Slashdot Mirror

Fox lying to us, do we have anything (besides our beloved /.) to bring us the news?

Hmmm... I wonder... Ok, since the dems were in power in 2000, there should be lots of stories from the 2000 censored list about how they were abusing their power, let me just check... the 2000 list. Nope. Not a one. Your theory is a bust.

What, calling someone right-ring christian anti-science is the first ad-hominem name calling that has ever occured. Radio talk show hosts simply never put the vile poison incarnate into their tone when they say the word "liberal." As if the election is good god-fearing patriotic freedom-fighting Bush supporters battling the evil liberal scum.

Hey at least Slashdot posted an article to back up my position as of yesterday. Bush is formulaically retarding science in this country. But this election is about important issues anyways, isn't it? Go ahead and vote for the president who stood watch during the worst intelligence breakdown in our nation's security history. First on 9/11 then on WMD in Iraq, but oh ya the CIA took the blame on that one. Congress voted to support Bush as well. What is the saying? "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

(#3) Bush Administration Manipulates Science and Censors Scientists
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/3 .html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bu shfoolme.htm

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

I'd draw your attention to The Media can Leagally Lie

I've followed a bit of this already; I've even seen interviews with the people involved with the case.

In summary:
The milk in the US contains a chemical additive that is cancer causing. That chemical is produced by Monsanto. The FDA tested a few rats and rubber stamped to drug. It causes distress and health problems in many cows. There is hard evidence that Monsanto knew there was problems with the drug before they even sent it for testing at the FDA. FOX suppressed the story (presumably on behalf of Monsanto) using various different sleazy tactics. The investigative reporters in question refused to sign a NDA, and were later fired after about 80 rewrites of the story. The story was rewritten with lawyers present, not scientists. The pretence was that the story should be balanced. The Monsanto lawyers objected to terms like "carcinogenic", preferring more balanced terms such as "may cause health problems".

The reporters won their court case, to find it over turned at appeal. The reason was that lying isn't a crime, and the whistle blower act only protects employees from business asking them to commit a crime. FOX immediately said that they were 'vindicated', but left out the part about lying.

The milk is being drunk all over the US, and is being served to children at schools.

Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags

And just about every major player in the media market will sell you any news so long as it doesn't hurt the corporate agenda.

It's likely that we'll never require samizdat in this country, but we all require tin-foil hats

These stories aren't really censored, they are being ignored, because they are blatantly false....

On the contrary, take #4 for example, High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians, which is ssupported by several publications in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

Why would anyone be so quick to call it propoganda? 10,000 Gulf War vets have already died of diseases with symptoms identical to uranium dust inhalation. Why deny it?

Here are the pertinent excerpts, if you don't believe them then tell me exactly what you don't believe:

UMRC's Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.

At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs....

Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unit ... are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre http://www.umrc.net/ conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156 685c.html

Leuren Moret reports, "In my research on depleted uranium during the past 5 years, the most disturbing information concerns the impact on the unborn children and future generations for both soldiers serving in the depleted uranium wars, and for the civilians who must live in the permanently radioactive contaminated regions. Today, more than 240,000 Gulf War veterans are on permanent medical disability and more than 11,000 are dead. They have been denied testing, medical care, and compensation for depleted uranium exposure and related illnesses since 1991."

Moret continues "Even worse, they brought it home in their bodies. In some families, the children born before the Gulf War are the only healthy members. Wives and female partners of Gulf War veterans have reported a condition known as burning semen syndrome, and are now internally contaminated from depleted uranium carried in the semen of exposed veterans. Many are reporting reproductive illnesses such as endometriosis. In a U.S. government study, conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs on post-Gulf War babies, 67% were found to have serious birth defects or serious illnesses. They were born without eyes (anophthalmos), ears, had missing organs, missing legs and arms, fused fingers, thyroid or other organ malformations...."

UMRC found artificial uranium in bomb craters, surrounding watercourses and the bodies of civilians exposed to US Coalition bombing in Afghanistan. Civilians surveyed presented with the classical symptoms

"an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media."

This is a total non-story posed in a dishonestly sensationalistic fashion.

I certainly understand about the individual, but have you heard about the idea of "Corporate Personhood."

I submit that this was the beginning of the end for our Constitutional government where individual rights mattered.

societal repression through loss of personal respect and dignity at the hands of intransparent authority is not new either. novelty plays only a very small part in deciding the merit (or demerit as the case may be) of the situation. of course, everyone must decide for themselves, and some people choose to weight novelty heavily in their process. perhaps it is those people you are trying to influence.

• the Conprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
• the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines
• the Rome Statue of the Internaitonal Criminal Court (ICC)
• a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
• the Kyoto Protocol
• the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

You have a point that U.S. troops are legitimate military targets - but the bombings of the Red Cross, the UN offices and Iraqi police are in fact terrorist...

What about the markets, hospitals and hotels that the US did atack? It's a war, those inocent people represent the enemy, they do not have weapons and may even be helping your side as well, but for some there are no shadows of gray.

You may be right - but I have to say it will probably be somewhat more democratic than the last regime...

A real democratic process in Irak will most certainly elect a govern that is anti-american and at some level pro-terrorists. People in Irak do not want the americans there. Many people in Irak are fundamentalist Islam.

I do not believe Bush will ever let this happen, the next Irak goverment will be pro-america and there will be a civil war in Irak as soon as the amrican troops there get out.

True, but after the first gulf war Saadam wrapped himself in the Koran as a way of solidifying his support and casting his conflict with America...

What about all the bush speaks about god and good vs evil? Even the pope said that Bush should stop talking about god.

For me there was no reason for US be there if was not blood for oil. It is more then proved that Irak didn't have any weapons of mass destruction as the ONU already have said. It is somewhat stablished that the menace of those weapons of mass destruction were at least exagerated by both the US and UK.

Why all this trouble? Why spend millions of dolars and considerable life toe to go against a threat that you know is (at least) not as bad as you're saying it is? The only answer I can see is oil. If you have another, please tell me.

Also take a look at this for yet another possible economic reason fo the war.

1) The Washington Post publishes a story detailing how employees of Odigo, an Israeli company with offices in the immediate vicinity of the WTC, received a warning hours before the attack. A week or so later, The New York Times reports on how only one Israeli died in the WTC that day, and he was only there visiting, which suggests that Odigo wasn't the only Israeli concern that received a warning. Then there are the reports of an Israeli spy ring that was in extremely close proximity to the alleged hijackers, members of which were observed in Jersey City celebrating as the tower fell. Add to that the fact that Israel has done things like this before (see the Lavon affair, or the U.S.S. Liberty), and the fact that Israel was seen (incorrectly in my view) as the primary beneficiary of 9/11. Conclusive evidence? No. But it's certainly more compelling than what has been amassed against Afghanistan/Iraq, the campaign against the latter being particularly obscene given that it turns out there are NO WMD's and that apparently no U.N. resolutions were violated, meanwhile, Israel is believed to have amassed the world's fifth largest nuclear arsenal and stands as the undisputed leader in violations of U.N. resolutions.

2) The war on drugs is genocide from many different points of view. It is important to first understand that genocide does not necessarily mean killing an entire people. Please review the legal definition. The fact that the origins of our drug laws were derived from hatred towards minorities, blacks especially, and the fact that blacks today are disproportionately targetted by these laws is perhaps the best example. But even more compelling I think is the following statement: our drug policy promotes the use of the most deadly and addictive recreational drugs--alcohol and tobacco--while using violence to punish those who would use the safest and least addictive recreational drugs, like marijuana or Ecstasy. Consider that recreational drug use has been a part of human existance throughout history, and that it has been clear for a very long time now that some people have a greater need/greater problems with recreational drug use. The propensity to use drugs can therefore be described as being related to culture and genetics, two of the components which make up ethnicity, and the targeting of an ethnic group is within the definition of genocide. You can also check out this story, which while not necessarily constituting genocide, if true, amounts to the most deadly holocaust ever inflicted by man upon man.

3) As for feminism, I could spend the rest of the month going into this. I think the main points here however are that our experience with feminism constitutes barely 0.000000001% of human existence yet the preposition that men and women are equal in all things is treated as if it were absolute truth; that the ever escalating regulation of human behavior is the result of politicians pandering to the feminine need for safety above all else; and that it has destroyed, at least in part, the basic social unit that is the family. Again, I could go on... but I have work to do.

How long have we been on the yellow/orange alert?

How long has the administration invaded our privacy on the grounds of "fighting the terrorists"?

How many American citizens are going to be deprived of their constitutional rights?

How many people in general are going to be subjected to delayed justice ("justice delayed is justice denied").

Fuck the war on terror! War is not Freedom! Vote out the warmongering moron-in-chief in 2004!

I'd like to see where you get your numbers. I was with you until you said that the drug war has caused more deaths (300 million) than the total population of the U.S.

I said 300,000,000 was a possible number. There's the open question of how many have died because they were denied the medical care of their choosing. Then there are all those who may have died because research was banned. How many AIDS deaths are to be attributed to our denying addicts clean needles? How many are to come? Then add overdoses, most of which wouldn't have happened if we regulated the manufacture of drugs and required proper dosage information. And then there's my answer to your next comment...

Also, it's hard to cry fascism when the simplest solution is to simply confine your drug use to those that are legal (alcohol and nicotine appear to be quite popular these days).

You miss the point though. Our drug policy promotes the use of the most deadly and addictive recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco, while using violence to punish those who would use the safest of recreational drugs, even if such use is only for medicinal purposes.

And we've been pursuing this policy for decades now, all while knowing that the drugs we promote are the most addictive and the most deadly and that the consequence of this policy is many, many people dying.

And not only do we pursue the policy for ourselves, we use our military and economic might to force other countries to adopt the very same policy.

It's very easy to cry fascism here. And the death toll is simply nothing less than shocking.

Finally, your obvious anger and use of terms like "fucking retards" to describe middle America marks you as one who is still idealistic / young.

You're a condenscending piece of shit, but that's OK, you're exactly where you should be, and your future is exactly what you deserve. To take offense at a term like fucking retard amidst all of the atrocities we commit is repugnant and repulsive and I can only observe that the silver lining to all of this is that, in the end, rat fucks like you take it hard in the teeth.

Shove off, monkey.

I think this: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq ties in nicely.

The crime isn't that they ignored these treatments.

The crime is that the federal government banned research into marijuana for this purpose back in the 70's.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/2 2.html

Actually, there is over a hundred years of legal precedent behind the notion that corporations ARE persons under the constitution. In 1886, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad was heard by the US Supreme Court. The Court reporter's case summary (note: the Court reporter being formerly a Railroad company president; the case summary holding no legal bearing whatsoever) had the added clause: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.", which not decided by the court. In fact, the judges themselves were quite relieved that they were able to settle the case without having to address the point of corporate personhood. However, as a hundred years pass, this informal summary becomes the legal basis for corporate personhood, and eventually becomes something of a common law, well...law.

In 1978, this was solidified by the Supreme Court, which expressly ruled that corporations were persons under the Constitution, ruling in their favor on the matter of free speech, and the ability to give money to political causes.

So, Corporations in some senses *are* persons in and of themselves, but the validity of the statement is questionable, at best.

Source

No, I haven't, Dumbrat, but these people have.

Go on and give yourself a big pat on the back.

And here...

Unions were originally formed because of the horrible conditions employees were facing.

You mean like getting their skulls busted by hired security whenever they attempted a picket?

If things worked like you think they do, I'd be all for the goverment taking their hands off as well - but business has proven time and again that they're more than willing to play as dirty as necessary in order to get their way - I'm not going to take what little advantage the unions have managed to gather out of their hands.

RE: the idea of unions being all-empowered from the tip of some politician's pen - In case you missed the Project Censored article a while back, maybe you'd like to take a look at this before saying much more along those lines. Maybe what you're saying was true in the '70's, but times seem to have changed.

the word you are looking for is apartheid - where they discriminate against ppl by name, color, creed or religion. where discrimination can take any form that denies them of some basic human right.

like in israel - isreali citizens of arab origin.. whether muslims or christians are discriminated against. they cant marry anyone from the occupied territories. and if they had married (and had kids) and was waiting for their spouse's citizenship papers they are in limbo - never never land.

similarly, the occupied territories are closed off by fences and road blocks and to go from one village to another u need a pass. imagine if somone was going home to meet a dying old father and the pass was denied). this is to me is like a cattle pen. "who shall we kill now? - look theres a little girl crossing that field. shall we use the american built and supplied m16s or the heavy artillery?"

u guys have a limited view of the world - Project Censored nor do u ppl seem to care that an american woman was "accidentally" bulldozed in gaza. she was wearing a scarf so i guess that makes her a terrorist, so thats all right.

An interesting article that discusses the misrepresentation that companies have the same rights that people do under the Constitution.

If you're looking for dirt on the Clinton administration, try their 1999 Report. Lots of juicy stuff in there, especially about the Kosovo war.

read some of the articles. they're not about liberal vs. conservative or any silly crap like that. This one is my favorite: US Dollar vs. The Euro

The interesting thing is that this has a lot to do with one of the recent slashdot stories: Project Censored. If you read this one, you'll see why people like SCO can get away with this...

I for one am glad to find good news about Argentina on this list (#23). It's very rare to actually hear good news about that country in the US.

You were implying Saddam didn't do anything he was accused of, usually the implication of this sort of argument is the leader in question is quite benign.

No, this isn't correct either. What usually happens is that those on your side of this argument will try to portray those on my side as being pro-Saddam, when nothing could be further from the truth.

There a big different between being benign and being so malignant as to warrant an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

That said, he is probably no more despicable than most of the other leaders in the world, including our own GWB. Murdering their citizens, exploiting the natural resources for themselves and their friends, I mean this is hardly news.

And Chomsky isn't just as skewed a source as Fox news?

The Chomsky quote isn't one of content, it is just a apt way of looking at the situation.

The Kurds in question were living within the internationally recognized borders of Iraq which makes them his people by most measures.

And the native Americans were Andrew Jackson's own people.

Or are you saying gassing the Kurds (or the Iranians) was justified?

Again, the best information is that they didn't gas the Kurds. That this was an act performed by the Iranians. You could ask why Iraq was engaged in chemical warfare with Iran, and I suppose that would be a valid point were it not for the fact that we sit in a nation poised ready to incinerate any nation we may choose with our nuclear arsenal. It's hard to condemn others for acts we are only to ready and willing to engage in ourselves.

How exactly is the US killing thousands of people in the war on drugs?

The police execute a few while performing these unconstitutional no-knock raids, often killing innocent civilians in the process. Denying intravenous drug users access to clean needles alone kills a few thousand every year. The mere act of criminalizing drugs causes them to be sold on the black market, where they are adulterated and of unknown dosage, so the policy is in effect responsible for most if not all of the overdose deaths your hear about.

We promote the use of the most deadly and addictive recreational drugs--alcohol and tobacco--while using violence and military force to punish those who use the safest and least addictive drugs, like marijuana.

We deliberately deprive people of choice in medical treatment, causing many to die in the process. Do a web search on Peter McWilliams sometime.

We have also banned research into certain drugs simply because we didn't want to see their illicit status threatened. The best example of this is with marijuana. Read all about it here.

Or you could read the thread I am currently engaged in on another front in this very same topic.

The potential dead from our drug policy is astronomical.

So you are saying Saddam was a great humanitarian and we just don't know it because of the imperialist US propiganda?

See? Now where did I say Saddam was a great humanitarian?

The only reason you put these words in my mouth is because your side is so weak. You cannot argue against the words I use, so you invent words of your own, attribute them to me, and then have at it.

It's pathetic.

• It is a fact that cancer has killed on the order of a half-million Americans every year since 1973; that America is but one-twentieth of the world's population, so that the death toll from cancer worldwide is very likely ~10,000,000 annually.
  
• It is a fact that at least four separate medical studies have confirmed that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, is remarkably effective in treating various forms of cancer; in some cases it is so effective as to completely eradicate cancerous tumors.
  
• And it is a fact that the federal government, upon first learning of THC's effectiveness in treating cancer, ordered the research stopped, banned all subsequent public research and attempted to destroy any and all records that any such research had ever taken place.
  

You make some good points, but mine are better. :)

For instance, with movies like LoTR, nobody says they have to release it on VHS/DVD. Just show it in the theatre. Get your $10 per ticket. Peter Jackson's right to make a buck can peacefully co-exist with my right to cheaply make copies of my data and without government (or Hollywood) lording over my hard drive.

As for drugs...

Read this article from today's New York Times:

Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, and Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors

Then read this.

Letting people profit from drugs isn't all positive, there are some very dark sides to this as well.

Consider too the pharmaceutical industry's compromise with the U.N. over nations too poor to pay for I.P. drugs. The U.N. is now making the rounds telling countries that herbal and native medicines are bad, and that they should be phased out in favor of the new, expensive stuff.

In other words, drugs that have seen maybe five years of human use are being preferred over herbs that have been used over millenia.

Did you know that fully 20% of pharmaceutical drugs have to either be pulled from the marketplace or have their regimens radically altered because patients suffer severe consequences as a result?

Severe consequences including death?

The really sobering news in that article was that they knew in 1972 that alcohol could help people at risk for cardiovascular disease but the government forbid publication of the study.

In other words, they suppressed information that would have reduced the number of people who died from this disease.

Nearly one million people died in 1999 from cardiovascular disease.

That's one in every 2.5 deaths.

Fucking unbelievable.

This goes well with the news that the government suppressed research into the marijuana's effectiveness in treating cancer. Since the 1973 study talked about in the linked story, there have been three separate studies demonstrating that THC holds promise in reducing or eradicating tumors, but still the government virtually prohibits the research.

The total number of dead worldwide may be in the hundreds of millions.

I'm glad to see the slashdot editors consider this news, even if they didn't bother giving it its own berth. Good thing nobody introduced a new MP3 player today.

Don't know about you, but I for one have not been "waiting for it to happen".

It will happen, though. There's too many oil interests at stake. Besides, the US has already asked friendly countries in Europe to help rebuild the place after bombings. So, it follows the familiar pattern: the US destroys, the others build it up.

As for the time, it is due on late January or early February. For example Germany was asked to provide enhanced security for the US military bases there at that time.

Here's interesting reading.

Yeah, this one.

And I'm the first to mention this here so far? You should all be modded down -1 for naiveté.

Hm. And yet the WayBack Machine has the Project Censored page here, and even the AlterNet story linked therein. Ah, but yes, it must be a conspiracy by the Big Eye In The Pyramid -- someone call Hagbard Celine. Fnord.

-1, Delusional.

Try accessing news stories immediately prior to and after the September 11 attack and you'll see just how valuable this website is... or rather, isn't.

I have also personally ran a website which contained fairly controversial material (based on this story) that I saw listed on their website and then removed shortly thereafter. Tell me, why would a service like this ever have occasion to remove material once it's been archived, especially if there are *NO* copyright issues and the webmaster of the archived site never asked them to remove it?

The answer is simple: the powers-that-be saw how dangerous it was to make all this information available to anyone on demand so they took control. It would be a great service were it allowed to operate unfettered, but the reality is quite different.

And I'm the first to mention this here so far? You should all be modded down -1 for naiveté.

Have you followed the trend of privatizing drinking water? It's being called the next century's gold. The WTO has been involved in several deals where they required a developing country to allow a foreign company to come in and start running the drinking water supply as a for-profit venture. Premium quality spring water - fine as a for-profit. But basic potable water? Horribly ill-suited.

We live in a democratic system, ...

This is not Democracy .

Agreed. It all comes down to the fact that newspapers/other media costs alot more to produce now than they charge, leaving the companies completely dependent on advertising. And we can guess where that might lead. Of course if they didn't spend all their bucks on speculative investments, color photos, and whiz bang infographics, they might actually have some money left over for reporting, and not be in this stitch. Call it survival of the fittest, or the stench of monopolies (what is it, something like 5 companies control essentially all the news and media outlets in the U.S....thats worse than the 7 oil companies [though i guess they overlap]), or even the fucking fascists, any way you cut it the comman man gets screwed. And the common stupid man gets it doubly.

Might I direct you to this story?

The drug warriors of America have killed many, many more people than the Nazis could ever have hoped.

Elements within the CIA may have deliberately targeted the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, without NATO approval, because it was serving as a rebroadcast station for the Yugoslavian army. The London Observer and Copenhagen's Politiken reported that, according to senior U.S. and European military sources, NATO knew very well where the Chinese embassy was located and listed it as a "strictly prohibited target" at the beginning of the war.

Holy crap, I'm starting to question the sanity of Slashdot. While it's well documented that "we are being lied to by the corporate media," the solution to this is not a website which is less accurate and less well-researched than the mainstream media itself. If you are interested in investigative reporting that is too uncomfortable for the US press, check out projectcensored.org as a start. Also, learn foreign languages and read non-english papers. But for fuck's sake, don't read disinfo.com and expect them to do all the work for you. The actual "information" on there is only slightly more accurate than astrology. Seriously, it is alternative news for idiots looking to reinforce their predjudices. If you find one piece there with serious investigative reporting that presents credible evidence for its thesis, please reply to this post.

What concerns me most is self censorship. There are a lot of stories that are n
ot reported in the main stream media because of fear of lawsuits, editorial pres
sure from owners or advertisers, or the government.

"Haven't you ever wondered why oil cost about the same amount as bottled water?"

When do you think we've ever been under free market forces? Capitalism suffers the same problems as communism did, it's central tenets are never truly enacted. Pure free market capitalism, which I'm starting to think is as big a fantasy as pure brotherly love communism, would not see us with rising gas prices when the supply is unaffected. Only colluding mega-corp oligarchies can and do give us that.

By the way, don't count on water staying cheap. Water is the oil of the 21st century. The mega-corps are already acting to privatize all sources of drinkable water around the world.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/

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

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

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

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

Independent Media

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

Media Analysis

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

LS

Okay, privitization is not the same as licensing, but check this link from ProjectCensored out. Countries owning or controlling water supplies for other countries, huge revenues expected from selling water, etc. Not a pretty picture.

Okay, privitization is not the same as licensing, but check this link from ProjectCensored out. Countries owning or controlling water supplies for other countries, huge revenues expected from selling water, etc. Not a pretty picture.

"Why aren't the media covering this?" Is this a rhetorical question? If not, and you really want to know why, read this.

Is there anything you can do about it? Yes. Stop buying books, magazines, tickets to movies and the products of advertisers that buy space from Big Media. Read alternative media. Create your own books, music, movies and distribute them via independent media outlets. Freeze Big Media out of your life -- they are propagandists and don't merit your time, attention or respect. Eventually, the layoffs will start and you'll have more foot soldiers ready to jump to your side.

Proteus7

"People in power are going to try to maintain their power. That's not a very profound thought. But there's no way for them to [maintain] it, except by obedience. And obedience isn't necessary. So there's no limits to the extent to which freedom and justice can not only be defended, but expanded." - Noam Chomsky

Correct link

IA(m)AB(iochemist) (well, B.S. anyway) and think ecosystem change is a very real concern. Yes, new species will rush in to fill a niche, but their idea of "rushing" isn't nearly fast enough to keep pace with the rate of change possible by human-caused tampering. Often one or two species will dominate the void (think purple loosestrife or zebra mussels) and occupy it, retarding the progress of other species. It often takes a long time for biodiversity to return to pre-affected levels.

Of course, we have been genetically engineering our environment for thousands of years, but the rapid development and sudden large-scale implementation of GM technology is too fast for either nature or science to cope with. I honestly hope that, in the future, our world will be greatly improved due to what GM technology has to offer us. But the internal combustion engine was a mixed bag, nuclear power was a mixed bag, TV was a mixed bag. Let's use some caution.

P.S. for some interesting research that isn't getting out the way it should, see http://projectcensored.org/c2001stories/7.html

There is a little flamewar a few threads up where someone replying to this post says that

Did you ever think maybe the media presents a single sided view of murder? Maybe it's alright too. The meida [ sic ] means nothing in this, YOU know you're stealing and THEY know you're stealing...

There is an appropriate quote, from Wilson I think: "A journalist's job is not to tell the truth. A journalist's job is to write sensational stories that sell newspapers."

Here are a few issues that Big Media chooses to ignore in order to do their jobs:

1. The profit margin on a CD is much higher than on a cassette. Why are they gouging the consumer?
2. When the RIAA goes to court or Washington, they speak endlessly about protecting the rights of the artists. However, when a recording company signs a contract with an artist, nothing could describe the transaction better than the metaphor of anal rape (no lubrication, of course).
3. Music sales are indisputably dropping. Shouldn't that be expected in the time of increasing unemployment and collapse of the dot-bomb industry?
4. For many years there has been an increase in the number of stores selling used CDs. These are bought from individuals (hence the "used" moniker) and sold for a drastically lower price. It is possible now for the same number of CDs to be sold while the sales dollar figure plummets. This can take place in America or Canada.

To further disillusion you, I am providing this link to interesting stories that Big Media censors by under-reporting. Most of these stories are important in the grand scheme of things. Putting these stories on the front page would be detrimental to Big Media's primary goal, which of course is to maximize their shareholders' profit. Bookmark the link and come back to it next year to see what you missed in 2001.

To summarize, the recording industry is no longer needed. Because America is a banana republic, yet with a much more esoteric manner of palm-greasing than your typical banana republic known as "campaign contributions", the industry is not giving its dying breath. Instead it is struggling by any means necessary to outlast its timely demise. Judging by the support in this sid, I think their means are working.