Slashdot Mirror

I don't know what you call Communism, but socialism is working pretty well in the Scandanavian countries, as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders just told Amy Goodman. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/0 8/1457245

You want games? I heard Linus Torvalds interviewed by Terry Gross: "I was very lucky. When I was in the university, I didn't have to pay tuition, and I had a stipend for my living expenses. I could spend all day writing computer games." (Quoting from memory.) He wanted a faster OS, and that's how he started to develop Linux.

Let's take real Communism. I once met Loren Graham, the MIT professor who was America's top expert on Soviet science, and the only one who understood the Soviets in their own terms. He gave a lecture in which he detailed all the failings of Soviet science.

I asked him what the Soviets did *well*. He told me, "their education system." Under Communism, literacy is 100% (everywhere in the world). But beyond that their technical education was among the best in the world. They educated not just an elite, but millions of scientists and engineers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_in_the_Sovie t_Union (How many immigrant computer programmers and engineers do you know in your own country who were trained in the USSR?) Don't forget, they put the first man in space.

Of course the Soviet Union was a frequently-brutal dictatorship -- until Gorbachev. They didn't have the freedom that white people had in the United States.

Today, Russia is a good model of what America would be like if the Republican free-market conservatives took over: a government that can't collect taxes, run by oligarchs and dictators, where you can't get education or even health care if you can't pay for it.

And if you destroy the government, so your rich friends don't have to pay taxes (as Republican ideologues like Grover Norquist want to do), you have no money for basic research. According to Science magazine, the well-funded Soviet scientific research enterprise is gone. Their scientists are driving cabs and opening restaurants, not creating computer games.

In order to get into guantanamo you have to meet 2 conditions : 1) you need to get caught fighting american troups abroad

I would think that anyone involved in the political process would be aware of the whorishness of even the most "ideologically committed" candidates, but perhaps this interview with PA Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli will disabuse you of your idealistic notion.

The movie makes some great points but rarely does it go into enough detail for the viewer to be able to make any real conclusions. Also, most of the movie focuses on this really mouthy woman I don't really care for. She seems so much like a typical pain in the ass neighbor.

Oh yeah, Bev Harris can be so annoying. Going around causing trouble, starting things like Black Box Voting. Life would be so much more peaceful if people would just shut up about Election Fraud.

By the way, Bev Harris was interviewed recently on Democracy Now. She didn't strike me as being a "mouthy woman" (but then, I've got no problem with Amy Goodman, either).

How did I find out about this speech? I watched it at the time, live on C-Span.

You don't mean the address of the U.N. General Assembly, back on, September 24, 2006? Looking at the full transcript, I see that it doesn't contain this phrase.

On the other hand, back in March I can find references to stories with quotes like this: "I am convinced that in this century we will bury U.S. imperialism, sooner rather than later," Chavez said.

The US got the hell out of the empire game decades ago.

Well, I wish they'd do it again.

US imperialism does not exist, nor does a US empire.

Let us note for a moment that "imperialism" would be an attempt at attaining an "empire", it does not presuppose the existance of an empire.

Call me whacky, but since that Iraq had no direct connection to the 9/11 attack, I've had the odd thought that maybe the Bush regime figured that the US needed to conquer the entire Middle East. You don't have to squint real hard to call that "imperialism".

Anyway, considering that Chavez was plugging the Noam Chomsky book Hegemony of Survival, I think it's a fair guess that he was talking about Chomsky's notions about US imperial strategy:

Noam Chomsky on Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest For Global Dominance:

... when the bombing began, Arthur Schlesinger, a very respectable senior American historian, highly respected, one of Kennedy's advisers, had an article in which he said that the bombing of Iraq resembles the actions of imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor on a date, which the President at the time said, the date that will live in infamy. And he said President Roosevelt was correct. It's a date that will live in infamy, except that now it's Americans who live in infamy, and the world knows it.

Bullshit! If you can read Spanish, I suggest you read his statements about what is going on in his country. Read how he has increased security (increased murders to 10,000 per year in a country of 25 million), provided money and hospitals for the poor (while increasing the poverty rate even while reaping record oil profits), improved the economy (which has >10% inflation and small growth even while reaping record oil profits), and has increased personal freedom (by introducing communist style price controls and jailing reporters).

Wow... and all of those accusations have occured in the local Venezuelan press? That's pretty cool, considering we've got US pundits trying to claim that Chavez is censoring the press.

I don't know much about it myself, but one of those silly leftist writers, Tariq Ali, is going around saying things like this about Chavez:

And what people do not seem to understand, within the establishment in the United States and its state media hacks, is that you can have political leaders today in parts of the world who are extremely popular because they give the people what they promised to give them. And politics elsewhere has become so isolated and alienating from the population that people just don't expect this anymore. And I think this is what explains the popularity of Chavez. And, of course, using oil money to push through mega-spending on health, on education, on building homes for the poor, free universities for the poor, this is not permitted in this world. He does it, and at the same time he challenges U.S. foreign policy in a very sharp way.

Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc said in 2003 he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." from numerous reports including democracy now If you accept traditional definitions of left-right and that Bush is to the right then I think it would be fair to say that Diebold is a right wing company only with that piece of information.

If we were to further research the matter I think we would quickly discover that the top of most corporate hierarchy's are right leaning in that they represent the interest of concentrated power outside democratic control. Self interest/self preservation make corporations lean to the right by what I would consider traditional definitions of right and left, but maybe your running on different metaphors and or language syntax.

"My mind is made up because of the facts."
Well then, lets see some of your data to backup that statement. As I've stated earlier, I've included links, that you glibly avoid discussing, to support my point. You simply make a statement as if it's a fact without proof. Here is another link to support the fact of media consolidation. Lets look at what media consolidation is, it is when more and more media outlets, whether they are television, radio, newspaper, etc;, are owned and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of corporations. If you had been paying attention for the last ten years, you would already have known this. Obviously your too busy playing WOW or watching Survivor... I don't know which is worse. Here is an article by Ted Turner where he discusses the folly and danger of media consolidation, terming it a "Loss of democratic debate". Remember when you said media consolidation had nothing to do with Democracy?

"they'll tell you what you want to hear"? That's merely media being responsive to the public interest.
I disagree strongly. "Responsive to the public interest."? Give me a break. Good journalism is supposed to make people question and think, not blindly accept as the dittohead's do. Also, the vast majority of talk radio is spouting this type of right wing jingoistic krap (theres that word again), and guess who owns the stations that play them? Thats right, Clear Channel, Cox, and the rest of the consolidaters. The only real place to find voices of dissent or questioning is on public or "free" radio, those stations not controlled by corporations.

"and I probably watch "Democracy Now" (something that would not exist if "media concentration" claims were true) more than Fox News."
I find that hard to believe, because if you did watch or listen to Democracy Now then you wouldn't have the "world is flat" opinion about media consolidation that you have. Check this link for details. I dare you.

"The studies get "tilted" into meaninglessness when those who make the claim that there is media concentration basically fake their case by not counting most of the media voices. So EASY to make a case that there are too few voices when you arbitrarily toss out most of the voices from being counted."
Thats a good one. You are using that methodology now. As I stated earlier, you are taking the tack that the Bush administration takes when a scientific study comes up they disagree with. They simply dismiss it because they don't like how the data came out. Thats what you are doing here. The internet is full of examples and proof of this. The fact that you argue the point makes me think that you're either:
A) A corporate shill getting paid to post this krap on /.
OR
B) Someone too scared of the truth to research anything, knowing they won't like what they find.
Which is it?
Also, what specifically do you mean by "voices"? Being vague and rhetorical are the weapons of politicians, why don't you run for office?

"The ability to purchase media outlets is part of freedom of the press, not a favor to be granted by the FCC."
The Freedom of the press has nothing to do with creating media monopolies. When a single company owns more media outlets in a given market it gains unfair advantage. You may have trouble understanding this concept... Perhaps you should read up on American history, particulary the beginning of the 20th century during Theodore Roosevelts period. Do you know what a VNR is? That is essentially "fake news" that PR firms create to push a specific point of view of product. These VNR's are then played on local news stations and the average viewer assumes they are "real news" pieces by real journalist

Here is replacement text for the intro:

Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, Michael Copps, minority Democratic commissioner, stumped against greater local media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners.

In what would be an apparent total reversal of prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly for a complete policy shift at the FCC to favor independent media owners:

QUOTE MR. COPPS' actual text:

Since the US seems to be preparing to attack Iran or at least engage in some type of 'regime change', they'll probably have to rebuild their infrastructure anyhow. Maybe the new 'supreme leader' will allow broadband, that is, if the Iranians aren't all dead or suffering for radiation sickness from our depleted uranium munitions.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bush s_nuclear_apocalypse/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101806Q.shtml
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9814279694 71020612
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/1 6/144204

You've never actually listened to Democracy Now have you? Amy Goodman has broken a lot of stories with serious investigative journalism like following the deposed president of Haiti Aristide to Jamaica after he was ousted in U.S. backed coup. Or being the first to report on the use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon against the Iraqi people which was latter admitted by the U.S. government:

See: http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/15 16227

followed by: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/1 7/1515223

As for Noam Chomsky he has been documenting U.S. war crimes in places from Nicaragua to Vietnam for 40 years now. He is an American hero and if the MSM dared to give him a voice and people were made aware of the level of violence the U.S.government has committed against the world we might see new leadership in the U.S. and live in a much more ethical country. Of course we will never see that because it would threaten the corporate bottom line.

If you were to listen to Democracy Now and read a Chomsky book you might actually learn something. Of course it's much easier to not to read or listen and just smear with a cheap ad hominem attack, right?

You've never actually listened to Democracy Now have you? Amy Goodman has broken a lot of stories with serious investigative journalism like following the deposed president of Haiti Aristide to Jamaica after he was ousted in U.S. backed coup. Or being the first to report on the use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon against the Iraqi people which was latter admitted by the U.S. government:

See: http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/15 16227

followed by: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/1 7/1515223

As for Noam Chomsky he has been documenting U.S. war crimes in places from Nicaragua to Vietnam for 40 years now. He is an American hero and if the MSM dared to give him a voice and people were made aware of the level of violence the U.S.government has committed against the world we might see new leadership in the U.S. and live in a much more ethical country. Of course we will never see that because it would threaten the corporate bottom line.

If you were to listen to Democracy Now and read a Chomsky book you might actually learn something. Of course it's much easier to not to read or listen and just smear with a cheap ad hominem attack, right?

I had to reply to this ridiculous comment.

Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that Ariel Sharon order Sabra and Shatilla.

Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they killed over 770 Palestinian children since 2000.

Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they built the apartheid wall to rob them of their land.

Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they're starving them.

And on another note: Israel apparently cares about their own Israel-Arab citizens so much they didn't even provide them with bomb shelter during the recent Lebanon/Israel conflict.

It's time to stop supporting racism and get you're facts straight.

It's stunning isn't it? I read thru all the comments and really very few can say anything apart from different flavors of denial of the evidence.

Of course it is an extraordinary claim but one that needs to be taken very seriously. I don't see much of that going on.

Instead: it's a dupe, another magazine covered this already, it was always this way, it's not stuff that matters, etc.

Maybe this reaction is to be expected from this site - after all it's not a political board - but all people of voting age (and younger) should really care about this.

There's a guy called Mark Crispin Miller (a prof at NYU) who has spent years researching this topic. He believes that 2000 and 2004 were stolen and has done massive amounts of research to back this postion up. There's a link here to an audio interview:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/0 4/1532222

He's also written books about this subject that are worth reading.

It's phenomenal growth can really only be explained by one thing: there are a LOT of people out there thinking exactly as Schneier is. We're sick of the mainstream media's obvious complicity, outright lies, and inherent idiocy. There is an alternative press that has been covering the real stories since before 9/11, and even moreso since. The alternative press, the "exception to the rulers", is doing what the media *should* be doing: pushing back, resisting, and showing the people what is really happening to their country.

I saw the host, Amy Goodman, speak last night, and she is really something. She brought up an interesting point: everyone remembers the terrible images of Katrina, everyone saw that disaster from the People's perspective. Why? Because the federal government wasn't even there. They were so negligent that they didn't even bother to send troops, and the side effect was that there were no embedded reporters! Goodman's point last night: imagine what would happen if we the People were to see the same level of uncensored images and raw, real new stories coming from Baghdad. Imagine if it were even for a week.

The mainstream media is not just failing us, it is a complete failure. It is a branch of the government now. The alternatives are out there. Let's defend our alternative news sources, whether it be fighting for Net Neutrality, or supporting local radio.

"Video news releases are packaged stories paid for by businesses or interest groups." Your forgot "The United States Government"

Don't you mean Israel needs to call anyone who dares question it's illegal holding of territory an anti-Semite?
According to Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh interviewed today on Democracy Now the U.S. and Israel have been planning on invading Lebanon for over a year in a war of aggression using the flimsy casus belli of kidnapping when in fact it is Israel that holds THOUSANDS of kidnapped Muslim civilians, as the first stage in a broader war of aggression against Iran. Fortunately Hizbollah was able to fight Israel to a standstill leading to the current thank G*d cease fire or we might have been looking at WWIII. Eventually all we can hope for is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Olmert will hang for premeditated war crimes if there is any justice in the world.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/1 4/1358255

Many Republicans are extremely corrupt, and are willing to do anything to get what they want. Read more about it: Armed Madhouse.

Do you think that the violence of the U.S. government will end the 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East?

Are you willing to pay to occupy Iraq so that supplies from the second biggest reserves of oil in the world can be restricted, thus driving up the price of oil?

Can people who gladly pay to kill other people be correctly called Christians?

Everybody hates Israel. But not because they're jews, but because they kill UN peace-keeping forces. And don't come with this "oh, those poor jews, those poor jews" bullshit. They were bombing the fucking place for hours even though they exactly knew that there were UN soldiers in that outpost. Oh, and just in case anybody thinks that Palestine or Lebanon started the whole thing, this is not true: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/1 4/146258

If your home was invaded and you were incapacitated, you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up

Unless it was the cops doing the invading...

250 cops raid house and shoot innocent man in the chest

Man Shot Dead by British Police Was Innocent Brazilian Citizen

Get a dog, they're much better protection than police.

Democracy Now!, one of the finest news programs in the world (radical and non-corporate), has been broadcasting daily audio and audio/video for download/stream - in many formats and bitrates, including FLAC and uncompressed MPEG - for years (as well as radio and even TV if you're lucky).

Well, if we follow the lines you are proposing, it might as well can be said that the companies who have produced the weapons for the army should be allowed to decide and regulate where they are going to be used, how and when.

Because, at its this state, the COPE bill is enabling telcos to do exactly that - despite being laid in public property, with the work funded by the public, and paid for use by the public.

I indeed believe that if something becomes too far-fetched in consequences should be no-one's property. The opposite is WAY too dangerous to risk.

Compensation ? There is no country in the world that heapload of taxes are not paid to be found squandered in shady deals and 'incentives' awarded to some businesses close to current adminstration. Just like what is happening with the bush adm right now, like the oil grab in iraq, some companies taking over some 'reconstruction' works without facing any competition, and so on.

Any compensation for these companies which put (and IF they did put) money in setting up public lines, can be arranged and paid back in a defined schedule over years. Also, as Rep. Markey said apparently yesterday in congress : Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser and its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet-switched network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Beranek, & Newman got the contract, a very small company -- not AT&T. They had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now, at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation. It is this absence of non-discriminatory language in the Manager's Amendment and in the bill to which I object. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/0 9/1427218

Today's broadcast has a good interview on this subject. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/0 9/1427218

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/0 5/1432203

RAY McGOVERN: Well, talk about that disingenuity. I mean, sure, they wore chemical [suits], because Rumsfeld and his generals ordered them to. This proves nothing, other than they went through with this charade. The Australian troops wore no such protective covering, because they knew there were no weapons there. The Australians knew these weapons were a figment of the propaganda put out by our Defense Department, so they blithely went in there without any protective covering. So it was all a charade.

your analogy is faulted. If someone breaks into my home, steaks my secrets and gives them to someone else to be be pulished, they are guilty of breaking and entering. I may be arrested if those secrets indicade illegal activity, despite the method of abtaining them. I and the perp may be arrested. If the secrets were obtained by a third party from someone that lived in my house, say, my wife, then it is not theft, simply me being turned in for illegal activity.
Defense secrets should be kept secret, but what if the secrets are hiding illegal activity that needs to, no must, be exposed.

If the gvt. spying on legal protesters because of "national secrets" issues but is realy cracking down on its critics, would you want to know? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 5/155219/

If the gvt. (read NSA) is spying on American citizens who are living in America, wouldn't you want to know? (NSA is't chartered to do domestic spying)http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/121 6-01.htm/

If the gvt. is spying on/jailing reporters due to "some laws" in an effort to curtail their investigations into administration acrivities that may be illegal, wouldn't you wnat to know? http://judithmiller.org/news/p20050801.php/

If the gvt. gave specific reasons for going to war, and some of them may have been fabricated to convince the public, wouldn't you want to know?http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article= 35415/

If the gvt. were opening your mail because it came from overseas, wouldn't you want to know?Ifthegvt.wasreadingyouremailbecauseyouattende dananti-warprotestincollege,wouldn'tyouwanttoknow? Ifthegvt.wasreclassifyinghundredsofthousandsofdocu mentsthathadbeenpublishedforyearsordecades,wouldn' tyouwanttoknowwhy?Ifyouweresomehowonanoflylistandw ereinnowayaffailatedwithterroristsbutwereawellknow nwarprotester,wouldn'twanttoknowwhy?Ifthegvt.isspy ingoncitizenswithoutacourtorder(don'tgivethatbulls hitaboutorderstakingtoolong,theycangetaFISAorderth reedaysAFTERthespyinghasbeendone),wouldn'twouwantt oknow?Icouldgoon(andon),butyoushouldgettheideabyno w.Thegvt.shouldhavesecrets,butifthosesecretsarecov eringupillegalactivity,thepeoplehavearighttoknowan dthepresshasaobligationtotellthem.Thepresidenthasg reatpowerwhilewearewar,butisn'titinterestingthatwe areinaneverendingwaronterror.Nopoliticianwouldever endthewaronterroraslongasterrorsomewhereexists

As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International (AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running a Soviet-style gulag.

It surprises me that a "card-carrying member" of AI wouldn't already have heard the extensive proof of our network of secret prisons when the story finally hit the mainstream news... Indy media such as Democracy Now have covered the topic every few months since 2004!

One from November 2004, an interview with Stephen Gray...
July 2004 with Michael Posner...
June 2004 (just a brief unsubstantiated blurb on the topic).



Sadly, superheroes could tell the government to go pound sand - What could Bush do against Superman? But we mere normals have little choice in the matter. Please leave your DNA sample at the door and you'll receive your RealID card in two to six weeks as long as your name doesn't sound Middle-Eastern.


Now, if you want secret prison conspiracy theories - Google for "Rex 84".

As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International (AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running a Soviet-style gulag.

It surprises me that a "card-carrying member" of AI wouldn't already have heard the extensive proof of our network of secret prisons when the story finally hit the mainstream news... Indy media such as Democracy Now have covered the topic every few months since 2004!

One from November 2004, an interview with Stephen Gray...
July 2004 with Michael Posner...
June 2004 (just a brief unsubstantiated blurb on the topic).



Sadly, superheroes could tell the government to go pound sand - What could Bush do against Superman? But we mere normals have little choice in the matter. Please leave your DNA sample at the door and you'll receive your RealID card in two to six weeks as long as your name doesn't sound Middle-Eastern.


Now, if you want secret prison conspiracy theories - Google for "Rex 84".

As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International (AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running a Soviet-style gulag.

It surprises me that a "card-carrying member" of AI wouldn't already have heard the extensive proof of our network of secret prisons when the story finally hit the mainstream news... Indy media such as Democracy Now have covered the topic every few months since 2004!

One from November 2004, an interview with Stephen Gray...
July 2004 with Michael Posner...
June 2004 (just a brief unsubstantiated blurb on the topic).



Sadly, superheroes could tell the government to go pound sand - What could Bush do against Superman? But we mere normals have little choice in the matter. Please leave your DNA sample at the door and you'll receive your RealID card in two to six weeks as long as your name doesn't sound Middle-Eastern.


Now, if you want secret prison conspiracy theories - Google for "Rex 84".

I laughed my ass off. The Helen Thomas bit was a reference to a run-in she had with President George W. Bush. The well-known figure of Washington press basically called the President of the United States a liar who sent soldiers to die in Iraq for no good reason. President Bush kind of sputtered in response. He probably still has nightmares about Helen Thomas. Oh, and Thomas got moved all the way back in future press releases. Heh, heh.

There's some evidence that NPR has a conservative bias. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting periodically studies the NPR guestlist to determine if NPR "promote[s] personal growth rather than corporate gain" and "speak[s] with many voices, many dialects" as it purports to do. FAIR has a page dedicated to NPR that includes all their criticism of NPR programming. Was FAIR fair to NPR in their study of conservative bias? NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin says "The FAIR study seems about right to me with a couple of exceptions."

Long before podcasting, I ripped NPR programming from their RealAudio streams and crunched it down to MP3s. I stopped giving money to NPR when they killed low power FM. I felt that the corporate sponsors were (and still are) using NPR to greenwash their reputation, but I still enjoyed a lot of the programming. But NPR never strayed far enough from the administration's line for me when they covered the Iraq War, and when they "scooped" the rest of the media with their phony WMD claim, I gave up on them entirely. I turned to Democracy Now, and I use their podcast service. I also contribute more to them than I ever did to NPR, since they're free of corporate sponsorship.

For convenient podcast downloads for NON-iPod MP3 players, try iTunes + iTunes Agent.

iTunes
http://www.apple.com/itunes/

iTunes Agent - use any MP3 player with iTunes
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=54 9637

My Morning Playlist
Nature Podcast (science journal)
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/

NPR 5-minute News Summary
NPR Health & Science
NPR Technology
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_directory.p hp?type=topic

Democracy NOW! (news - better than NPR in some ways)
http://democracynow.org/podcast_help.shtml#feeds

Diggnation (latest general blog news from digg.com)
http://revision3.com/diggnation

This Week in Tech (weekly tech news)
http://twit.tv/podcastinfo

Security Now! (tech/security news)
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm

President's Weekly Radio Address (comedy)
http://weeklyradioaddress.com/

and I used to listen to Ricky Gervais (comedy), but he charges $$ now.
http://www.rickygervais.com/podcast.php

Part of living in the USA is dealing with things like this. What it comes down to it, if you are suspected by the government of being a terrorist, you have no rights.

I think these people would agree.

When govt agents visit college professors saying "We have derrogatory information on you" and that they're investigating "terrorism" (which puts them outside the Consitution), and that they'll be making frequent visits...... Can we see a pattern of repression here?

Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.

Except that political retribution happens here anyway. After the Venezuelan govt made inexpensive fuel available to poor Americans, the VZ fuel company CITGO is being put under a microscope by Congress.

Some Venezuelans who normally teach in the US have had their visas revoked, or their classes held-up. Government agents swaggering by your office saying "We have derrogatory information on you". "Blah Blah TERRORISM Blah Blah...", which is the new codeword for "We're not accountable to the Constitution".

If US efforts to dispense aid met with investigations by politicians, or US teachers were prevented from teaching abroad, the foreign country would be labeled "totalitarian" (except if you are fascist like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan-- then you get to buy ad time on our airwaves for propaganda).

Accoona Home|Web Search Results Results 1 - 10 of 7,131,713 for democracy
        Tell me about: Democracy

1. Democracy Now!: radio and TV news ... and TV stations in your local area that air Democracy Now! Independent Media is more important than ever ... Democracy Now! is now offering a "podcast" of our show a way ...
http://www.democracynow.org/

___

At least Google has the decency to demote these pinko commies to second place, but what would you expect from China?

(Handbasket, please.)

Sir, not all is lost.

There is one last bastion of hope over here!

And please, spread the word, for those who have given up hope, will have it restored.

I'm not sure if this has already been posted...
Diebold's chief executive Walden O'Dell said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/0 4/159216

There is vastly greater potential for fraud with eletronic machines when the management of the company that makes them is committed to "delivering" votes to a certain party...

~nog_lorp

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/0 4/159216

Diebold is front for the Republican party. It's CEO was committed to delivering Ohio votes to Bush. Looks like he did. This is further supported by the fact that it was statistically impossible for Bush to win Ohio given the exit polling data they used compared to every past election in history. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/0 4/159216

Yes, what could possibly go wrong with computer voting? http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/114.htm l Your example is ridiculous. The problem with computer voting using a closed-source voting software program whose data is easily manipulated without leaving any trace is that anyone can more easily alter votes without detection. The fact that it rained on some SAT scores is irrelevant because it doesn't address the issue of manipulating votes. Surely you understand that someone can easily change the outcome of an election by changing a massive number of votes without leaving a trace? Sure, accidents happen, but adding this unprotected, unaudited code in the mix makes manipulating votes easier, not harder, which is troublesome, given Diebold's connections to the Republican party. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/0 4/159216

I was astonished at how relatively difficult it was, to google Sybil Edmunds. It would seem that the gag order was rather successful, the bastards. I finally found this:

Democracy Now! also had on Sybil Edmunds, the FBI agent who slammed as "an outrageous lie" Condoleezza Rice's claim that the government had no warning that planes could be used against the US before 9/11. On Monday, a battery of eight Justice Dept officials went to court to try and impose a second all encompassing gag order on her -- which will forbid her from repeating anything that she has previously -- so that she can not testify in a lawsuit filed by 9/11 victims' families. She has already testified before the 9/11 commission. Conservative Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has said he considers her "credible."

In a related astonishment, I read best-selling author Tom Clancy's novel, "Debt of Honor" which concludes with an airliner flying into the Capitol. It was written in 1995. To my understanding, this was long before Condoleeza Rice's Outrageous Lie. Gag me -- <retch> oops, you already did.

Damn them all. How 'bout this shit!

Yep. They fired them for being gay.

I accede to your main point: 9/11 slipped by us because U.S. intelligence was a great big clusterfuck.

I disagree about Pearl Harbor, though. Yes, we had interdepartmental communication failures, just like 2001. In 1941 we knew Yamamoto was planning an attack somewhere, but we were genuinely stunned at the audacity of hitting Pearl Harbor.

http://www.democracynow.org/ itunes link http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPodcast?id=73802554

An invasion of privacy by any body is bad, whether private or governmental. A governmental invasion of privacy, however, is much more serious because of the government's police powers. When coupled with a lack of proper checks and balances, the problem becomes more serious. Take, for example, the case of an innocent Canadian citizen who was detained by the US and sent to Syria to be held and tortured for over a year.

"Illegal"? The article is talking about legal wiretapping... "Patriot Act"? The article says "especially in Europe".

But anyway, which "other means of communication and planning" will the enemy use? Their own telephone network? Their own Internet? If they have to attach an encryption expert to every terrorist cell in the field, their efficiency will be crippled. But even that will not work -- often times, the content of the communication is less important, than the very fact of it, or a sudden change in its volume.

First of all, the quote in your original post was by Ben Franklin, and thus clearly applies to the US, and also is not directly referring to the article in any way. I am responding to your post, which although spawned by discussion about the article is unrelated to it.

Next, you seem to think that all possible means of communication or circumvention of monitoring have been considered and taken care of by the government. No person or group of people can think of every possibility, and some channels have undoubtedly been left open. Given sufficient motivation, they will be found and exploited. And anyway, the "problems" you raise can be addressed relatively easily. There is no need to attach an encryption expert to a terrorist cell. There is nearly uncrackable (with current technology) encryption technology available commercially, or even for free. This is designed for businesses and individuals to be able to use, and does not require any particular expertise. Furthermore, if the volume of encrypted traffic is being monitored as an indicator, it would be relatively simple to create a large volume of "nonsense" encrypted traffic to mask any change in the amount of meaningful communication.

Your persecution complex is rivaled only by that of superiority.

Ad hominem attacks never help to advance a rational argument.

Funny, I don't remember Iran being a democracy.

That's because you're an American and you're utterly ignorant of the world outside the US border. The US was responsible for destroying democracy in Iran.

One could argue that because of the Afghan and Iraq wars, all the focus for the "terrorists" is on/in the middle east. Now while I'll generally agree with this assertion, it can also be said that because of the Iraq war, there are far more "terrorists" to be afraid of.

At this point, I agree with one of my fellow responders - I'm now more afraid of the government then of the "terrorists". Although, this is only very shortly followed by my fear of the "American people".

For example - the president institutes a secret spying campaign on the American people that is expressly forbidden by the law (as well as known by NSA agents as "it's something that we all know you just don't do") that was designed to avoid all checks and balances (in this case, judicial oversight). Now, the idea of "checks and balances" is a central tenant of the founding fathers vision of what was to become America. This is something that I was taught in primary school. And yet, when one of the major American news organization did a poll on if the president should have gotten warrants (read: judicial oversight) in this campaign, only 56% said that he should have (I could only find this story in the Google cache which claims only 47% believe he should have gotten warrants - far scarier).

That right there scared the living shit out of me! Only 56% (or 47%) of the (responding) population has a sense that the idea of an Executive with unchecked power is a bad idea!?!?

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who's a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that's a gospel to a SIGINT officer.

I'm pretty much there with you.

There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

Crime without Conviction: U.S. Makes Deals With Corporate Criminals Instead of Prosecuting
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/2 9/151220

Corporations that commit securities and accounting fraud can now expect to get sweetheart deals from the Justice Department, and they don't face public exposure for their misdeeds. We speak with Russell Mokhiber of Corporate Crime Reporter.

Actually, all the well-known corporate scandals took place in the late 1990's, on the watch of a certain good-time Charlie whose mind was on other pursuits, and were exposed very early in Bush's first term.

Not only was Clinton too busy having his dick sucked to take any notice of the largest frauds in American history, but his own DNC Chairman was involved in Global Crossing up to his eyeballs. Terry McAuliffe schemed with his good pal, CEO Gary Winnick, to pump and dump a $100,000 investment to the tune of $18 million, stealing a fortune from pension funds and mom-&-pop investors.

Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and those responsible for the biggest frauds are being aggressively pursued by the Bush Justice Department. Many of the major offenders have already been convicted and handed stiff sentences, and more are certain to follow.

I am sorry to have to bring this news to all you dewy-eyed college dimwits who think that these are Republican scandals. It must be hard on your tender unformed psyches when reality socks you with a clue-by-four.

Thanks for cleaning up Clinton's mess, W!

-ccm