Slashdot Mirror

This raises interesting questions about how Skype and eBay together will try to avert cyber criminals from using security flaws in either system to their advantage.

Look at what Yahoo! did to the alleged Chinese "spy"—work with the Chinese government to release information posted online via Yahoo! servers. Reporters without Borders was surprised how easy it was for Shih Dao (forgive my misspelling) to be caught, but it turns out that Yahoo! handed the Chinese government information on this reporter that was widely miscited as a spy after the reporter used Yahoo!'s hosting service to report on censorship activity. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's radio program "Counterspin" has a report on this that is worth listening to (about 6 minutes and 40 seconds into the file). Unfortunately this is only available in proprietary and patent-encumbered formats, but perhaps it airs on a local radio station near you.

Well, lets see. Communism, the ultimate form of liberalism, was responsible for about a million dead. :)

But useless rhetoric aside, I assume that this large amounts of people you are implying refers to the Iraq war? I think it is only fair to point out that half a million died in Iraq under UN sanctions that the liberals supported and the conservatives wanted to do away with. In fact, Madeline Albright was quoted as saying that the price of five hundred thousand dead from disease and starvation (arguably the worst ways that somebody can die) was worth it for temporary peace.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

(oh and by the way, when CNN aired this interview with her, they edited out that portion of it, though I am uncertain of the exact reason why, but I think I have a good idea)

If you care to notice, the death rate in Iraq is now lower now than before the Iraq war, as well as people there now actually have access to large quantities of fresh water, food, and education whereas they didn't before. So if anything it seems to me that we are saving large amounts of people as well as improving their overall quality of life.

Also, for what it is worth (kind of off scope of the discussion,) many top democrats were supportive of the war prior to it actually happening. In fact, in many cases they were more vocal about Saddam having WMD's than Bush was. See a few quotes from them below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007910/p osts

Are abortion clinic bombings not counting as a form of protest?

No it is not, that is called terrorism and not protest (huge difference,) and those people are called fundamentalist terrorists, not conservatives, and we treat them just like we treat e.g. islamic terrorists (if not worse actually, because there's no ACLU like organization to defend their criminal activity.) Even the most hated (by liberals) conservative pundits such as Bush, O'reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc will tell you the same thing and nobody in the Republican party endorses this at all.

These extremists don't even call themselves conservatives. In fact, groups like them and the KKK tend to hate the Republican party more than they hate the Democratic party. (Actually it is worth noting that the KKK started from the democratic party. In fact there are a few democrats currently in office, such as senator Robert Byrd, that are ex-clansmen.)

Is invading a country without the support of the world humble or putting yourself above them?

I don't like to answer a question with a question, but who is the world exactly? The US coalition in Iraq is officially backed by 30 other nations, and passively supported by approximately another 15. The "world" argument I typically see is only represented by the UN's voice. However, the UN's sanctions were what were responsible for the half million deaths in Iraq. Even the Clinton administration was getting on them about this, and he even knew that something needed to be done about Saddam very soon. George Bush knowing this decided to kill three birds with one stone, the third bird being that we need a powerful ally for a foothold in the middle east to better fight the war on terror. Iraq has a huge potential of being an economic superpower just because of it's oil reserves, so when people say this war is about oil, they are technically correct, but not in the sense that they otherwise believe.

But that aside, even if the entire world was against it, that doesn't mean they are correct. You should know that democracy itself isn't about majority rule, but rather the balance of power of all parties involved. Our constitution is designed exactly to this effect. FWIW, when Abraham Lincoln declared an end to s

Murray and Herrnstein describe Lynn as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." Here's a sample of Lynn's thinking on such differences: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94)

Elsewhere Lynn makes clear which "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out": "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)

From the same guy: What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality. ... Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization? Slashdot posting stories from leading racists? Awsome.

No, it's an old myth by now, but people really should now better. Saddam never expelled the U.N. weapon inspectors.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1650

As the PIPA report (pdf) found, FOX makes you stupid.

I'm not saying this is the end of Franco-American relations, but only that Americans will remember France's actions for longer than the French think.

I'm one of the Americans who were against the Iraqi invasion without UN support and supported France's stance. I am still waiting to see those WMDs, where are they? The sanctions against Iraq were working. Mind you I'm not saying I supported Saddam, I was against him when Reagan and Bush Sr supported him while he was using those WMDs against Iran as well as Kurds and others in Iraq.

The Washington Post's Gas Attack
Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal

I'm not even sure if this deserves a response, but...

1) source? you really shouldn't quote numbers without a link.

2) data manipulation? what about the rest of the US.? you know, the part closer to the north pole?

3) do your fucking research! It is NOT very possible that we are coming out of a mini ice age. In fact, almost all scientists (especially those not employed by polluting industries) agree that this is not the case. You may have been misinformed by media that often quote radical scientists when trying to present a "balanced" report:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

4) You believe that science should provide proof that greenhouse gases cause global warming?
How about all the information here: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877. php

Oh that's right, you're going to say that we shouldn't trust the UN, even if these reports are published by the top scientists in the world? Well, didn't you take high school chemistry? Anyone with knowledge of simple chemistry will tell you of the potential dangers of green house gases. (yes, i say potential here to be diplomatic -- see #7)

5) you like to separate yourself from "environmentalists", because you obviously don't care about the long-term environment, and would rather have cheap prices today than do your part in keeping the world safe for future generations? that's selfish and narrow minded.

6) ahh..environmentally-friendly liberal media. do you just like throwing around these sayings, because you've heard them so many times they must be true? are you really that stupid to fall into partisan name-calling tactics? anyway, in terms of environmentalism, the media is actually biased against environmentalism (see above link).

7) even IF we are at the end of a mini ice age (which is highly unlikely), you still must recognize the possible devastating effects of our continued release of so many green house gases into the atmosphere, and should especially be in favor of economically-friendly initiatives.

8) I'm not sure why you chose this forum to voice your support of Bush, and ignorance towards the Kyoto agreement. This story was about taxi drivers who drive environmentally-friendly cars because it is ultimately cheaper for them, hence invalidating your claim that environmentally-friendly products cost the consumer more.

9) There ARE environmentally-friendly solutions that are also economically beneficial. In fact, this is really the best way to get industries to act in the environment's (and hence, in OUR) best interest. Simple examples include environmentally-aware heating and air-conditioning, like placement of the windows, or having heat ducts near the floor instead of near the ceiling. More complex examples generally involve symbiotic relationships with our environment to utilize a renewable or recyclable resource.

10) Please leave your politics at the door, and before responding to an article with your bias, research the topic. Forget everything you think you know, and take a fresh look at the information available. It will only make you a smarter person.

I don't know why people offer that as a viable option. It implicitly agrees with the parent stance by not criticizing its logic at all, yet simultaneously offers no course of action which allows people to help one another out of a fundamentally flawed situation. We should want to (and actually engage in) helping other people. My friends and neighbors might be amongst the viewers and, simply through ignorance of how computers work and what the free software movement proved is possible, might accept the bound-to-be-bad advice offered. I don't think they deserve to be treated that way.

I've seen similar responses most recently around media criticism; point out how corporate news agencies will run government propaganda pieces as if they are news but they're really not, or point out how weapons manufacturers interests are served by the videogame-like war footage we see (Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" made this point in an intriguing talk she gave during a book tour), or point out an instance where pro-war voices are overrepresented in the popular news media and the almost non-sequitur response is "but you don't have to watch it! Just turn it off!".

This response tries to reframe a systemic issue as a point of personal preference--it's not about how the proposed system is likely to fail people in making important decisions, ignoring objectionable behavior instead of pointing out its failings is about letting the system have its way with people unimpeded in the slightest way.

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

1) Please learn what editorializing means.

2) As far as journalistic integrity and standards go, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't you agree? (Note: I didn't even start on Fox's cheerleading of every piece of bogus evidence and stifling of counterevidence that led up to the war... something that "liberal" CNN took part in as well, to a lesser degree)

The point is not Giuliana Sgrena. She is not a weapons expert and I don't expect her tale to be accurate to the last technical detail, as the whole episode lasted only a few seconds and during these she probably thought of otherwise than writing the next story.
The point is an hostage being retrieved through a paid ransom.

1. Insurgents kidnap Italian
2. Italian government pays ransom
3. Hostage is freed, resistance gets money
4. Insurgents kidnap another Italian since the Italian government pays, go back to 1

It would otherwise be interesting to actually see those satellite pictures, not just a link by an American to an American news site quoting an American TV station about an American satellite.

And no, she did not like the US, nor did the experience much to improve her views. Same can be said for the majority of Italians.

Let us all hope!
Jeff Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, resigned his job with the conservative Talon News after it was revealed he had used a pseudonym, had little journalism background, and had ties to male escort Web sites. ["http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_disp lay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000856306"]
At the same time, I (Armstrong Williams) understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. People need to know that my column is uncorrupted by any outside influences. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my bad judgment, and to better explain the circumstances. ["http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwill iams/aw20050110.shtml"]
http://www.fair.org/index.php

That quote doesn't contradict what I'm saying. The second two links when googling for astroturf and grassroots yield this and this, written in 1998 and 1996 about ordinary political astroturfing, and both of them make it seem like the term had been around for a little while.

Sure, Microsoft in 1998 might have been the first time a big tech company astroturfed in forums and got caught.

no i obviously do not support the filtering of Chinese internet access. nor do i support the filtering of American journalists covering wars such as Gulf War I or Gulf War II. nor do i support tv stations that won't let high school students air commercials about non-smoking. nor do i support radio stations that play the same content across the continent. nor do i support the concentratrion of media ownership in the hands of a very powerful few much to the detriment of people like us.

free speech isn't just about being able to shout, it's also about hearing every voice you need to hear. for analysis of how speech is not truly free in North America see Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

However flawed it is, support Indy Media in your town.

and what are we talking about? we're talking about Free Speech It is not just about howling to keep the Right, it is remembering that it has to be exercised continually in defense of it -- and that includes questioning how we exercise it.

oh and in answer to the first question about "upset" about it, well we're talking about the Toronto Sun which is just desperate to be seen as a hot and important news source.

to advocate for more North Koreas is to advocate for dictatorship, concentration camps, mass starvation, and zero freedom.

Whereas the US prefers to starve the children of other nations. It's okay though because it's worth it.

The government says "no, you can't. This time must be given to someone else for what we think is "fair"".

Your creativeness in attributing absurd and unlikely bad things to Fairness knows no bounds.

The government would never say "no, you can't." They would say "allow this person time to respond."

What's really funny about this is that you are implying that there just isn't time to be fair, and if we forced poor broadcasters to be fair there just wouldn't be any time left over after all that fairness...

You slay me, AA.

Before they ran that Kerry piece, I heard nothing about how evil it was all over the media, including on Fox News.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard about it, since you have proven yourself really exceptionally ignorant. I would also be surprised if you would admit it anyway. Nonetheless, Sinclair's practices, which include conservative commentaries from its owners slipped into newscasts, are well documented.

Here's a nice list of watchdogs: left, center and right

We've already dispatched this fairly childish attack on FAIR.

it's rather clear that such advocacy is necessary for democracy

You have just cranked your Weaseling into 6th gear.

You claim that propaganda (on TV and radio) is necessary for a democracy.

I don't think I can really add anything to this...

You have stuck with the left wingers

Nope.

But I notice you have stuck with name calling, because you were too smart to make any actual substantive claims against them.

Go look at the right-wing sites and you will find examples for the other side as "good" as the ones you have given.

This is the heart of your lie, AtariAmarok. They are not as "good." In fact, they are not even close.

You provided a laughable hatchet job and a childish essay. You haven't marshalled a single coherent complaint against FAIR - and no links to back up any claims about them. No disputing any particular coverage of theirs.

You want to pretend they're "as 'good'" because that improves the really awful lying that goes on in these conservative propaganda instruments.

By the way, you earlier mentioned media consolidation. There is none.

That's absurd.

The biggest protest in history resulted in the FCC's pro-consolidation rules being overturned. The media companies are unhappy, because they want to consolidate even further than they are currently allowed.

AtariAmarok is, of course, hoping we will forget how his bogus arguments for the internet, cable and satellite have already been dealt with. He is also hoping we will ignore the trends underlying that court case - that increasingly, in a given market, a single company wants to own "everything" - the major television stations, radio stations, and the biggest newspapers.

Propaganda is not so bad! Let the few dozen people who control the mass media say whatever they want. Because no longer requiring them to give every american a voice... is censorship! Somehow!

Clear Channel, by the way, went from 40 stations to 1,225 since the last time the rules were relaxed, in 1996. That's a little less than a thousand more stations than its closest competitor.

But thanks for trying to weasel out of that too!

Identifying media outlets that are left-of-center is not the same as identifying a "VLWC".

"(hoping you would back off) What... you really believed you could fool anyone?"

Seeing that I was referring to hoping you would back off on making stuff up, this response is pretty much off-topic.

Did I say there was conservatism on one side and truth on the other? Anywhere, at any time? Even in jest?

Yes, you did, when comparing right-wing media to left-wing media.

"despite your vast left-wing conspiracy theory"

I don't have one. You are working once again from a false premise.

It was their job to tell the truth. It was their job to be nobody's friend - to be impartial and fair.

Yet, there are right-wing watchdog groups that document their "offenses", just as left-wing groups like FAIR document the "offenses" of Fox News.

"...that liberals are a vast conspiracy to be valiantly resisted by struggling conservative outsiders"

Not my view. My view has been to let them speak regardless of someone's perception of balance. I don't think that Fox News and conservatives are "needed" for any sort of "Balance". Just let them say whet they want to say.

"I'm saying conservatives are the only ones who have a real proapganda machine. You're trying to paint me as accusing them of only having propaganda."

Your new reworded statement only proves your strong left-wing bias even more.

"You cannot do the same for Franken."

Yes you can. There are right-wing sites that bash Franken just as there are left-wing sites that bash Limbaugh. They are both the same in manner, demeanor, and overall accuracy. Only a real wing-nut would think that one is so much different from the other.

You may claim "I have a lot of evidence, I just don't have to give it."

No, I claim there is evidence, and make sure to give it. Next...

"I am not even saying there are not crackpot, liar liberals out there. Just that they are nowhere near what the conservatives have."

To a left-winger, the left-wing kooks are pretty much OK, just like the right-wingers who say "I am not even saying there are not crackpot, liar conservatives out there. Just that they are nowhere near what the liberals have."

"If you had any real reason not to trust FAIR you would share it with us."

I already shared very specific points, including founder Jeff Cohen's credentials as a left-wing activist, their refusal to bash left-wingers like they bash right wingers, and how they got the facts wrong several times in their war with Limbaugh.

However, here is another link. It is centrist. It lists a centrist media watchdog link (something you were not capable of doing), and gives both the right and left wing "watchdogs" (AIM and FAIR) hell:

Grading the Political Web.

I'm sure you will ignore this. However, here is one you will find hard to ignore. Go to this page at FAIR.ORG. They claim they are a "progressive group" in this page. Progressive is to conservative as left is to right. They admit their own bias. I'm almost afraid to link to a definition of "progressive", considering that you blew a gasket when I pointed out (using the definition) what "propaganda" meant.

Let's go through the AtariAmarok posting checklist:

Since you use the term "propaganda" for political opinion you do not like

Repetition of ridiculous lie that doubles for something resembling a "theme": check.

Hmm, let's repeat it again. Saying this lie does not make it true. Being challenged again and again to justify it, and chickening out every time and never providing even one link makes it painfully obvious.

It is not merely "documenting" conservative expression of information: it slams it all the time. They do not slam liberal expression of information. This slamming of one side and not the other is clear evidence of bias.

Repeating crazy, already discredited accusations without proof: check.

We have already established that you make up whatever you like about any individual or group, and can't back up what you say.

FAIR has credibility and you, having caught yourself in a series of embarrassing lies and missteps, do not.

I'd love to provide a link to a place in FAIR's site criticizing a Limbaugh of the left (such as Michael Moore), but such links do not exist.

Surprisingly ridiculous, obvious, and immediately provable lie: check.

It was already obvious you have never even looked at FAIR or know what they do. Of course, you deny it, continue to make baseless libels against them you refuse to back up (that not only myself, but others have chimed in to discredit), you refuse to provide any links, but now to my amazement you have stumbled even more gratuitously.

Here is the FAIR archive. They break down stories by topic, region, and media outlet. There are sections for CBS (Dan Rather!), ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, you name it.

This is leaving aside that your argument is dishonest on its face. Your contempt for anyone reading you is obvious: unless you can point to something specific that's dishonest that FAIR didn't cover, you prove nothing.

If your attempt at deception hadn't been so smashingly sloppy, you might have said, FAIR spends more time covering conservatives, so they're biased. Still not true, just (very slightly) less obvious: Conservatives are have a bigger propaganda apparatus; they are therefore a bigger subject for any watchdog.

(Cue the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" cranks)

Will AtariAmarok apologize, or offer any explanation for this latest shockingly blatant lie? Or will he feel at this point, since this is far from his first such deception that this latest one won't really stand out?

We are amassing quite a good collection of quotes we can point to that will immediately tell anyone everything they need to know about AtariAmarok's character.

I criticize Rush quite happily, but I also criticize the left-wing blowhards. It is the bashing of just one side that shows that someone is on the other.

Vain attempt to disavow own biases: check.

No, the focus of your silly, childish and disgraced attempts here is clearly to decieve people about conservative propaganda and regulations surrounding it - this is fairly obvious, despite how badly you have failed at it.

The same is true of FAIR (substitute "activist group" for commentator, and "liberal" for "conservative.") As for links, I'm still waiting for the link to Karl Rove's racist marching orders you mentioned earlier

Another baseless libel against a media watchdog you will presumably claim you don't need to justify: check.

Another foolish attempt to misquote me: check.

This is a gross misquote. I have repeatedly supported allowing liberal expression of information. I have mentioned Al Franken as a main example. The fact is that I support freedom of expression for both political sides.

Hyporcritically accusing someone of doing what he has just done: check.

It is nothing of the kind. You claimed that "censorship" of television

Since you seem to not want to look any further than your brow, here is more information on Bush going AWOL.

Or, look here.

Or, here.

trying to get Fox censored for not sharing FAIR's political views

It's like you live in a crazy alternate reality where it is impossible to have honest news, so why try. Can you admit that it is even theoretically possible to have an organization that identifies bias and other bad practices in journalism? If you have any specific cases where you think FAIR was off base I'd love to discuss, but my guess is you're not that kind of guy.

Move to China if you love propaganda so much.

Yes, they would do it for free.

Interesting. Why pay them, then?

Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.

Here, Read this.

It's a FAIR report titled "Fox News Spins 9/11 Commission Report".

You can reply to this and make some specific, legitimate complaints about what it says. I will be thrilled to discuss it.

Kidding aside, just the like alleged dismantling of the "Office of Strategic Influence" (i.e., intentionally lying to the press), things may go on [CNN] under different project names. cf. also the Total, er, Terrorism, Information Awareness program.

Kidding aside, just the like alleged dismantling of the "Office of Strategic Influence" (i.e., intentionally lying to the press), things may go on [CNN] under different project names. cf. also the Total, er, Terrorism, Information Awareness program.

Is this good enough?

I mean, they're using national newspapers as sources. Most of the papers are regarded as liberal or left wing. But really, I doubt the Weekly Standard is going to do any stories on the fact that Fox News doesn't quite fit with "Fair and Balanced."

Colmes described himself as a moderate:

And though Fox News markets Colmes as "a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary" (FoxNews.com), it doesn't even get much help from Colmes himself. "I think I'm quite moderate," Colmes blandly told USA Today (2/1/95), not long before being hired as the show's left-wing counterweight to Hannity.

With regards to the name calling, I think you may find plenty of people have different opinions from your own, and have perfectly good reasons for having them. Please note that this does not mean that you do not have good reasons for holding your beliefs.

I believe that you and I have a legitimate difference of opinion about this matter. I'm just as sure that we could find any number of things to agree upon. It makes it more difficult for me to want to consider your ideas and beliefs when you describe my post as trollish.

I was not trying to 'attract a predictable response' or 'make some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial' (troll, n.) I wrote my post to challenge the unchallenged idea that Colmes is a liberal. I'm sorry if my post offended you.

The only references I can find to this story are either The Washington Times or United Press International. All others reporting on this are just repeating their claims. Both sources should be considered unreliable (at best). The Washington Times and UPI are both owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon (of Moonie cult fame) and function as a press version of Fox News.

One thing to remember is that the Cato Institute is a conservative "thinktank," as noted here at the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Site, and indicated by the referenced statement above.

Typically, conservative voters always go vote, and vote replublican regardless of how informed they are; they are creatures of habit. Therefore, if the other "non-informed" voters do not vote, then the tendency will be toward the conservative candidates.

Also interesting to note is the parent's comment, "Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda." Think about it.

One thing to remember is that the Cato Institute is a conservative "thinktank," as noted here at the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Site, and indicated by the referenced statement above.

Typically, conservative voters always go vote, and vote replublican regardless of how informed they are; they are creatures of habit. Therefore, if the other "non-informed" voters do not vote, then the tendency will be toward the conservative candidates.

Also interesting to note is the parent's comment, "Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda." Think about it.

Are you not aware, for example, that Bush completely blew Clinton's surplus and his balanced budget, the first time the budget was balanced for thirty years, and your supposedly conservative president just threw it away for a cheap political stunt, that tax cut you're so enamored of?

Or that No Child Left Behind is mind-boggingly underfunded and ineffective?

Or that Bush lies? Like, never tells the truth? Ever? Like, not once?

Do you choose not to believe this information, or have you just not heard about it?

And I'm just touching on a few of the more minor issues with Bush and his administration. Let's not even mention the total fuckup in Iraq, which surely you can't be as ignorant about as you claim. You'll excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you're not voting for Bush. You have no idea why you shouldn't vote for Bush. You're either not interested enough to educate yourself properly on the issues, or you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican pretending to be independent to convince others that Dubya is truly god, as he himself believes. If you're the former, get a clue and turn off CNN (the Convservative News Network) and Faux News. If you're the latter, then just fuck off.

I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we need more troops, where are they going to come from?

I'll grant you that by itself, re-appointing people to draft boards is no big deal. However, it is the height of foolishness to take this administration's word that everything is rosy - particularly given their track record with WMD and the economy. We're in a situation now where the US is delaying ground action in Fallujah until after the US election, for domestic political reasons.

Are you familiar with a "special skills draft"? I think it's even shown up on Slashdot. Take a look at the slightly contorted statements Bush is making - he's not ruling out a special skills draft, or even mandatory national service (military service optional).

Did you know that the chairman of the RNC threatened legal action against Rock the Vote for trying to use a threat of a draft to motivate college students? Do you feel comfortable with political parties deciding what is or isn't acceptible speech?

Of course, the mainstream media wasn't bothered by the chairman of a party that controls all branches of government threatening legal action for stating an Unfact. I think that proves my point, which was that you can't be educated paying attention to the mainstream media.

Right, as I said before, only one of them actually served with John Kerry, the rest of them said they did, but didn't in any meaningful way. The people on John Kerry's boat have stood behind him. The claims have shown to either be unfalsiable (with claims along the lines of "although I don't know Kerry, I served with him and he can't be trusted"), or lies. The whole premise is stupid, complaining about his Purple Hearts. Take it up with the Navy, people. You can't issue yourself any purple hearts...

Beside, even Bush has (eventually) denounced the ads. You disagree with him?

Like I said, i knew you would go after Ben Barnes. He doesn't like Bush, perhaps because of what he already knows about him? The fact is, he was in a position to help, and said he did. If he doesn't like Bush now, perhaps it's because of what he witnessed before? That's a supposition, but so is your position.

For statistics about MacNeil / Lehrer see FAIR's analysis.

Also, please explain how the liberal media didn't show how weak the case for the Iraq was really was. Explain how the New York Times and the Washington Post had to apologize for, in essense, being a mouthpiece for Bush.

From the original text:

"[Please note: All candidates who met the criteria detailed in The Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates were invited to participate.]"

This was in response to Nader saying he was the first minor party candidate to be asked to participate.

1996: "NON-EVENT"
Perot is excluded in a two-party deal sanctioned by the CPD, according to George Stephanopolous. The Clinton aide revealed his campaign's negotiations with the Dole campaign in a February 1997 panel discussion on the '96 election ("Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '96," Harvard University Institute of Politics).

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Why didn't you have the debates when people were watching the election?"

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "Because we didn't want them to pay attention. And the debates were a metaphor for the campaign. We wanted the debates to be a non-event."

The 1996 debates have shrinking audiences that average 41 million viewers, less than half that of the '92 debates.

2000: 15 PERCENT BARRIER ANNOUNCED
The CPD announces that it will exclude candidates from presidential debates unless they have 15 percent support in national polls on the eve of the debates (CPD news release, 1/6/00). Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).

I turn on the TV and watch liberal news...

Oh? Which of the large media corporations are liberal? Are the folks at Disney (ABC) or GE (NBC) a bunch of socialists?

The notion of a liberal media bias is certainly one of the right's greatest propaganda triumphs - indeed, the right's very success in spreading this meme through the media, argues against the meme's truth.

In fact, journalists themseves tend to center-right.

If you want to know about what the media actually does, check out a documentary like "Independent Media In a Time Of War" (feat. Amy Goodman). It's filled with facts like this one, from FAIR:

A report about the war coverage reveals that "Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."

The five companies, for the record, are NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and AOL TimeWarner- between them, 90% of the television news audience.

NewsCorp is easy to show (see: Fox), for Disney, take a look at the whole Eisner/Farhenheit 9-11 story, for Viacom, check out MTV refusing to air paid spots against the war, for General Electric- well, General Electric is a major arms manufacturer, so I shouldn't need to go any further than that- and for AOL TimeWarner and to reinforce all of the above, well, there's the FAIR source I already cited.

Then there's radio, where you have ClearChannel hosting pro-war rallies, and pressuring its stations not to air anti-war songs.

The reason why Republicans may get confused when I say the media is right-wing is because they assume that the Democrats are left wing. It's an unfortunate reality that both Republicans and Democrats are centrists, and the center of participating Americans is far to the right.

If you want to know about what the media actually does, check out a documentary like "Independent Media In a Time Of War" (feat. Amy Goodman). It's filled with facts like this one, from FAIR:

A report about the war coverage reveals that "Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."

The five companies, for the record, are NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and AOL TimeWarner- between them, 90% of the television news audience.

NewsCorp is easy to show (see: Fox), for Disney, take a look at the whole Eisner/Farhenheit 9-11 story, for Viacom, check out MTV refusing to air paid spots against the war, for General Electric- well, General Electric is a major arms manufacturer, so I shouldn't need to go any further than that- and for AOL TimeWarner and to reinforce all of the above, well, there's the FAIR source I already cited.

Then there's radio, where you have ClearChannel hosting pro-war rallies, and pressuring its stations not to air anti-war songs.

The reason why Republicans may get confused when I say the media is right-wing is because they assume that the Democrats are left wing. It's an unfortunate reality that both Republicans and Democrats are centrists, and the center of participating Americans is far to the right.

It's redundant, but could use repeating.

From Fair .org
What a Difference Four Years Makes

Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now

The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.

--Washington Post, 12/18/98

Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,

--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

RITTER: What makes them convinced? What evidence do they have? We're talking about going to war here, Paula. [...] So frankly speaking, I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war. The bottom line is in 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iraq had no nuclear weapons capability, none whatsoever, zero. So how suddenly are they now an emerging nuclear threat? We'd better have a heck of a lot more to go on than some aluminum pipes.

ZAHN: Let's talk more about what some say is the only independent voice in this whole argument, and that is the International Institute for Strategic Studies. And you just cited the study. In this report, it suggests -- and this report is just out this morning -- that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months if it had foreign help.

Let me read to you what the conclusion was, that, "War sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded but not eliminated Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capabilities, nor removed Baghdad's enduring interest in developing these capabilities."

RITTER: Paula, what do we have here? Rhetoric? Where's the facts? Enduring interest in weapons capability? What does that mean? What evidence do they cite for this enduring interest? You know, ballistic missiles, they say he has 12. What, did they grow? Where are they? They didn't have 12 when I was a weapons inspector.

Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? They talk about bulk agent in terms of Iraq's biological weapons program. What bulk agent? Where did they make it? Bulk agent has a three year lifetime in terms of storage in ideal conditions. The last time Iraq was known to have produced bulk agent was in 1990. That stuff, even if they held onto it, is no longer viable. So to have bulk agent today, Iraq would have had to reconstitute a manufacturing base in biological weapons. Where is it?

This report is absurd. It has zero factual basis. It's all rhetoric. It's all speculative and, frankly speaking, it's meaningless without, you know, with the sad exception that hawks in the Bush administration are going to point to this as justification for war.

We need a heck of a lot more than this if we're going to talk about sending our forces off to fight in a war in Iraq.

Scott Ritter was bashed by the media, who painted him as a traitor to the United States for failing to accept the White House's justifications. It's interesting how the media, often accused of being quite liberal, went out of their way to discredit Ritter and show loyalty to the White House in late 2002, yet reported of just which mouths had engulfed Clinton's penis could hardly be avoided during Monicagate.

The real story here isn't that the White House lied -- if you pay attention, White House officials "flip-flop" so much over the supposed motivations for war that even their caricature of Kerry looks rock solid. The real story here is that the media fell for the Iraq justification (or lack thereof) hook, line, and sinker, while doing the dirty work of discrediting Scott Ritter and ignoring or discrediting any other voices asking for more investigation for military action against Iraq.

You want links? Try these:

Documentation of "flip-flops" by the "liberal" media -- reporting the truth (that UN inspectors voluntarily left in December 1998), then

FAIR is a place to start looking, especaially their article "The 'Oh Really?' Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins Facts and Statistics".

FAIR is a place to start looking, especaially their article "The 'Oh Really?' Factor: Bill O'Reilly Spins Facts and Statistics".