Slashdot Mirror

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Har ris

Tom Harris is the Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

He was, until approximately late October 2006, listed as a Director of Operations of the Ottowa office of the High Park Group (HPG), a Canadian PR and lobbying company. His biographical note states that he "specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies." Harris "holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Carleton University and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical - thermo-fluids) from McMaster University."[1]

Harris, who was "once a legislative assistant to former Conservative Environment Critic Bob Mills, has been a prolific writer of anti-Kyoto op-ed pieces, typically quoting scientists associated with Friends of Science." [2]

Friends of Science Society is a Canadian non-profit group "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]

In the August 12th, 2006 Globe and Mail feature, The Friends of Science were exposed as being a front group for the oil industry.[2]

Maybe this link would help:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cambridge_E nergy_Research_Associates

Bush's untimely yanking of the US military from Afghanistan was wrong from at least two angles. First and foremost, it was wrong because our true enemy was there, and Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We should have taken al Qaeda to ground at Tora Bora then and there, withoput prejudice, for the dogs that they are, but instead, Bush decided to fix the data and evidence around his desire to assuage his oedipal urges in Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.

Secondly, Afghanistan's long descent into hell was in large measure caused by US reaction to the Soviet installation of a puppet regime in Kabul. Cater's NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski has in the past admitted that the arming of the Afghan Mujahadin occurred before the Soviet invasion, and was intended as a trap, and the Soviet's taking of the bait gave the U.S. an "opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war". Well over one million Afghanis died in that war, as well as 15,000 Soviet soldiers, mostly conscripts of poor peasants from USSR's outerlying regions. A fucking deadly pissing contest by two third parties.

This is the evil which began at the end of Carter's admin, but was taken up zealously by the ReaganCons. It was our responsibility to do what we can to bring Afghanistan back from their hell. Another miserable failure by the Son of Bush.

Informed-ness is in the eye of the beholder.

Here's a good example: I'm a democrat. It is my belief that anybody who chooses to vote Republican is woefully mis-informed (which is as bad, or worse, than uninformed). Therefore, by the rule that "uninformed people shouldn't vote," IMHO all Republicans should stay home.

That said, a better answer is: inform yourself, and then vote. Or don't; it's your choice. If you feel too uninformed to be comfortable making a decision, then skip those issues -- there's no penalty for not voting for some of the ballot measures. However, you'll probably have an opinion about some of the stuff on the ballot, so cast a vote on just those issues.

Oh, one last thing: you'll want to really evaluate what your values are and try to determine whether the party really represents your values. For example, I think it would be difficult for somebody to try to pass this administration/congress off as being "fiscally conservative." So if that's why you have Republican leanings, then I'd strongly recommend that you think twice about voting Republican. However, if you're socially conservative... well, I'd take a hard look at your party anyway. A number of Republican congresscritters have recently resigned in disgrace or are under investigation over ethical (Tom Delay, Bob Ney) and moral (Mark Foley) issues. According to Congresspedia, 15 Republican representatives are under federal investigation, vs. 4 Democrats. According to a Wikipedia article, there are 20 national-level elected officials under investigation or found guilty, vs. 6 Democrats.

--- SER

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

Yeah, great site for debunking. Reputable and impartial, indeed. Canada has a similar site: Friends of Science. How cute a name, eh? About as reliable as Junkscience as well.

Yeah, great site for debunking. Reputable and impartial, indeed. Canada has a similar site: Friends of Science. How cute a name, eh? About as reliable as Junkscience as well.

"The Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI)is a project of the conservative think-tank, the Hudson Institute, and is based in Churchville, Virginia."

From: Source Watch's CGFI article

Moo-olent Green

Also of note is the CGFI Science Fellow: Spongiform Bob.

In Januray 2004, Alex Avery announced in a media release that the CGFI was launching a Mad Cow Facts Web site, - 'to end the confusion and help consumers find credible information and commentary about Mad Cow Disease'...

'Fears about Mad Cow Disease are currently being exploited by special interests and the media,' the website warns.

ibid

Yes, those greenie terrorists, along with their co-conspirators, the liberal press, inflame public opinions with the specious allegation that forcing cannibalism upon herds of domesticated grass-eating cud-chewers by adding rendered cow carcasses to their feed is an obscene act.

"The Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI)is a project of the conservative think-tank, the Hudson Institute, and is based in Churchville, Virginia."

From: Source Watch's CGFI article

Moo-olent Green

Also of note is the CGFI Science Fellow: Spongiform Bob.

In Januray 2004, Alex Avery announced in a media release that the CGFI was launching a Mad Cow Facts Web site, - 'to end the confusion and help consumers find credible information and commentary about Mad Cow Disease'...

'Fears about Mad Cow Disease are currently being exploited by special interests and the media,' the website warns.

ibid

Yes, those greenie terrorists, along with their co-conspirators, the liberal press, inflame public opinions with the specious allegation that forcing cannibalism upon herds of domesticated grass-eating cud-chewers by adding rendered cow carcasses to their feed is an obscene act.

Hey, that NCPA study is really interesting! Not for the "study" itself, but for the source. If you go to SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nationa l_Center_for_Policy_Analysis and look who funds them, you basically get the energy industry (ExxonMobil, DaimlerChrysler, etc), a couple of Pharmaceuticals and a bunch of "foundations". You follow through on the foundations and you find the same thing, a bunch of oil folks plus right-wing think thankers funding each other.

Crichton's State of Fear is a now infamous piece of pseudo-science. Never cite it if you want to be taken seriously.

The Heartland Institute, which you sited, is a FUD site. You've been had.

300 year old trees in rainforest areas never used to burn down every decade or so--and the rainforests of the west coast that people are acting to preserve are precisely these areas. The brush which does burn down every 10 years or so is not preserved for environmental reasons, but because it is typically near housing developments which it will take down with it when it burns. British Columbia has been dealing with this problem for the past ten years--towns that are threatened by wild burns that have been prevented unnaturally. Frankly, we've gotten too good at fighting forest fires--but rainforests are too wet to burn. Old growth stands are taken down for lumber purposes. They are old growth precisely because they do not burn down regularly. But these are precisely the trees most valuable for lumber purposes. They're also very good at conserving water tables, which is of critical importance to Northwest agriculture.

Yellowstone scrub falls in the category of forests that typically burn down on a regular basis.

As for the fish, anyone who has been following reports on fish stocks could see this coming for the past ten years. The Salmon are dying off on the West coast, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, once the most plentiful fishing grounds on the planet, are dead, plankton, the basis of oceanic ecology, is dying off, the coast of China is pouring billions of tons of effluents into the Pacific, and bottom dragging nets have been destroying spawning habitats for decades. If this is a surprise to you, you really need to pull your head out of your ass once in a while and look around.

So, no trees, no water, no crops, and no livestock which depend on those crops. No fish, no seafood. What, exactly, did you think your kids were going to eat?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2 million from Exxon since 1998. If you're getting your data from a PR agency such as the CEI, you should examine that data carefully.

As for the Kyoto Protocol, everyone agrees that in its current form it will not be enough. That's because it was intended to establish a framework for agreeing further cuts, not to serve as a panacea. It's now entering the second round, and hopefully the UK government will show some leadership in pushing for significant action.

fotherington

Junkscience.com is written by a guy who works for the Cato Institute and the CEI, rightwing thinktanks that have never met an environmental regulation that they've liked. The author has never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal.

The website also spends most of its time tackling non-issues. SHOCKING REVELATION!!! WITHOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, WE'D ALL FREEZE TO DEATH! SHOCKING REVELATION! CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS WHEN THE SUN GOES DOWN! Other times, he's off muddying the waters with his explanations. Like when he talks about how heat isn't really "trapped," but simply delayed in its journey back into space. Or when he goes after the blanket analogy because greenhouse gases don't deter heat transfer by convection.

The site is a bogus shill.

The only problem with think-tanks is that they're constantly coming up with common sense and good ideas like this

Actually, I always thought that think-tanks came up with crap ideas. "Think Tanks don't think, they justify". This site contains some insights into Think-Tanks.

The good news, though, is that this time, contrary to all expectations, the interests of the general public seemed to have won through.

Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Functions, October 11, 2004

The following EOs all fall under EO 12919: [7]

* EO 10990: "allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports." [8]
* EO 10995: Federal seizure of all communications media in the US.
* EO 10997: Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.
* EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.
* EO 10999: Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.
* EO 11000: Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires.
* EO 11001: Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.
* EO 11002: Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.
* EO 11003: Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.
* EO 11004: Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as 'unsafe,' establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.
* EO 11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.
* EO 11051: Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of 'National Emergency').

* EO 12919 "Apparently Allows Cabinet Heads to Make Direct Loans to Government Contractors." [9]

Some of these Executive Orders have been around since the days of JFK. The umbrella EO 12919 was signed by President Clinton when he was in office back in 1994.

A fictional memo written to President Clinton back in 1999 gives a nice legal summary, history, and analysis of the laws already in place that would permit him or any president to declare martial law. From the "memo":

You have statutory authority to intervene with military force in a state's domestic disputes, upon request from the state legislature (or governor), at 10 U.S.C. 331:

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. [Emphasis added.]

Similar statutory authority permits you to use military force without any state request to address circumstances whenever and wherever you determine that the laws of the United States cannot be enforced (10 U.S.C. 332):(1)

Whenever the President considers that

(Pre-Script: based on your whitepost.org.uk link I am presuming you are British)

what would be the point in a constitution if laws could contradict it?

It's great that you consider that so blatantly obvious, but many other countries do not have the same principals and assumptions as our own. A system of government may pretty much be treat their constitution as merely the first in the laws, and that whoever writes the laws is ultimately in charge. That they can overwrite or modify the constitution through the ordinary law writing process. They don't have the concept that a court judge gets power ABOVE that of the law writers, courts with the power to evaluate and strike down the legislation of the duly authorized law writers.

Hell, right here in America I keep hearing the yahoos bitching about "activists judges" striking down various laws. Yahoos ranting about democracy and the proper majority will creating those laws, and that some lone judge or small group of judges is violating democracy with their rulings. Yahoos ranting on the intolerability of "unaccountable" judges imposing things on the nation against democratic majority will. It seems that lately there has been an endless stream of proposed legislation seeking different ways to strip this power away from the courts in different "hot button" issues. I am appalled to say that Congress has actually passed some of these into law. These court-stripping laws still need themselves to be tested in court, and I damn well pray that the courts have the good sense to say that any law attempting to legislatively strip power from the courts is *itself* inherently unconstitutional. Here's a link discussing the court stripping issue, and listing many proposed and passed laws. I particularly love the evil fucking irony that one of these bills is actually entitled "the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004".

And for a glimpse into the US political sides on this issue... as far as I can tell every single court stripping initiative has come from the Republicans / Right / Family Values Religious Conservatives. Oh, and another irony... the Conservative/Right who keep bitching about the "evil Liberal/Left activist courts" that need to be "reigned in" for striking down certain laws.... those people are completely oblivious on the point that the US Suppreme Court is stacked 7 to 2 with Conservative/Right appointed judges over Liberal/Left appointed judges. It doesn't dawn on them that if a 7 to 2 Conservative stacked court is striking down Conservative hot-button issue laws, that maybe it's because those particular laws and those particular Conservative agenda items *actually are* unconstitutional, and that the US Constitution simply does not say what they what they wish to beleive the Constitution says on those issues. Most of them don't look at or care what the Constitution actually says, they just presume that the Constitution must be in line with their values and goals.

Oops, I went off on a rant. heh. Oh well. At least it was a rant that was dead on target with the issue. What good is a constitution if the legislature is permitted any mechanism to evade judicial constitutional challenge. God damn morons attempting to "defend and preserve the nation".... and their chosen means to do so is by scrapping the Constitution and constitutional review. Sigh.

-

But when Katrina hit New Orleans, what other country (besides my Canada) offered aid or assistance to the US?

From the first hit on google for "katrina international aid":

Sue Pleming, "Foreign governments line up to help after Katrina," Reuters AlterNet, September 2, 2005: "The United Nations offered to help coordinate international relief efforts for the United States. ... The State Department said offers so far had come from Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Australia, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organization of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates."

People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco

No they are not; some of them are trained scientists who are specialists in their fields. Believe it or not, not all scientists are on the anthopogenic climate change bandwagon. In making the statement you just made, you have insulted both the intelligence and professional integrity of a good number of respectable people.

Some of these include those signers here and here.

You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.

Is anyone else thinking 'gee, maybe contacting people who are writing that they hate Microsoft aren't exactly feeling BETTER that they got contacted about it too?' Just remember, Big Brother IS watching and is scouring the net for you - whew, I'm glad they cleared that up to make me feel better!

If only they would confine their bullshit to their own blogs. They are famous for astroturfing other sites too. One of the earliest recorded attacks is Steve Barkto against OS/2. A famous and court proved case is the attack on DRDOS, where they made sure Win3.1 would not run on DRDOS and then spammed compuserve message groups with posts that blamed DRDOS. The pattern is repeated again and again with various permutations. Hiring a firm to fake letters to Congress, the Apple Switcher, and so on and so forth.

Of course their apologists swarm here too. There's always someone out there promoting M$ junk as "teh best evar" and we can be sure they are using every available trick to game Slashdot's moderation system. While I can't be sure some M$ PR firm is behind it, I am sure that there's at least one person dedicating a significant amount of their life harassing me personally. Here are just a few of the accounts they have set up or purchased:

• kieth russell
• jb.hl.com
• twatter
• tvvitter

Thier effort goes beyond the usual fanboy stuff. For about a year the attacks have been personal and nasty, as all Microsoft's name calling generally is. They even took the attack to my local LUG, which promptly dismissed their efforts. All this over a Slashdot user? Clearly, Microsoft is running scared.

Bruce Perens warned us the attack would come. As they noted in their 1998 Halloween document, free software is not a company they can destroy, it's a community they must destroy. How else can they do that but massively spam every free software group in existence?

He is protecting your ass and thats the thanks you give him

He is protecting you from what?
Weapons of mass destruction?
The Boogey Man?
Terrorism? [A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.]

Cool!, I feel really really good to know that my government does not "protect my ass" the way Bush is doing it with you =o)

Institute for Policy Innovation
The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a think tank based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to "research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems." [1]
The conservative Capital Research Center ranked IPI as amongst the most conservative groups in the US, scoring it as an eight on a scale of one to eight. [2] (Pdf)

Threaded media are useless for political debate, for exactly the reason you suggest: any worthwhile question will be crapflooded by those who consider it against their interests to discuss.

The kind of post-by-post deletion or moderation you have to do for a debate thread necessarily becomes censorship when you have to decide if a post that contains a few relevant sentences and a few irrelevant, can be retained or not.

Accordingly, you need third person statements and the kind of contract that prevails in a wiki: version control is sacred and attribution is strict, but no one has sole control of any sequence of words that will appear to the reader, that's only collective.

In other words: absolutely no one other than the administrators who create the buttons, frames, form prompts, has sole control of even so much as a full sentence on any topic/issue page, even if they created it and solely authored it. All they have a right to is accurate attribution and quoting, just as they would if a third party journalist had written a story about the topic.

So the wags who say "impossible" are correct that it's impossible with slash or civicspace or yahoogroups or opengroups or newsgroups or mailing lists. If it is possible at all (not saying it is) it would have to be on a wiki base. And that's borne out by all the good meaty political stuff that's on wikis now: dkosopedia, sourcewatch, wikocracy, anarchopedia, openpolitics, Living Platform, consumerium. And quasi political wikiscience like embodimentwiki and administrative gurudom like let.sysops.be.

Threaded media are useless for political debate, for exactly the reason you suggest: any worthwhile question will be crapflooded by those who consider it against their interests to discuss.

The kind of post-by-post deletion or moderation you have to do for a debate thread necessarily becomes censorship when you have to decide if a post that contains a few relevant sentences and a few irrelevant, can be retained or not.

Accordingly, you need third person statements and the kind of contract that prevails in a wiki: version control is sacred and attribution is strict, but no one has sole control of any sequence of words that will appear to the reader, that's only collective.

In other words: absolutely no one other than the administrators who create the buttons, frames, form prompts, has sole control of even so much as a full sentence on any topic/issue page, even if they created it and solely authored it. All they have a right to is accurate attribution and quoting, just as they would if a third party journalist had written a story about the topic.

So the wags who say "impossible" are correct that it's impossible with slash or civicspace or yahoogroups or opengroups or newsgroups or mailing lists. If it is possible at all (not saying it is) it would have to be on a wiki base. And that's borne out by all the good meaty political stuff that's on wikis now: dkosopedia, sourcewatch, wikocracy, anarchopedia, openpolitics, Living Platform, consumerium. And quasi political wikiscience like embodimentwiki and administrative gurudom like let.sysops.be.

Video news releases (VNRs, often referred to as fake TV news) are video clips that are indistinguishable from traditional news clips and are sometimes screened unedited by television stations without the identification of the original producers or sponsors, who are commonly corporations, government agencies, or non-governmental organizations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Video_n ews_releases

~~~~~
Shortly before last year's Super Bowl, local news stations across the country aired a story by Mike Morris describing plans for a new White House ad campaign on the dangers of drug abuse.

What viewers did not know was that Morris is not a journalist and his ''report" was produced by the government, actions which constituted illegal ''covert propaganda," according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/01 /07/bush_team_scolded_for_disguised_tv_report/

~~~~~
The "real" news show aren't doing a very good job of being informational, either.

Really? Which scientists? The AP did a survey of climatologists; all those who had seen the movie confirmed its accuracy. But perhaps you think Senator James Inhofe is a better scientist. Or that Richard Linzen's $2500 a day he charges fossil fuel companies makes him an unbiased source.

Or perhaps you're just clapping as loud as you can and hoping that proves your claims.

More than you ever wanted to know about CEI:

Exxon's Cash Pipeline to CEI

Even if a survey has a genuinely random sample, you _can't_ be sure how much it means until you know the exact wording of the questions.

That's a separate issue from "push polls", which are meant to change what people think as opposed to simply getting the desired answer. An example push poll was a telephone "survey" in the 2000 South Carolina primary asking "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?".

the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time, Mark Shurtleff, received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people . . . imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly.

The Hill March 29, 2006 Wednesday HEADLINE: Foreign-agent lobbyists amid uproars, duck for cover The brutal ruling junta of Burma dropped its last foreign-agent lobbyists, the Republican PR firm DCI Group, in 2003.

The Hill March 29, 2006 Wednesday HEADLINE: Foreign-agent lobbyists amid uproars, duck for cover The brutal ruling junta of Burma dropped its last foreign-agent lobbyists, the Republican PR firm DCI Group, in 2003.

You have a curious set of opinions. How do you maintain the CIA misled the President in light of the significant evidence to the contrary?

I don't ask myself why the Republicans came to power. I know why. They have money, disciplined communications and a coherent strategy. Democrats sadly lack all three of these elements. Not that I care much for Democrats either. I consider both Democrats and Republican as belonging to the same party - neither of which represents my interests.

The Swiftboat ads involved people who actually served during the time that John Kerry did and desired to state their opinion of the illegitimacy of his military decorations and military service in general - exactly who do you think such statements should be coming from?

Who indeed.

One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

In general, the people serving directly with Kerry would be in the position to remark on his service, except in in the cases where those people are proven liars with a political agenda.

Bottom line, the problem with the Swiftboat ads is not in their truth. The problem is the truth didn't matter--it was ALL about politics.

Think there's some question about Kerry's service? How about a guy who lost 3 limbs in the same war? How about a guy who spent a couple years as a POW? All were 'swiftboated.'

And even if the worst said about Kerry's service is true, it stills compares rather favorably to the service records for George 'stopped showing up physicals when they started giving drug tests' Bush and Dick 'I had other priorities' Cheney.

To bring it around on topic, to do business with people who make it their job to defame and disparage real American heroes does NOT fall under the guidelines of "do no evil."

The Swiftboat ads involved people who actually served during the time that John Kerry did and desired to state their opinion of the illegitimacy of his military decorations and military service in general - exactly who do you think such statements should be coming from?

The whole point is, the ads didn't come from such people, though they were designed to appear as if they had. That's what astroturfing is all about.

• The "vets" in the story by their own admission had no personal knowledge of the events in question
• Some of the "vets" were Bush staffers
• The ads were put together by DCI employees (see link in story)
• The ads were funded by the Republicans, not by the vets (see first link, above)
• The affidavits they used were modified from what some of the vets had said
• ...and so on and so forth.

They were, in short, highly sophisticated trolls.

--MarkusQ

Something like this would have serious consequences if it was tried here. The president would resign in disgrace... or at least those responsible would be held accountable. Nope, we got memogate when republicans broke in to democratic computers to read strategy documents.

Grandparent's post is part of some horrible conspiracy, too vast... too UBIQUITOUS... for us to fully percieve.

You are close, oh so close. Perhaps one more step and the veil of ignorance will be ripped asunder, and you too can be part of the conspiracy.

Consider, oh novice, this truth: the sage, when he wishes to hide a needle, does not turn to a haystack. Any fool with a magnet will defeat him. No, the sage hides his needle in a box of needles.

The problem with classic conspiracy is trust: when plotting nefarious and secretive acts, you should realize your co-conspirators, like you, are the kinds of people who do nefarious things secretively. Therefore in the classic conspiracy, you'd be a fool to conspire with anybody foolish enough to conspire with you.

This problem is solved by the modern conspiracy, which eliminates the element of secrecy. Instead, you are open about the truth, but in a special way: you lie in such an outrageous fashion that nobody but an utter moron believes you. In the modern conspiracy you should take care not to cover your tracks. Your lying won't be pointed out because (1) nobody likes a snitch and (2) nobody likes to be told the obvious.

In the modern conspiracy, you eliminate the wasted energy of hiding information, the scrambling to keep your plots standing as their foundation of secrecy is undermined. You build your plans on the most solid foundation imaginable: mental inertia. Truly the tendency of people to go through the motions familar to them is a perpetual motion machine, from which the wise conspirator can derive boundless energy to power his plots.

While it's certainly interesting (although not surprising) to see that PETA's self-righteousness obscures some of there own misdeeds, I wonder if you are aware of the nature of he website you linked to? Don't imagine for a second that the "Center for Consumer Freedom" has your best interests in mind. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_ for_Consumer_Freedom

      These dipshits run all types of websites that seek to "tell you the truth" about the Food Police (dietitians?) Environmental Scaremongers (scientists?) and Tobacco Nazis (oncologists?) that are ruining this Great Country. They are run by Rick Berman (not the Star Trek producer) who lobbies for tobacco companies, beer companies, restaurant chains, etc. They suck!

      Differing opinions are good, but take care to understand who is voicing them (which can be hard on the internet).

as a result of mad cow disease. It is a serious health risk for many reasons; the big one is that it is untreatable. If you get it, you will die. The deadly human form can only be detected from post-mortem examination. Another reason is that it is spread by prions which can attach to surfaces (grills, utensils, surgical instruments) and cannot be removed by normal sterilization procedures. From the Wikipedia article: 'Unlike other pathogens, prions are not subject to denaturation by protease, HEAT, radiation, and formalin treatments.' (emphasis mine)

The US 80 billion$ beef industry is obviously concerned - but not about the health of beef consumers. They do massive damage control while continuing to duck inspections and responsibility.

The major media outlets have of course botched coverage by sensationalizing mad cow disease rather than educating the public in an objective manner. Fear brings in more viewers than facts. Mad cow disease is, unfortunatly, the real deal.

A lot of us artists don't agree with the copyright laws at all. In fact, a lot of us don't agree with the legal goon system, period. It disgusts me at how easily geeks want and search for ways to cave in against the massive police state instead of fight it with every core inch of their being.

Geeks for one thing are better educated that the proletariat, they have seen the images of depleted uranium babies on the net, of the lies by politians, of the miltary gun videos brought back from the war of people in gunships shooting unarmed civilians on the ground and laughing about it. The government is a criminal despot, the military is its weapon in global domination, and the so called fraudulent justice system is its way of furthering its control over conquered territories on the fine grain level of individuals and people. There is nothing just about the justice system. Get that through your mind from the get go.

Sure they go after criminals, and are quite happy to, it gives them a moral leg to stand on for their power game. They go after innocent people to, and enemies of the state. Mainly they want to justify reserving all the power for themselves and none for you. Theft is illegal for the private citizen, but legal for the governement (eminent domain). Slavery is illegal for the private citizen, but millions of prisoners work every day in prison as slaves without pay and under durress. Murder is illegal for the private citizen, yet the CIA School of Americas carry out assisination covertly and untold amounts of people are euphamistically neutralized as "enemy combatants". Child molestation is illegal, and yet the military shoots thousands of tons of "depleted uranium" nuclear waste (depleted being a euphamism) around indiscriminatly, causing the grossest and most vile of genetic mutations in children for thousands of years to come.

For one thing, who here can say they have ever been asked to vote on one single law, period. Ever? No not ever. Who here can say they have ever had much of a choice in their so called representative government. I'm sorry, but having an election every 4 years does not cut it, nor does reducing your choice of canidates down to two, the least possible number and still be able to call it a choice (yeah, right, I don' think so, and both of them are scumbag long time political animals from what I can tell).

I don't know about the rest of you but forget it, I'm not abiding by any laws that I had absolutely no say so whatsoever in creating.

Laws are a criminal way to control people via fear, internalize control over you, and project power.

If you don't want your media in the public domain, never release it off your harddrive. Period. Once you do, data wants to be free, to travel, to be replicated a immutably in carbon copies a thousand times... that is its strength.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Double speak

http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/pdf/abciar.pdf

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/Book_E xcerpts.html

http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/

http://blip.tv/file/get/Insurgent-1YearAgo133.mov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfetZYt7BuU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YxFQhTUmek

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=depleted+ uranium+babies&btnG=Search

I suggest that you go find some real scientists of the climate sciences and ask them for their opinion on the causes of global warming. There's practically consensus ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686 ) among workers in the field that the recent global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

That so many have begun questioning this is a testimony to the effectiveness of recent PR campaigns from those who'd suffer from regulations.

Please don't just take my word for it though. Do the research yourself. Find workers in the field and ask them for their opinion. Find web pages and articles that discredit the theory that humans caused global warming and DO BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE AUTHORS. That last point cannot be stressed well enough, as it will reveal a disturbing pattern of vested interests and hidden sponsors.

As an example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on _climate_change#Survey_of_US_state_climatologists, the only "against" I could find on that page. A quick background check reveals http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizen s_for_a_Sound_Economy.

I recommend the book "Trust Us, We're Experts" to anyone wanting to get insight into how the modern PR industry operates.

Ulf Magnusson

There are valid reasons people look at it that way.

Have a look at a climate summit and see the so-called grassroot organisations with the there-ain't-any-human-influence glossy folders, then do some research and find out that they are frontgroups of the oil industry.

I'm more in the genetic world than in the climate scene, and in this world it is SO common that pro-GM sounds turn out to be astroturf. Recent example:

+ INDUSTRY FUNDED LOBBY GROUP IN CURITIBA
Among the pro-biotech lobby groups active in Curitiba, Brazil, at the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety meeting and the Convention on Biological Diversity, was the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) - a pro-GM lobby which fielded over 40 representatives, mostly picked from the developing world and trained and scripted by PRRI, to promote identical goals to those of industry. Although PRRI poses as the voice of public sector researchers, its leading lights have close links to the biotech industry which is also among PRRI's financial backers, as is the US Grains Council, which represents the interests of US producers and exporters of GM crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6336
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6356

Or what about the staging of African 'independent' scientists in favour of GMO?

There are even trainings in astroturf:
In Australia they actually train people to set up fake grassroot organisations.
http://www.overlandexpress.org/183_wilson.html

The organisation this whole topic started with, who seems to be behind the (really bad) video, organises fake grassroot stuff: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gro up

The non-comercial nature of this video, and the way in which the trademark is used is unlikely to create that sort of impression, so no trademark violation here.

While IAmNotALawyer, I believe that if (as alleged) the video was produced as paid propoganda, even if the distribution was non-commercial it would then be hard to argue in court that the use was non-commercial.

The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".

So (my puckish side chortles), if one calls the firm rumored to have done the work and ask them if they used this image in the video, it would seem they must either admit to doing so (which they apparently are loathe to do), or deny it... violating the use license and (ergo) copyright. That could be a problem....

Also a simple check on the reliable as ever internet makes the republicanity of DCI pretty clear.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gro up

More about Tech Central Station:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tech_Ce ntral_Station

DCI also runs Tech Central Station, a website frequently referred to by Slashdot and its readers. DCI's client list includes AT&T, Intel, Microsoft, and many others. According to their own website, they specialize in "Corporate Grassroots Campaigns" and "Internet Communications and Mobilization". They helped the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry and now this astroturf attack on Gore. To TCS' credit its not like they hide who owns them.

The lesson is, be skeptical. Don't trust someone or somebody unless they give you a good reason to do so. Don't trust me - click the links above.

DCI also runs Tech Central Station, a website frequently referred to by Slashdot and its readers. DCI's client list includes AT&T, Intel, Microsoft, and many others. According to their own website, they specialize in "Corporate Grassroots Campaigns" and "Internet Communications and Mobilization". They helped the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry and now this astroturf attack on Gore. To TCS' credit its not like they hide who owns them.

The lesson is, be skeptical. Don't trust someone or somebody unless they give you a good reason to do so. Don't trust me - click the links above.