefit the Jewish people of Israel”

        There’s that “Konrad talks like a flaming racist” stuff again that you need to work on. When you start talking about ethnically cleansing a land in terms of who benefits by it — and you take their side — you’re inching into “talking like Himmler” territory. (Actually, having read your vile racist article, I take that back. You already are in “talking like Himmler territory.”)

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 9:57 pm

        Is it so evil to suggest that the Palestinians be set up in a part of the world where Arabs have ALREADY SET THEMSELVES UP

        you don’t have to shout, we’re all adults here. btw, i didn’t call your plan evil i called it racist. and i presume you’re aware lots of jews have set themselves up in south america so this hardly supports your theory, that it would be any more morally plausible than mine.

        and you are aware that ethnic cleansing is a crime, or is that kind of thinking passe. i noticed in your article you put some attention into figuring out a ‘fair’ monetary price to offer palestinians. so please enlighten us, what kind of monetary figure do you think jews would accept to abandon jerusalem?

        or are you assuming (although you are not racist!) palestinians do not feel the same attachment to jerusalem as jews do, and for a price they’ll just pack their bags? name a price please. how many billions? or trillions. name a figure since it’s so easy for you to name a price for palestinians.

        I harbor no illusions about the tolerance of the Arab side. They have none.

        and you’re not a racist? then demonstrate your tolerance and name a price. i’ll even suggest the arab states pay for it (which is sooo radical of me, no?).

      • Bumblebye
        January 30, 2013, 11:16 pm

        This guy’s profile page is weird, annie!
        It has him down just as “Mike”, and shows zero comments since somewhen in 2009. Could it be he;s been given marching orders before? Maybe for advocating his new improved Nakba?

        And has he researched which of the other Arab states are open to mass immigration? Or what they would demand in return from Israel? Why not lobby to turn over one of the 50 states to the Palestinians? It’s just as absurd.

      • eljay
        January 30, 2013, 3:10 pm

        >> The problem here is this: Palestine and Israel cannot co-exist?

        There’s no reason Palestine (the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Palestinians, equally) and Israel (the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis, equally) cannot co-exist.

        What should not exist is supremacist “Jewish State”.

        >> Do you seriously believe that if the Palestinians ever get the upper hand there will not be recrimination against the Jewish citizens of Israel? …

        It’s true: The rapist can never let his victim go because she might be able to hold him accountable for his crime. All he can do – with utmost reluctance, of course! – is to keep her chained in his basement until she rots, or perhaps mercifully kill her and dispose of her body. Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig… :-(

        Too much…

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 3:50 pm

        “So you have to decide now if Palestine’s existence is worth the destruction of Israel, because that is what you are asking, if you are honest.’

        I think your premise is crap. Complete crap. But to pay along with your fantasy, yes, if it costs israel’s existence for the Palestinians to get justice and freedom, then it is an appropriate cost. Of course, you’re a raging racist for suggesting that giving freedom and justice to the Palestinians means that Jews must suffer, but most zios are raging racists, so why should you be any different.

      • Mike_Konrad
        January 30, 2013, 4:16 pm

        I think your premise is crap. Complete crap. But to pay along with your fantasy, yes, if it costs israel’s existence for the Palestinians to get justice and freedom, then it is an appropriate cost. Of course, you’re a raging racist for suggesting that giving freedom and justice to the Palestinians means that Jews must suffer, but most zios are raging racists, so why should you be any different.

        I am not a racist. I am a realist.

        There is no happy solution to this issue.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 4:33 pm

        I am not a racist. I am a realist.

        There is no happy solution to this issue.

        iow if i came up with a plan to empty israel of all the jews by forcing them to move to a colony in south america you wouldn’t think this was anti semitic? you would merely object on the principle that it wasn’t realistic?

        uh huh.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 4:54 pm

        “I am not a racist. I am a realist.”

        Then you’ve got to work on that. Because you think, speak and talk like a racist.

        “There is no happy solution to this issue.”

        Sure there is: full civil and human rights and full equality for everyone from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. (Unless, of course, one’s definition of “happy” means the goverment places Jews in a preferred position over non-Jews, but such people are bigots and, as such, forfeit the right to impose their bigotry.)

      • Cliff
        January 30, 2013, 10:03 pm

        You are a racist, Mike.

        The land is not historically ‘Jewish’. 3000 years or whatever is not exile – it is abandonment.

        The Jewish nationalists ethnically cleansed nearly 1 million Palestinian Arabs to make a Jewish majority.

        The Palestinian Arabs are indigenous to the land known as Israel/Palestine.

      • Keith
        January 31, 2013, 11:43 am

        MIKE KONRAD- “I am a realist.”

        A realist? Like Chuck Hagel? Hmmm, food for thought.

      • American
        January 30, 2013, 4:19 pm

        “So you have to decide now if Palestine’s existence is worth the destruction of Israel, because that is what you are asking, if you are honest.
        Be honest”…..Mike _Konrad

        Be honest?…o.k.
        I would choose Palestine because Israel was the initial agressor, and has been the continuing agressor, an outlaw rouge state, operating with many practices in ways similar to the nazi purist mentality. Israel is just doing it on a smaller scale to fewer people– but that doesn’t change the criminality or immorality of it.
        I don’t think Israel has special right to exist above or more so than a Palestine state or Palestines right exist on their own land.
        Israel is the one in the wrong and keeps on going more wrong, shunning all advice and warnings..
        You can keep on trying to ‘live by the sword’ but dollars to doughnuts someone(s) or something is gonna get you in the end.
        If something happens to the US you’re a goner….and that’s not impossible, the US is just about as stupid as Israel.

      • talknic
        January 30, 2013, 4:26 pm

        Mike_Konrad “Be honest”

        Rather hilarious…

        “One or the other must prosper. This is an ugly truth”

        Na, it’s just an ugly thing to say.. quite a lot of states live next to each other AND prosper. In fact, the majority of states. The strange thing is, they don’t illegally acquire each others territory by war, or illegally annex or illegally settle. Nor are they in breach of HUNDREDS of UNSC resolutions

      • Byzantium
        January 31, 2013, 2:23 am

        As a white South African who lived through the transition from Apartheid to democracy, let me offer this perspective:

        When all the arguments for maintaining Apartheid had failed, and all the usual attempts at justification had been dismantled, the final, desperate rationalisation for keeping it in place was the one made here by Mr. Konrad; namely, that it would spell death and destruction for the whites.

        Oh yes, we heard all the stories: how the day after the first democratic election bands of feral blacks would roam the streets slaughtering any white person they could find, how the new government would turn us out of our houses and how we would all be reduced to indentured servitude or worse.

        Guess what? It was all crap.

        When we went to the polls on that historic day in 1994, white and black lined up in the cues together, laughing and joking. There was no retaliation, no vengeance wrought. The day after life continued as usual…and it continues still.

        Most people just want to live peaceful, regular lives, assured in the knowledge that they and their children have a fair shot in a just dispensation.

        Fears of retaliation are largely the result of a guilty conscience, paired with a projection of one’s own hatred onto the other.

        Physician, heal thyself.

      • Cliff
        January 31, 2013, 11:48 am

        The difference is that Jewish nationalism is much stronger than the White Afrikanners ideology or whatever cohesion they possessed.

        Jewish nationalism has effective propaganda (we are eternal victims AND superior human beings [israel invented the wheel, nobel prizes, cherry tomato, intel processers, startup nation/palestinians blow themselves and paint stripes on donkeys to cheer up their kids who have never seen zebras]) and the support of the most powerful country in the world in a much more meaningful context (‘Judeo Christian values’ = i.e. the Christian Right/politics of antisemitism in our corrupt and shallow political culture/Islamophobia/etc.).

        White SA only wishes it could be Israel. I honestly think Israel could get away with implanting tracking devices under the skin of Palestinians (didn’t a Harvard professor and arch Zio, propose this?).

        Most Americans do not care about what goes on in the rest of the world. So when you factor in enemies of the State, like Arabs in revolt, it’s only worse.

      • Boston
        January 31, 2013, 7:30 am

        Absolutely. I don ‘t buy your premise that either Palestine or Israel must die for the other to live. But, if that were the case, I would much rather see the oppressed survive, and not the oppressor.

        In any event, Israel’s seems destined to disappear due to its behaviour

  3. pabelmont
    January 30, 2013, 11:20 am

    Phil, You are so “shocked, shocked” by our old friend, NYT.

    Surely, by now, we can deduce from its behavior (recall: Chomsky used to say, and I suppose truly, that the NYT never, ever, published Sadat’s peace proposal to Israel before the 1973 war, not even in a lengthy eulogy/obit for him — because Israel had never acknowledged it) that the NYT is chained (or has willingly acted as if chained) by the AIPAC or Israeli Gov’t lines (and lies). It cannot or will not do any different, come hell or high water (or Sandy).

  4. American
    January 30, 2013, 12:16 pm

    The Lobby having done their huffing and puffing intimidation on the senate now wants to downplay the question of Israel loyalty naturally.
    I’ll be surprised though if some some nitwit senator doesn’t flub up and bring it up to prove his bona fides and obedience to the Lobby….I am sure the Lobby will be watching to see how well their talking points are followed.

  5. piotr
    January 30, 2013, 12:18 pm

    Seems that Hagel is a totally inappropriate candidate for Defense. How we can trust a person to unleash the dogs of wars when needed when he clearly thinks about the soldiers, what happens to them, and least excusably, about the OTHER PEOPLE. It almost sounds like empathy.

    Good morning, Worm your honor.
    The crown will plainly show
    The prisoner who now stands before you
    Was caught red-handed showing feelings
    Showing feelings of an almost human nature;
    This will not do.

  6. Citizen
    January 30, 2013, 1:21 pm

    I hope the Israel Firsters keep it up, and I hope they show themselves on CSPAN tomorrow, vetting Hagel. If Dick and Jane don’t get the picture, nothing will short of a WW3 springing out of an attack on Iran, likely a false flag one, and/or one resulting from pushing Iran too far re the current Israeli-approved US tactic of total economic war on Iran’s population.

  7. Citizen
    January 30, 2013, 1:29 pm

    How the NYT erases Israel’s crimes: link to electronicintifada.net

  8. DICKERSON3870
    January 30, 2013, 3:23 pm

    RE: “There are no suggested questions [in the NYT] on how
    the lack of Palestinian freedom affects the US and its military. Yet it is Hagel’s views on Israel that could derail his being the next Secretary of Defense. Why didn’t the Times even broach the issue? It really is the third rail . . .”
    ~ Weiss

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]:

    [EXCERPTS] “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, is an analysis of the news media, arguing that the mass media of the United States “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”*.[1] . . .

    Editorial bias: five filters

    Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:
    Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.
    The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de-facto licensing authority”.[4] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
    Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”[5]
    Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[5]
    Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror”, as the major social control mechanism.[6][7] . . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    * P.S. REGARDING “WITHOUT OVERT COERCION”, SEE THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON SHELDON WOLIN’S “INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM” - link to en.wikipedia.org

  9. flyod
    January 30, 2013, 3:30 pm

    past tense. hagel is no longer that hagel

  10. DICKERSON3870
    January 30, 2013, 3:44 pm

    RE: “Hagel said in 2003 that Israel keeps ‘Palestinians caged up like animals’. As I report below, Hagel said in 2007 that Israel has kept the Palestinians ‘chained’ for many, many years.” ~ Weiss

    REGARDING ISRAEL’S HAVING KEPT THE PALESTINIANS “CAGED UP” AND “CHAINED”, NOTE THIS FROM ALISTAIR CROOKE, London Review of Books, 03/03/11:

    [EXCERPTS] . . . It was [Ariel] Sharon who pioneered the philosophy of ‘maintained uncertainty’ that repeatedly extended and then limited the space in which Palestinians could operate by means of an unpredictable combination of changing and selectively enforced regulations, and the dissection of space by settlements, roads Palestinians were not allowed to use and continually shifting borders. All of this was intended to induce in the Palestinians a sense of permanent temporariness. . .
    . . . It suits Israel to have a ‘state’ without borders so that it can keep negotiating about borders, and count on the resulting uncertainty to maintain acquiescence [I.E. KEEP THE PALESTINIANS VIRTUALLY CHAINED AND/OR IN A VIRTUAL CAGE ~ J.L.D.]. . .

    SOURCE – link to lrb.co.uk:

    • DICKERSON3870
      January 30, 2013, 3:54 pm

      P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA [Learned helplessness]:

      [EXCERPT] Learned helplessness is the condition of a human or animal that has learned to behave helplessly, failing to respond even though there are opportunities for it to help itself by avoiding unpleasant circumstances or by gaining positive rewards. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation.[1] Organisms which have been ineffective and less sensitive in determining the consequences of their behavior are defined as having acquired learned helplessness.[2]
      The American psychologist Martin Seligman’s foundational experiments and theory of learned helplessness began at the University of Pennsylvania in 1967, as an extension of his interest in depression. Quite by accident, Seligman and colleagues discovered that the conditioning of dogs led to outcomes that opposed the predictions of B.F. Skinner’s behaviorism, then a leading psychological theory.[3][4]

      Experiment
      • Summary
      In the learned helplessness experiment an animal is repeatedly hurt by an adverse stimulus which it cannot escape.
      Eventually the animal will stop trying to avoid the pain and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation.
      Finally, when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness prevents any action. The only coping mechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending energy getting worked up about the adverse stimulus. . .

      SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

  11. Citizen
    January 30, 2013, 5:08 pm

    At 5PM today, on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN news show, discussion of Hagel vetting. Wolf introduced the topic by saying, essentially, that Kerry sailed to job, but congress will be much harder on Hagel. Segment has not yet started.

  12. Citizen
    January 30, 2013, 5:22 pm

    Blitzer has introduced the Hagel issue. American Future Fund ad playing. Barbara Starr reporting: Hagel getting ready for contentious scene. “It’s all high stakes.” Gay rights groups oppose Hagel. Re Israel, Schumer supports, but Adelson does not. Adelson’s donation cash not easily ignored. No mention either is Jewish or Zionist, etc. Sen John Cornyn, R Min Whip says Hagel’s not good for the job, slams him. Blitzer tells Max Cleland to tell McCain why he should support Hagel since both are veterans. Blitz: He voted against Iran sanctions, was in the minority. Cleland says: Hagel’s been to war, is a good choice. 50 congress critters holding their powder dry for the vetting tomorrow. Chuck has been sequestered. He will speak his mind tomorrow

    Blitz changes the subject to Brendan Marrocco, a double arm transplant recipient war veteran. Cleland says the young man gives him inspiration, so does the young man. Says he & McCain voted for the resolution for war on Iraq but the evidence given for
    going to war was fraudulent.

    Next topic: Sen Feinstein on gun debate.

  13. Citizen
    January 30, 2013, 5:38 pm

    Will Senators Succumb to ADD (Adelson Dollar Disorder) on #Hagel? « LobeLog.com link to lobelog.com via @lobelog

  14. Andreas Schlueter
    January 30, 2013, 5:57 pm

    The US Power Elite at war among themselves?! The military henchmen of the “Neocon Fraction” of US Power Elite has got a havy punch and the “Soft Power Fraction” (which is also far from really being soft) gains ground (having expelled Petraeus and others).
    But the Neocon Fraction might be so much in the hand of Israel´s Power Elite that anything could be expected for the future!
    link to wipokuli.wordpress.com
    Andreas Schlüter
    Sociologist
    Berlin, Germany

Leave a Reply