Slashdot Mirror

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed,
> President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average
> citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access
> information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
>
> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

President Kennedy made Bill Clinton look like a saint. He was fucking women all over the place, e.g. Marilyn Monroe. But there was no internet back in the early 1960's, and the MSM lapdogs were all protective of a Democrat president. Compare that with Bill Clinton in 1998. The MSM were still protecting their Democrat president. But there was now a thing called "the internet" or "the web". Along came a lowly store clerk (Matt Drudge) with a modem

http://australianpolitics.com/...

> Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST -- NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN
>
> BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT
>
> **World Exclusive**
> **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
>
> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine
> killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House
> intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

Hillary Clinton's response was to lament the lack of "internet gatekeepers". http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

> Actually its ABC's fault.
>
> Back when Clinton was president, the story about Monica was given
> to ABC 3 times over a 8 month period. They buried it every time they
> got it. There is no telling how many stories the "big 3" buried.

Add Newsweek to the list. http://australianpolitics.com/...

> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a
> story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White
> House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
>
> The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of
> his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication.

By the way, the crying about "Fake News" by the lib-left elite is not new. It's been going on for over 2 decades already. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
>
> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

When the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, the Clintons denied-denied-denied. Hillary Clinton even said that internet news needs a "rethink", and bemoaned the lack of "gatekeepers" whatever that means. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

And when she was running in 2016, her campaign sent out a newsletter saying that the Breitbart website did not have a right to exist. And it also suggested that if Hillary was elected, Breitbart would be shut down.http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hillary-campaign-vows-to-destroy-opposition-website/

TLDR; The lib-left has controlled news for a long time via their media lapdogs. Thanks to the internet, anybody with an internet connection can break a story that the lib-left wants to bury. Do not expect the lib-left to go down without a fight. The next Democrat president, 4, 8, or however many years from now will rush in internet censorship ASAP. It may be under the guise of stopping "Fake News" or "Hate Speech" or whatever excuse, but underneath, it'll be the lib-left censoring conservatives.

No, Australia is a constitutional monarchy while the USA is a republic.

They are both democracies in the ordinary sense of the word.

Also in terms of it being a goverment granted priviledge, have a look at the history of how different rules for the voting franchise in Australia have applied over time: http://australianpolitics.com/elections/features/franchise-history.shtml. To paraphrase something you said: "You have to earn the right to drive on the roads, and it can be taken away from you." could be rephrased as "Citzens over the age of 18 only have to enroll to vote to be able to vote in Australia, and it can be taken away from you.". The government only has to change the electoral laws to remove your "right" to vote so it's not a right it's a privilege (although it is unlikely to be taken away).

There are ways to encourage voter participation without breaking anonymity.

In Australia, all citizens who are eligible to vote must attend a polling place on election day. Anyone who doesn't vote is fined (unless they have a sufficient reason, like illness or injury). Apparently several other countries do the same.
Ref: http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/c ompulsory.shtml

This web page:
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a /compulsoryvote.htm
has a discussion of some of the pros and cons of such a system.

Of all the writers, politicians, and others who have ripped off the originator of the "digital native" and "digital immigrant" labels and concepts, Marc Prensky , someone calling herself an anthropologist should at least credit the spark of a light she's basking in.

Get Kirah's name right yes, but worse: the /. summary, TFA AKA ninemsn and Microsoft, and myriad others before them have either been unaware of Prensky or have themselves enjoyed a ride without crediting him and his relative wit.

Here is the original source from Prensky. It's not as if he's a nobody, he has a Harvard MBA and a Masters in Teaching from Yale where I suppose he made a few connections, and while not a household name he's successful in tech business and philanthropy.

In 2005 Rupert Murdoch spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors , after which Murdoch was widely credited with the "digital native, digital immigrant" observation and phrases. To pick an Australian example of subsequent error in which the text of Murdoch's speech is also posted, see "The Challenge Of Becoming A True Digital Native: Rupert Murdoch."

Thanks to Mr. Murdoch's blockbuster status, not only speciality sites, but sites often used for citation like About.com have credited Murdoch for posterity, as in this article targeting educators which asks, in a poll and an associated essay, "Are You A Digital Native Or Digital Immigrant?"

Even Apple, who took Prensky's idea and ran with it, credits Ian Jukes and Anita Dosaj of The InfoSavvy Group, not Prensky!

At least someone has it right, if for the next few minutes, incompletely so.

BG

The Labor party isn't a left wing party - it's centrist with a number of right-wing factions.

I'm subscribed to crikey as well :)

You might enjoy this: http://ozpolitics.info/blog/index.php?page_id=206

> Although politics wise I was under the (mis?)apprehension that the
> real reason that the Libs and Nats were screwed in Tasmania is due
> to major backlash over the Franklin Dam project that they have
> never really recovered from.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/house indicate that the Liberal Party clean-swept Tasmania in the 1983 election while the coalition parties lost every other state. The problem with the Tasmanian Liberal Party could be the ascendancy of a dominant faction that prevents the catch-all pattern from having an effect. If crikey reports are to be believed, NSW will probably go the same way unless the organised right are somehow contained. If not it will be be devestating for the LPA - numerous marginal federal seats in NSW are held by candidates not associated with the organised right.

    - C

I know of no place in any state where voting is compulsory.

They most certainly do.
linky

Force people to vote. Then you can get donkey votes... Fun for the whole family.

You right, 55 million. This is why i don't approve of war as the first solution. I'm democratic i don't have the arrogance to assume im right and everyone else is wrong. SO i don't see war as a democratic solution i see it as a failure of democracy.

Had anyone been willing to act preemptively, most of those 55 million lives would have been spared. And no, military action does not need to be the "first solution". Diplomacy should always come first, and with Iraq it did. Twelve years of it. That's a plain and simple fact.

I also don't see why most American's use World war II as their justifications.

I didn't bring it up as justification. I brought it up because it was a mistake that we all must learn from and because the U.N. was created for the sole purpose of preventing such a disaster from occurring again.

And while it was sitting out, USA was selling weapons and profiting from both sides.

This is irrelevant. I could dig up many facts to show that other coutries provided vehicles, weapons, and technology to Axis powers. Iraq obtained most of its weaponry exclusively from the Soviet Union. Does that make the Russian's responsible for the invasion of Kuwait?

No matter how much American's want to belive that you were the savior of the world from the Nazi's it's anything but the truth.

Where did I say that the United States saved the world? I didn't. I said that the USA (and others) failed to act prior to World War II. That was an error -- gross negligence -- and something that hopefully we all can learn from. Literally the opposite of the "savior of the world".

The main reason you are now the Super power of the world is because unlike the rest of the world that substained heavy damages due to fighting the war, you sat it out. So its soo ironic that you applaud your country as the great fighter for peace in this planet when you were the country that left it for the world to save your ass when it mattered.

And here you help me make my point that you do have a twisted perspective of history. I'd like to see you say that directly to the faces of the grandchildren of the 300,000 US soldiers that died fighting in Europe and the Pacific. This statement of yours only serves to show how ignorant you must be.

Iraq was supported by USA at the time, USA also supplied Saddam that evil SOB with weapons to commit genocide on the Kuwaites.

Iraq's army was almost solely supplied with Soviet weapons. The amount of military support provided to Iraq by the US is paltry to that supplied by the Soviets. Human beings make mistakes, and we cannot always predict the future.

Where is your facts mate. If you recall history he allowed weapons inspectors in. It was America that told them to piss off because they were going to bomb anyway.

Iraq expelled the weapons inspectors in 1996. Eventually in late 2002 they let them back in under extreme pressure from the U.N. Hans Blix eventually reported that the Iraqis were being evasive and that they were failing to comply with U.N. resolutions. Today, anti-Bushers like to pretend that the sole reason the US took military action was because of WMDs and connections to terrorists. This is nothing but political spinning and half truths. If Iraq had cooperated with Hans Blix's teams, then the whole world would have known there were no WMDs. Instead we had to forcefully enter the country to find out for ourselves. When Colin Powell addressed the U.N. prior to the start of military action he spent most of his time arguing that Iraq was disregarding U.N. mandates. He did mention the possibility that there may be WMDs. However, that was neve

The result of that vote was not a all fair. The then and curent PM worded the referendum question as to make it difficult to vote for a republic. It was not a simple YES/NO Answer. ie. Do you wish Australia to become a rebublic, which is what the question should have been the model could have been worked out later.

The referendum stated that:

Republic Referendum 1999 Two referendums were held on Saturday 6 November 1999. One concerned the establishment of an Australian republic with a Head of State appointed by a two-thirds majority of Federal Parliament. The other concerned a Preamble to the Constitution.

And I must admit this was much to my disgust.

For the record the referendum on November 6, 1999, Australians voted 55% to 45% against a proposed model to make the nation a republic.

This and more info can for found at AustPolitics

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

...

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

...

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Look for yourself, http://www.australianpolitics.com/constitution/tex t/

The Australian Constitution mainly talks about the seperation of powers. There is no Bill of Rights as Americans know it. The Australian system borrows heavily from both Westminster and Washington systems. The "responsible government" component of unwritten conventions of behaviour come from the Westminster system.

omico--