Slashdot Mirror

hee hee. why be anonymous when you can be cheeky?

But it's much more useful than that - if they're able to collect all that information, they can correlate it with people who give money to the Green Party or peace groups or environmental groups (some of whom are already on the TSA's not-allowed-to-fly lists because of their political incorrectness.) Also, the increased "information sharing" between the US civilian police agencies, spook agencies, and military, plus the redefinitions of lots of forms of vice as "national security" issues means that they can use those hotel bills from Humboldt County, California to decide to give your luggage a lot of extra attention when you're flying back from Amsterdam, or ask the Internal Revenue Service to check out your tax returns after that trip to Las Vegas just in case you might have been "money laundering" or passing some cash to that suspicious Penn fellow.

What's right and wrong, good and bad, truth or lie is not decided by popular vote or public opinion

I agree. Right and wrong are personal.

What's right and wrong, good and bad, truth or lie is not decided by popular vote or public opinion - but by observable facts that exist independently

Observable facts that are indepentant? Here's a link. Scarey, huh?

Sorry if this made no sense. This is a pist post.

Coincidence Design is a hoax. Research, people! It takes all of two minutes.

There's a bit of a fallacy in your argument, dear sir. Let me explain:

Take, for example, the new federal law that all foreign nationals from certian countries be required to register with the government: several news artivles about how this process has revealed that many people have been detained. Not a problem... except they're being detained without the right to a lawyer; habeus corpus has been suspended for them (they do not know what evidence and what crimes they are being charged with -- something out of Kafka's "The Trial", I believe); and currently reporters can't find out who's being held, why they're being held, or even how many are being held.

This extension of the PATRIOT Act makes these things legal. Which means they could charge you, and not only could we not know why, or if, you are on trial -- you wouldn't even be able to get a lawyer.

Next, let me admit, you're right, I haven't had any civil liberties restricted directly that I know of. Let me stress that last point: you talk of wiretapping. I wouldn't know if someone was tapping my lines, because with the PATRIOT Act, if I was labeled a terrorist, it wouldn't be private or public knowledge; it would be completely unknown, as the request would go to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Again, I reference this Real Audio file from This American Life, it gives the details. This court meets in secret; it's documents are not published and not for review. So not only would you not know if you were being wiretapped; no one would.

Finally, if I had been hauled off to jail out of the blue, I probably wouldn't have access to a computer to check on Slashdot, and be able to read and/or post to your question; jails of this sort tend not to let people have access to computers.

I'm not worried that they're coming for me today; I'm worried that if, in the future, I expouse beliefs that are opposed to what the government believes, I will become labeled a "terrorist", and will have my rights unilaterally suspended. What happens to my neighbor this week can happen to me next week -- so I want what's fair for *everyone*.

Can't tell you how much I wished that Saddam would have been taken out 1991. Unfortunately history never repeats. This Gulf war will operate in a very different environment.

There are a lot of good reason to not oppose the coming war, mainly because the removal of Saddam is a noble goal (best summarized here).

Yet, the current administration and Blair for all their combined talents did not motivate this well enough. If the majority of Europeans (not talking governments here but polls) think that this is about Oil, the Muslim media (most of them government controlled) will never buy into it.

That is why many European governments take the stance that more patience could very well pay off. It's not like only many Europeans see it that way, some former CIA analysts put together this open letter to Bush very much advising the same.

The UN is by its very design a fragile entity with one simple objective: Keep the status quo, try to make open war on a world wide scale impossible. Its design as a result of the collective experience of the death toll of WWII. This framework worked pretty well for a very long time. To scrap it just to hasten to get Saddam removed is ill conceived. The UN will have to become something else over time or perish, but such processes take a long time and have to be managed carefully. It'll take many little steps and compromises. The EU process has shown how different countries can merge to something bigger and better. In essence such a process could serve as a template to truely unite all civilized countries.

I lived in the states and I lived (mostly) in Germany (for my wife it's the other way around).

I do nor share you view regarding our politics. The EU is an achievement of many generations of European politicians. The economic integration has worked for a long time, even the euro seems to do just fine, there are no borders any longer, a EU constitution is on the horizon, and if Rumsfeld continues his rants we will have a EU army much quicker than I anticipated.

Please do not confuse communism with socialism or social-democracy. The latter is about well balanced welfare, and this balance will continuously have to be adjusted. In an open society these adjustments are always a political struggle and cause some friction and bad press. The welfare societies have managed for more than half a century. The concept as such is deeply ingrained in Europe, well across the political spectrum. In fact what qualifies as conservative in my country would be considered a die heart liberal in the states.

I always wondered about this differences. The only explanation that I came up with is somewhat sad: Americans don't like the idea that their tax money goes to support other American's in need, because in an country of such diverse ethnic mix the solidarity between the citizens is just way lower than in older more homogeneous nation states.

That's right: white high school students are seven times more likely than blacks to have used cocaine; eight times more likely to have smoked crack; ten times more likely to have used LSD and seven times more likely to have used heroin. In fact, there are more white high school students who have used crystal methamphetamine (the most addictive drug on the streets) than there are black students who smoke cigarettes.

What's more, white youth ages 12-17 are more likely to sell drugs: 34% more likely, in fact than their black counterparts. And it is white youth who are twice as likely to binge drink, and nearly twice as likely as blacks to drive drunk. And white males are twice as likely to bring a weapon to school as are black males.

There was a lot of backlash against the inclusion of McDonalds, including talk of picketing the in-game kiosks

If not... well, I care more about my safety than I do about miles per gallon. I agree that most people don't need gas guzzlers such as SUV's, but the sacrifice of auto safety on the altar of the environment has been going on for way too long.

I honestly hope you weren't implying that SUV's are safer than other vehicles. There's plenty of articles that state otherwise.

Quote from article: "Also, the networks would be unable to give the type of detailed explanations as to why voters voted the way they did this time around. For example, according to TV network analysts working the election, the networks wouldn't be able to tell viewers why particular demographic groups voted for specific candidates nor the issues that they considered most or least important when voting."

So, what this means is that people were able to go late to the polls, and cast a vote free from the influence of network prognostication.

More suspicious folk can speculate about connections between this fiasco and the many other things that Battelle Memorial Institute does for our government, and how well it does them.

Quote from article: "Also, the networks would be unable to give the type of detailed explanations as to why voters voted the way they did this time around. For example, according to TV network analysts working the election, the networks wouldn't be able to tell viewers why particular demographic groups voted for specific candidates nor the issues that they considered most or least important when voting."

So, what this means is that people were able to go late to the polls, and cast a vote free from the influence of network prognostication.

More suspicious folk can speculate about connections between this fiasco and the many other things that Battelle Memorial Institute does for our government, and how well it does them.

Inform yourself: The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection

I believe Alternet's article explains why this happens:

SELF-SATISFACTION PRIZE - CNN anchor Jack Cafferty

On CNN's "American Morning" program Aug. 5, Cafferty mixed candor with exemplary media arrogance: "This is a commercial enterprise. This is not PBS. We're not here as a public service. We're here to make money. We sell advertising, and we do it on the premise that people are going to watch. If you don't cover the miners because you want to do a story about a debt crisis in Brazil at the time everybody else is covering the miners, then Citibank calls up and says, 'You know what? We're not renewing the commercial contract.' I mean it's a business."

It absolutely does.

(Not that it's relevant to the argument at hand.)

Are you a patriot, or are you a terrorist?

Because if you're not with us, you're against us.

And if you're not a patriot, you're a terrorist.

A patriot has nothing to hide from his [sic] Country. A patriot is glad, glad with all his heart to hear that his country is taking the initiative, a patriot supports the party -- if the party wants to know whom Sam or Sally is speaking with, let the party know. If the party wants to know where every Citizen is, what every Citizen does, what every Citizen knows, then let the party know.

A patriot believes. A patriot is the opposite of the dissident.

A patriot does not support laws that allow terrorists, those who do not believe in the strength and ideals of our country, to hide behind anonymity. A patriot does not support anarchy, the total chaos that results when you allow dissidents to mess with public awareness, to spread their lies about our country.

And a patriot does not call for public hearings, checks and balances, handcuffs to hold the hand of Justice, to keep our men [sic] in uniforms -- who believe -- from doing what they believe in, what Americans -- real Americans, not bleeding-heart-liberals need for their protection.

A patriot does not question.

You're either with us, or against us.

If you're not a patriot, you're a terrorist.

I guess I'm a terrorist.

Are you a patriot, or are you a terrorist?

Because if you're not with us, you're against us.

And if you're not a patriot, you're a terrorist.

A patriot has nothing to hide from his [sic] Country. A patriot is glad, glad with all his heart to hear that his country is taking the initiative, a patriot supports the party -- if the party wants to know whom Sam or Sally is speaking with, let the party know. If the party wants to know where every Citizen is, what every Citizen does, what every Citizen knows, then let the party know.

A patriot believes. A patriot is the opposite of the dissident.

A patriot does not support laws that allow terrorists, those who do not believe in the strength and ideals of our country, to hide behind anonymity. A patriot does not support anarchy, the total chaos that results when you allow dissidents to mess with public awareness, to spread their lies about our country.

And a patriot does not call for public hearings, checks and balances, handcuffs to hold the hand of Justice, to keep our men [sic] in uniforms -- who believe -- from doing what they believe in, what Americans -- real Americans, not bleeding-heart-liberals need for their protection.

A patriot does not question.

You're either with us, or against us.

If you're not a patriot, you're a terrorist.

I guess I'm a terrorist.

Why not the department of Domestic Security? The word is even in the preamble to the constitution - "... insure domestic tranquility..."

I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy. The people who came up with "Homeland" did a lot of research. Probably even more research than is put into the search for a new business names. There were probably psychologists and sociologists and focus groups - sworn to secrecy of course. "Domestic" sounds sterile and abstract, although entirely accurate. "Homeland" is a middle-america, bread-basket term. "Keep the home fires burning", "gotta protect the 'home'". "Fatherland" would have pissed off the women - besides it's already been taken. Also remember that this was aimed at the average sixth grade level of the population.

Just like you said, we americans don't have a "homeland". That's a term for a place where the people have lived continuously for many, many centuries. I don't think the two centuries we have been here counts. And besides, this is the "homeland" of the indigenous peoples who were here for centuries before we arrived\invaded\committed genocide on the previous inhabitants. I don't feel comfortable calling them "indians" as that name came from a navigational\perception error and "native americans" is another term imposed by the conquering people. Why should people already here name themselves after Amerigo Vespucci, a spanish invader?

And before I get people observing that domestic security doesn't cover those americans who might reside in another country, homeland doesn't cover it either. There may be a better description to include that, but I'm sure that those who made the decision were not nearly as concerned about accuracy as they were about spin.

The phrase "Homeland Security" pisses me off. The way Dubya says 'nuk-u-lur' pisses me off. (Actually I'm embarrassed for my country every time I hear him say it incorrectly)And the references to a (permanent - see George Orwell's 1984) "War on Terrorism" piss me off. The attacks on 9/11 were not a declaration of war, only countries can do that. They were criminal acts perpetrated by and organized group. We have plenty of laws, both domestic (RICO, etc.) and international that cover that. But to call it a criminal act and hunt down the conspirators would not have furthered the administrations agenda of restricting the constitutional rights of americans and making the middle east safe for an american pipeline to bring oil from the Balkans to the Atlantic. Is there anyone still naive enough to think that this is not about oil and american imperialism? When will we stop letting our leaders do this to us? Actually there is a really good article here about why we buy it and do it to ourselves. It talks about the 'strict father' mode of communication (Obediance to authority - Conservative\Bush) vs. the 'nurturant parent' mode (Empathy and helping others -Progressive\Clinton, for example) and how they drive the american psyche. It's worth a read.

The actions in Korea and Viet Nam were not about human rights or freeing people, they were about industry and furthering a political agenda - wiping out 'communism'. The equivalent of an ideological pissing contest. (This info for the benefit of /. readers who are not students of history or may be too young to remember.) The first Gulf War? Not about 'freeing Kuwaitis', but about oil. Why are we going after Iraq? It has nothing to do with terrorism or security. (If the administration were really worried about who potentially has a nuclear weapon, we would be going after North Korea which has stated that it has a nuclear weapons program. And they're part of the spun-for-bloodlust-creating Axis Of Evil. Remember that one kiddies?)

Nope, Iraq is all about oil and Daddy's wounded pride. In addition to having the one of the worlds largest reserves of oil, it's the next place where we need to put a pipeline. And don't forget that Saddam put out a contract on George Bush the first. And that Bush the first took a lot of heat about not going on into Baghdad and Removing Saddam. He took the heat even though the greatest minds of the time said it was better for middle east and world stability to leave him there.

The U.S. action with the U.N. in Bosnia and Kosovo were primarily humanitarian actions. And under whose administration did they take place? Yup, Clinton. If there had been a republican administration in power at that time, we would not have helped. Bosnia and Kosovo have no oil or natural resources that american companies can make a profit from. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Republican administrations go to war for business and political interests, Democrats go to war for humanitarian interests. Personally, I know which one I prefer - if it has to happen at all.

I'm sorry if this has been a rant and off-topic (sort-of), but I just had to vent. Mod me down if you must, but engage me in discussion if you can. That is the very essence of our freedom.

Could your political views be considered progressive or radical leftist? Are you an activist? There is at least anecdotal evidence that political activists who tend toward the left and libertarian side of the spectrum are on a search list aside from the 1000-person no-fly list.

No, you're thinking of our dumbfuck of a
president dumbfuck.

I wrote:
"...just a smidge to the left of Salon."

Peter writes:
"This strikes me as funny. Like "Just a smidge to the right of The 700 Club." :-) No flames, please. I like Salon, too."

Well, they are fairly leftist, but still not quite as leftist as, say, Indymedia.org. =)

Speaking of which, here is an interesting blurb from an article on Alternet regarding the relationship of America to off-center politics:

"I remember in Antwerp one night, there was a debate set-up by the major Dutch language paper in Belgium... it was me, the former Prime Minister of Belgium -- who is a center-right politician -- and the former head of NATO, who is another Belgian. Of course we all talked in English and I couldn't help noticing that this center-right politician was farther to the left than any of the mainstream Democrats in this country. That just shows you how utterly anomalous the American political system is. We think here that we've got two parties and one's conservative and one's liberal. In the European context, the Republicans would be a right- wing party and the Democrats would be maybe a center-right party. I also think back to a guy I interviewed in Holland who said, "Look, I vote for the most conservative party in Holland and they're way to the left of your Democrats."

Thanks for your reply. I mean what I say in my sig. Too much moderating, not enough discussion.

I wrote:
"...just a smidge to the left of Salon."

Peter writes:
"This strikes me as funny. Like "Just a smidge to the right of The 700 Club." :-) No flames, please. I like Salon, too."

Well, they are fairly leftist, but still not quite as leftist as, say, Indymedia.org. =)

Speaking of which, here is an interesting blurb from an article on Alternet regarding the relationship of America to off-center politics:

"I remember in Antwerp one night, there was a debate set-up by the major Dutch language paper in Belgium... it was me, the former Prime Minister of Belgium -- who is a center-right politician -- and the former head of NATO, who is another Belgian. Of course we all talked in English and I couldn't help noticing that this center-right politician was farther to the left than any of the mainstream Democrats in this country. That just shows you how utterly anomalous the American political system is. We think here that we've got two parties and one's conservative and one's liberal. In the European context, the Republicans would be a right- wing party and the Democrats would be maybe a center-right party. I also think back to a guy I interviewed in Holland who said, "Look, I vote for the most conservative party in Holland and they're way to the left of your Democrats."

Thanks for your reply. I mean what I say in my sig. Too much moderating, not enough discussion.

It has been noted that Salon's financial woes (how the hell did they rack up 80M in debt?) stems from them hiring good writers. Excellent writers, in fact, top-of-the-line. Noam Chomsky comes to mind. But I have to point out that Alternet.org has writing that is, IMO, and just a smidge to the left of Salon.

So I have to ask, was the 80M in debt really necessary? Personally, I like Salon, and it is one of only three news sites in my bookmarks (along with the BBC and the aforementioned Alternet.org), and I am a subscriber to their premium service. But the idea that writers won't write unless they're paid is a lot like the RIAA saying people won't make songs if they can't !@#$ you in the butt for $16.99/cd. Just doesn't make any sense. But it sure seems to make sense to Salon:

"The greatest weakness of Internet users -- all of us -- is our failure to recognize the value of intellectual property. Of course we love free access to information -- the more the better. For years, those of us who are information junkies have been like pigs in mud. It has been fun, but those something-for- nothing days are over. There is a difference between the Internet mantra that "information loves to be free" and free information."

There is a large talent pool in the world, Salon. Use it. Big names are nice but big names are why you won't exist in a few years. The notion that talented writers only write if you lob a lot of money at them is just as false for the written word as it is for music.

actually, it made me think back to previous laser or missile based "star wars" tests where they installed GPS transmitters in the targets. the target was destroyed, congress saw headlines like 'Missile Test A Success' and gave the program its continued funding, and it wasn't revealed until afterwards that the test was rigged. i hate being lied to.

What moral price is that? Killing a non-sentient being for essential nutrients?

non-essential

My criteria for who deserves death to satisfy my urges goes beyond a test of anthropmorphism.

What else does it kill? I don't understand.
High fat foods, primarily meat and dairy products are over consumed in the Americas & Europe leading to health problems and a burdon on the health care systems.
The high protein levels in a meat/dairy diet leech calcium from the body causing osteoporosis
The production of meat and dairy as a massive consumer of water. As a method of food production it is very wasteful compared to other non-meat means. People starve while we freeze beef and pour milk down the drain. Europe has massive over production of milk. Farmers can hardly give it away. And yet we're awash with the stuff.
This waste of money lowers the standard of living of us all.
Personally I have crohns disease. A disease linked to the consumption of cows milk. I will require hospital treatment, including surgery [once already], throughout my life. The govt. advertises this poison on TV as some sort of health drink!

Maybe you need a quote :

from here
Former Chairman of Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Frank Oski, M.D. even has a book called Don't Drink Your Milk which blames every second health problem kids suffer on hormone-ridden commercial milk. Sixty percent of ear infections in kids under six years of age are milk-induced, and milk consumption is the number one cause of iron-deficiency anemia in infants today according to the American Association of Pediatrics.

It tastes SOOOOO much better than anything non-meat.
Selfish in the extreme. "I'm going to kill and eat you because I like it."

And it supplies the above mentioned nutrients
Very badly. Not to mention the growth hormones, preservatives and anti-biotics that you get as the payload.

Would you rather get them in the form that we have evolved to best absorb, or from a pill that is made from a polluting factory?
The digestion of meat is a long process. It is my belief that we have not evolved to meat in the volumes we do today. Again witness the levels of heart disease etc.
Many people lack the ability to digest lactose. In fact lactose tolerance is only really present in white people, built up from years of poisoning themselves.

And finally, accellerating growth in animals is selfish and can only damage the health of the animals involved. GM sometimes scientists argue that they are just boosting nature. Nature doesn't need a boost thank you very much. We already massively over produce and then destory food. We grow grain to feed to cattle who use most of it to maintain their day to day existence.

It's insane. And the best people can come up with as excuses are "it's natural" and "it tastes nice". Same can be said for crack cocaine. Stay strung out on beef if you like. I kicked the habit.

12 years dairy & meat free & still going stong.

Don't many dictatorships end in some kind of revolution?

Usually it takes extreme circumstances-- If the dictatorship becomes too oppressive, sooner or later they will be overthrown.

What would it take to overthrow ICANN? I think it would be a tremendous number of egregious crimes that affect a majority of Internet users.

What would an ICANN revolution look like? I don't know. A non-violent overthrow would need a viable replacement, and so far Alternet and new.net don't seem to be getting the traction they need.

Perhaps someone needs to come up with a whole new idea in naming and identifying computers and systems that is technically and practally superior to the current system-- something so compelling that people will choose to use it over ICANN.

I'd be interested in reading suggestions-- what would it take to overthrow ICANN? The Internet is so good at routing around central authorities. So how to bring the power back to the people?

W

Umm, allow me to suggest:
a recent Alternet article or even better, everyone's favorite Walmart-watch.org Before we talk about walmart doing anything positive for anyone. Fiduciary resposibility is just another name for greed.

Wal-Mart is an evil corporation. Those dirt cheap prices you pay have a price elsewhere. There is an excellent story about Wal-mart on Alternet.
How Wal-Mart is Remaking our World

And what the heck is wrong with employing third world labor? You mean they should go without jobs?

No, I think third world laborers should go without having to work in the disgusting conditions they work in. I think they should go without breathing filthy air. I think they should work ten (not 14) hour days. I think they should get at least their country's minimum wage so that they can begin to take care of their own health.

I think you should read this story if you haven't already.

Yeah, no kidding. Check out this one: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12962

Of the 10 richest people in the world, five are Waltons--the ruling family of the Wal-Mart empire.
S.(Sam) Robson Walton is ranked by London's "Rich List 2001"
as the wealthiest human on the planet, having sacked up more than $65 billion (£45.3 billion) in personal wealth and topping Bill Gates as No. 1.
Alternet.org article here

I've always had a problem with Wal-Mart, and the problem is when things likethis get too big, they start to redefine how things progress and then competition either has to play by those rules or perish. WM ships more jobs overseas for cheap production and more people are out of work since for every 2 jobs they create, 3 are lost decimating the local economies that they advertise they're helping. The comments on the wages and what they consider full-time is atrocious. If competing companies don't follow that lead, they'll be out, leaving people with less choice and, by default, reaffirming the leader and all of its tactics. I don't mind saving money, but the question truly comes down to 'cheaper, but at what cost?' Before we completely lose the choice of *how* we buy, we should at least know the facts behind the "Always Low Prices".

How Wal-Mart is Remaking our World

CB

I've always had a problem with Wal-Mart, and the problem is when things like this get too big, they start to redefine how things progress and then competition either has to play by those rules or perish. WM ships more jobs overseas for cheap production and more people are out of work since for every 2 jobs they create, 3 are lost decimating the local economies that they advertise they're helping. The comments on the wages and what they consider full-time is atrocious. If competing companies don't follow that lead, they'll be out, leaving people with less choice and, by default, reaffirming the leader and all of its tactics. I don't mind saving money, but the question truly comes down to 'cheaper, but at what cost?' Before we completely lose the choice of *how* we buy, we should at least know the facts behind the "Always Low Prices".

How Wal-Mart is Remaking our World

CB

I would suggest you all consider NOT shopping at Walmart -- for anything at all -- read this please

It is very sad that this story is also posted on May Day, which is (as another /. headline states) Labour Day everywhere else in the world but Canada, USA and SouthAfrica. Did you know May Day became Labour Day because of the American Labour Movement? Read a little history here

Here ya go!

I've wondered this many times about how the media affects people and how instant media changes the dynamics. I remember the repeated instant images on Spetember 11th and the sheer hysteria that has occurred.

Having taken several courses on film and media, I know that all media is filtered. While we seem to find that the news is objective, we fail to understand that instant news is as subjective as possible, as instant coverage of an even often presents only one side to the story.

The sad thing is that our education systems don't teach us to question the news. I remember being in my social studies class and we read the the news and treated it like it was all the facts.

I think sites like Alternet are a great counter-culture to mass media. People need to learn to look at several news sources, as well as read up on the background behind the stories.

Perhaps in the United States, a country that seems to be involved all over the world, more emphasis should be places on world history and world cultures in education.

On a side note, boy does explorer's ftp client suck BALLS.

Sadly it's not that difficult at all. Take, for example the case of China where the government Allows international Access but still manages to filter out most (but not all) 'offensive' materials. Other governments such as France have chosen to use Legal actions or simple thuggery (see here and here

I agree with you about the Megacorps. AOL has caved in in the past and even smaller non-gvernmental groups can have a Big Effect. This ruling will only make that easier for them.

Much as I like some of JonKatz's prose, and much as I support the efforts of the File Room I think he overlooks just how weak the net potentially is. It's not just about my ability to put up a server (for all its abstractness the net depends upon physical objects), its about other people's ability to get to that same server. If I get sued out of business or simply attacked by thugs the server goes down. If a government or large media company chooses to deny their people/customers access to my server it might as well be. Either way I have been effectively silenced.

If it so obvious then why has no-one done it before?

Mike

...dude. thanks for posting this. I popped over to Alternet to grab another story with a similar view and post it, but evidently, there are a lot more people than I thought with a dim view of the truth, timing, and propaganda value of this movie.

Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org

January 8, 2002

On Alternet

I went to a war last night, and for two and half hour had my adrenaline pumped and my patriotic heart strings tugged by U.S. soldiers in battle, bravely tracking down and trying to capture the enemy. No it wasn't Osama, because the movie which felt like it might have taken place in the rubble of Kabul was actually a replay of the battle of Mogadishu in l993.

The film is Black Hawk Down, an account of elite ranger and Delta force soldiers fighting the good fight. Their mission, the publicity flyer tells us, "to capture several top lieutenants of the Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, as part of a strategy to quell the civil war and famine that is ravaging that country." The action is non-stop only the outcome is disasterous. Nineteen Americans were killed along with l,000 Somalis before U.S. forces were withdrawn in an intervention that started nobly and ended in one of the bloodiest messes you can imagine.

The movie showed what the TV news of the current war has not: actual combat, and the feelings of those engaged in it. You see soldiers fighting with great courage, but they are not motivated by a cause or an ideology; they fight to protect each other, for personal survival. Obvious is that U.S. forces have a clear advantage in terms of helicopters, communications, etc. But in the end they are defeated by the determination of a far less organized urban guerilla force that sees itself defending its hometown against a foreign intervention. And like the TV news accounts of Afghanistan, the movie comes to us context-free, with a twisted and distorted perspective that simplifies that conflict beyond recognition.

Black Hawk Down also seems part of a propaganda strategy aimed at Americans, not people overseas, where it is unlikely to win many hearts and minds. Notes Larry Chin in the Online Journal: "True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned ro le as U.S. war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released Black Hawk Down, a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 U.S. raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to 'set the record straight.' The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself."Forget the revelations that one of the story's big heroes, in real life, later gets convicted as a rapist. Forget the dramatization formulas. Just think about the impression left with the audience, and how that perception has little to do with reality. After watching the film, which made me uncomfortable because it showed how senseless the U.S. policy was as well as how ineffective, I also realized how little it conveyed what really happened in that tortured land.

The film starts with signposts -- literally, writing on the screen, a few short paragraphs, to remind us what happened. The problem is the information is false. It implies, for example, that U.S. troops were sent to Somalia to feed the hungry. Not true. Later, I turned to David Halberstam's new book, War in a Time of Peace, which recounts the Somalian mishap in some depth.

Halberstam's book mentions, but does not detail, the bloody background: The massive crimes of the Somali dictator Siad Barre, who the U.S. backed and who Somali warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid ejected. It also does not fully explain how the stage was set for a confrontation, and how the U.S. provoked he fiasco that followed.

Halberstam does describe, however, the Washington debate and incompetence at a time when a policy launched by one administration was handed off to another. He tells us that the defense secretary told an associate, "We?re sending the Rangers to Somalia. We are not going to be able to control them. They are like overtrained pit bulls. No one controls them." The Rangers were indeed sent with great fanfare, to hunt and capture Aidid. Their mission failed.

Halberstam also describes the American hatred for Somalis, expressed in the much-bandied phrase, "The only good Somali is a dead Somali." Is it any wonder Somalis fought back? (In the movie, the battle looks like a racial war, with virtually all-white U.S. forces going mano-a-mano with an all black city.) Halberstam reveals how these forces made arrogant assumptions in Somalia, underestimating the resistance, and how the urban "battlefield became a horror ... a major league CNN-era disaster..."

You can read Halberstam's book, and many others, if you want to know more. But the point is that the romaticization of our modern warriors all too often misses the underlying political dimension of a conflict. On Jan. 7 it was reported that Green Beret Sgt. Nathan Ross Chapman, who was just killed in Afghanistan, may have been set up by so-called Anti-Taliban allies. In Somalia, we intervened in the domestic affairs and conflicts of another society. What started as war on hunger became a war on Aidid. We became warlords ourselves. In Afghanistan a war against terror became a war against the government, and may have put in power people who are as ruthless as the ones that were displaced.

Black Hawk Down is an action movie that tries to turn a U.S. defeat into a victory by encouraging you to identify with the men who fought their way out of an urban conflagration not of their making. But with Somalia looming as a possible next target in the war against terror, Black Hawk Down may turn into a recruiting film for revenge. While Al Qaeda was not visible in the film, there is evidence that they, too, were involved in the background of the events in l993, stirring up the violence and training the warlord militias. The deaths of journalists there, including Dan Eldon, the son of a colleague, was not mentioned.

Rambo-like films like Black Hawk Down, which seem realistic, can also accelerate the death of journalism itself, because high production values makes the dramatization of a political event far more memorable than actual news coverage. My advice: Miss it!

indeed. technotopians bite. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12232

If you read this you'll begin to think of the risks to poorly trained government employees through operating particle beam weapons in close confinement. Sometimes a kneww jerk reaction to a threat causes more problems than it solves.

Two words: public domain.

PAPER CUTS: The Golden Fleece

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@openso urce.org/msg01433.html

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/199901/msg00052.html

You are correct in that the media is made up of humans, and prone to make mistakes. But I think you misrepresent the entire situation with this statement, in implying that human error is the most significant factor in misreported news.

If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.

If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.

I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):

Independent Media

DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media
ZMag: Left Wing media resources
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage
Guerrilla News Network
Project Censored: Censored news stories
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement"
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity
Pacifica Network News
The Onion: Media Satire

Media Analysis

"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information"

LS

A shout out to the /. who posted this one 1st.
How the celebrating 'arabs' was shot in 1991!

And you can't beat a line like this

Operations that include diarrhea as a way of life don't happen.
And the same quote, but different info here

Think about this: The tallest building in NYC is now the Woolworth building. Yup a defunct company is the highest. The 2 biggest signs of capitolism are gone, and for 3 days we saw no ads on national television. When calls for blood to be spilled, are we going to spill it for America, or for Big Corporations?

Embryonic stem cells are fundamentally different from adult or placental stem cells. Research so far indicates that the plasticity of embryonic stem cells is much greater than adult cells. That's why the research community wants to investigate embryonic stem cells.

Bush's decision basically says that the government will only fund research on the 60 existing embryonic lines. According to this article, some of those cell lines are privately owned; it's not clear if there will be general access to those lines. Now, 60 is not a lot of variation to work with. When doing research of this type, you need a large genetic pool to work with. This fundamentally reduces that pool. Bush's decision has bound the hands of scientists looking for cures to horrifyingly deadly diseases.

For those of you who would argue that these embryos are children that need to be protected, check out David Corn's article about that viewpoint.

It was their stupidity that caused them to lose money, yet they begged the state for a $2 billion bailout (oops! Thought they wanted the state out of their business!)

They got bailout, completely shirking their own financial responsibilities, and they also got a rate hike.

If you're curious about this debacle, check out this link: The Real Energy Solution

But Mcdonald's is trademarking idioms and phrases. Maybe the English speaking people of the world can sue Mcdonald's for attemtping to control the literary commons?

NO LOGO

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick (1928-1982)

The submitter's intro is full of misinformation and half cocked conclusions. The Maori are not suing Lego. They are CONSIDERING a suit against Lego.

The basis of the suit is somewaht understandable it is not in my opinoion- ridiculous. Lego is copyrighting and trademarking the Maori's words like McDonalds is doing to the english language. If lego uses and copyrights their words then there is an even greater possibility that Lego will sue the Maori for using their words freely since large corporations are more litigous then any tribe or indigenous people have ever been.

Also if the you are considering this suit without the legal document of the Hague convention ratified it has very little to do with the Hague Convention however odious the Hague Convention may be.

NO LOGO

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick (1928-1982)