Slashdot Mirror

We're not the ones who are running the regimes of their oppressive dictators. We're not the ones diverting international aid away from starving people. Yes, production of biofuels makes the cost of some food items increase. But if they'd grow their own fucking food, it wouldn't be an issue.

The political and socioeconomic development of most third-world nations was ruined by Western powers dating back to the colonial era, carrying through neo-colonialism and the Cold War. Now World Bank / IMF policies turn third world nations quite capable of feeding themselves into grain importers.

In light of this, your mocking tone is honestly mysterious to me.

Almost as mysterious as the idea that the military industrial complex is something that the media "almost never talks about". And that was after spending 30 seconds on Google News.

Using a powerful search engine, you are able to actively seek and find information about something that is rarely mentioned in the media. That sort of research, of separating the tiny fraction of information you are after from the vast ocean of information available, is in fact what a search engine is for. That is not at all the same thing as the mainstream media routinely discussing the downsides and dangers of systems that could bring about a fascist state. You have proven that search engines work; you have not demonstrated that the media appreciates the importance of this issue. To do that, you would need to perform statistical analysis of the mainstream media to determine what fraction of headlines and stories discuss this specific issue. If you did that, I maintain you would find that it's a small fraction indeed and that Britney Spears and Paris Hilton get far more coverage. This should be obvious.

So you first mock the fact that I mention the term "military-industrial complex" at all. When I explain the term's origin to show that there was no reason to do that (something you have not either admitted or refuted, by the way), now you respond by arguing about the number of occurrences of the term. Look at your paragraph above. It's like you're saying that my claim that the media seldom talks about the military-industrial complex has any bearing on the way you conduct yourself ("almost as mysterious as the idea that..."). If that's true then you have little self-control; if that's false then you're effectively saying "I know you are but what am I?" which is, shall we say, rather unenlightening. Rather than do all of that, I'd like to see the superior viewpoint with which you would replace mine if mine is indeed so flawed. I'm willing to abandom my current viewpoint and embrace a superior one at any time, in fact I would be grateful for such an opportunity; the only "catch" is that the one you advocate really does have to be superior and not merely because you say so.

Your methods and your tactics are nothing new to me. It's apparent that you want to argue for the sake of arguing and are not really interested in the strength of your position and whether it could be improved or replaced. You just want to feel like you are right and I am wrong. I doubt very much that you are deliberately planning to do this or to be this way. In fact, I strongly doubt that you seriously question your own motives or examine your own actions and their implications enough for you to be able to make a conscious choice in the matter. You are probably too worried about the other guy and how you can take him down a peg or two for it to occur to you that you should be doing this. That's alright. I'm not upset or resentful when I see this, nor is it my place to condemn it (I will, however, call it what it is). In fact, I used to do something like this and it most certainly did not make me happy. I understand that so there is no need for me to lash out at you. I will say that I would like something better than this for you and that when you give up your need to feel right in the eyes of others, you will truly understand the saying "the thing about banging your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop." I don't expect you to understand this right now so if you must get more belligerent now that I am speaking to the heart of the matter, I understand that too. People always feel justified because they always do what they think is right or necessary, even when they're utterly wrong.

In light of this, your mocking tone is honestly mysterious to me.

Almost as mysterious as the idea that the military industrial complex is something that the media "almost never talks about". And that was after spending 30 seconds on Google News.

Mod parent up. Never understood this particular American obsession with tearing down the government and then proudly claiming it sucks. Sounds insane to me.

Blame Ronnie Raygun. He popularized the idea that "government is the problem", while blowing enormous quantities of money on militarization, possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government. Never trust someone to run something when they believe it's a stupid idea to begin with, they'll usually just mess it up.

I've worked for government. The reason people thinks it sucks is because it is inefficient and bureaucratic. I've also worked for two Fortune 10 companies. They suffer from much the same issues but at a smaller scale. Even a 100,000+ person company can't compete with the weirdness of policy mazes and pencil pushers that fill the halls of government (at least in the state I worked for).

Having seen both sides I choose Padmasseraseserr....screw it, the cute chick from Cisco. She's industry based rather than career government and she has the last name "Warrior". Come on how could she not be the choice.

Mod parent up. Never understood this particular American obsession with tearing down the government and then proudly claiming it sucks. Sounds insane to me.

Blame Ronnie Raygun. He popularized the idea that "government is the problem", while blowing enormous quantities of money on militarization, possibly in hopes of bankrupting the federal government. Never trust someone to run something when they believe it's a stupid idea to begin with, they'll usually just mess it up.

There is no way I can physically stand up to guys with guns, batons, and tazers...

Which is why we need to restore respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

The civil rights struggle of the 1960s was not just by the peaceful tactics of men like MLK, but also by the work of groups like the Deacons for Defense and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. Unfortunately, in the "official history", only the nonviolent resistance of King is credited, the guys with guns who often protected him and other high-profile peaceful activists get no mention, and the Panthers are considered dangerous radical terrorists with no redeeming value - you never hear about all their work providing food and medical care in ghettos, or the casual police brutality that was the very reason for their founding.

The only thing that's going to reign in the current excesses of police is to put the same tools they have - tazers, pepper spray, and firearms - in the hands of ordinary citizens willing to use them on cops gone bad.

This chart shines a light on tax policy.

http://www.thenation.com/special/images/extreme_inequalitychart.jpg

It's from the June 30, 2008 edition of The Nation.

This chart shines a light on tax policy.

http://www.thenation.com/special/images/extreme_inequalitychart.jpg

It's from the June 30, 2008 edition of The Nation.

My experience is much the same as yours in JROTC; that is, we are being taught as future officers to question those orders which seem unreasonable or dangerous.

So why, then, did the defense in the court-martail of Corporal Trent D. Thomas assert "Marines in combat don't challenge orders"? Do only officers get to question orders?

Why, indeed, did almost every member of the military march off to Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq with nary a whimper? Only a handful stood up and refused.

I'm involved in what I am to protect the public's right to protest what I'm involved in, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

Protect it from whom? The Canadians? The Mexicans? Al Qaeda, while a bunch of criminals who are in dire need of being stopped, is no more a threat to my freedom of speech than is the Mafia or the Crips. (If they managed to pull a 9/11 every year, more Americans would still die by drowning than would be killed by terrorist attacks.)

The U.S. faces no significant threat of invasion; no foreign power is going to take us over and take away our freedoms. They don't have to; we're going a bang-up job of taking them away from ourselves.

The only guys I see who pose a threat to my freedom of speech are the ones you work for: the federal government.

Have you seen the ticket prices on a round-trip to Mars lately? No to mention if you don't upgrade to first class you get to spend the next 6 months with some guy drooling on you in his sleep from the seat next to you and some brat kicking the back of your chair the entire time. Not to mention, the hotel accommodations on Mars are poor at best, and ridiculously overpriced.

Seriously man, maybe if the spacelines and the hotels could get their shit together and make it a worthwhile experience, you might see more astronauts willing to go up there to collect some rocks (did I mention the cargo fees on getting that stuff back? If it doesn't fit in your carry-on, you might as well just forget it!). As it is, it takes some doing just to convince lifeless robots to go up there, and even then they bitch the whole time.

He's speaking of the Foreign Affairs ESSAY not the WHOLE BOOK, which is what I was speaking of.

Others don't like it either:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said

So, to you, stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortion zealots

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111400720.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/sekulow_recalls.html

and going after porn with a vengeance by increasing Justice Department prosecutions and devoting FBI resources to porn DURING A TIME OF TERRORISM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bushs-war-on-porn-perve_b_7704.html

and viciously pushing to remove porn's sources of funding

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cz_sl_0501porn.html

and levying huge fines on outspoken media opponents for talking about innocuous things

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0408043fcc1.html

or for showing a tit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/01/entertainment/main626925.shtml

or using swear words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article390108.ece

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/epps

isn't doing much to push the religious agenda?

How much more does it take to convince you that Bush, especially during the time he had no Congressional opposition, was actively doing things to help the religious zealots? Are you sure that YOU haven't been living on Mars the last seven years?

Though some of the fungi in military showers can be pretty tough.

So can a ground fault

in case first link fails

If you want a President who's scrutinized by a skeptical press and held accountable for his public statements then you should vote for McCain.

Yeah, right. Check this out: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman Are you saying Eric Alterman is wrong about the MSM's lapdog-like portrayal of McCain?

Go fuck yourself and your stupid psychology games.

You are wrong PERIOD, the ACVR agenda to purposely obfuscate the definitions of "election fraud" and "voter fraud."

Election Fraud, relates to the electronics, the machines, and the officials.

Voter Fraud, relates to fake voters. Again, PROVEN TO BE NEGLIGIBLE.

This is so that VOTER ID + REAL ID can be used to stop people from voting. The whole steaming pile of crap started by severalrat-fuckers shill organization (a fucking mailbox) that was setup to spread propaganda.

So you can consider the phrase whatever way you want, you'll still be wrong.

Whether or not I am angry is just a symptom of the bullshit going on in the United States.

This Unconstitutional shit MUST be stopped.

Good point. I'm sure the Iraqis are jumping with joy regarding long term benefits. Especially when they are getting blown up almost every day. What is the count...lets seee...90,000 dead from the current war and 1,500,000 dead (1/2 million infants) from US/UK led sanctions.

>Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships
>throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.

Certainly, a candidate shouldn't be judged on their friendships alone, nor should those friendships be evaluated out of context. But McCain has publicly accepted the endorsements from Hagee, Parsley, and other unsavoury characters. These are not simply business associates or friends, whose political views he happens to disagree with. McCain publicly calls them his "spiritual guides". That seems like poor judgment at best, and hints that he might have some private views which voters should get to know more about before granting him control of the most powerful military on the planet.

The same standard should apply to all candidates, not just McCain and Obama, but also Hillary Clinton, whose connections with "The Family", a church group from the rightwing Dominionist movement, deserve similar scrutiny.

Almost all of your news and media comes from only six corporations:

http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf

So these six corporations (Disney, General Electric, Time-Warner, Viacom, CBS, and News Corp) can present the news in a manner that will always place themselves in a favorable position by hiring only those in management who share the same ideology and loyalty to their respective corporations and dismissing those that do not exhibit this.

It's the perfect medium for multi-billion dollar corporations to push an agenda and generate the greatest amount of profit feasible. If you control all that is seen and heard you then can manipulate large portions of society much more efficiently then outright censorship by generating the illusion of a vibrate free press. Anyone that falls outside of this scripted collective steering process and its parameters are deemed "fringe", "kooks", "anti-semitic" or worse "anti-American".

No need for government censorship when those that bring you the information will willingly self-censor and prepackage their product so eagerly. It's the modern form of the "Ministry of Truth".

I don't know if you've heard of this judicial world premiere; a 26 years old Moroccan engineer was kidnapped, tortured and thrown out in jail for creating a Facebook profile using the name of the king's brother. He was charged with "villainous activities" although the only thing he did with the account was send a smiley.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/lalami
http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=545

Anyway, Facebook denied handing out his data to the Moroccan government, but in this so-called "terror-age", I don't buy that for a second.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424448908501345.html?mod=technology_main_whats_news

This coming from the same "news source" that reported in 2006 that a US invasion of Iran was imminent...

Why even try to satirize the U.S. military when they satirize themselves? They actually did this at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It seems Metallica was the most popular torture music, but occasionally they'd crank Barney the Dinosaur when they wanted to play hardball.

And yet, who are the real extreme conspiracy 'theorists?' The ones who make a living doing it.

They're the ones who tap the phones of the Raging Grannies and peace activists. Those who trumpet a threat through media mouthpieces about badly concocted risks, like WMD, ignoring or downplaying real risks, like traffic and poverty and the Mob. The McCarthys and the JE Hoovers, shock jocks and NSA spooks. The makers of the 100,000 person 'no-fly' lists, who stop people from travelling because of the cover of the mystery novel they're reading. Commies in the woodpile and all that.

Oh sure, there are plenty of ineffective kooks who make the Lone Gunman series look tame, but they're badly outgunned, outfinanced, and make a good paintbrush for the 'crazy' tag that is both so legitimate and so admittedly expanded by black propaganda, fear, and other disinformation.

So, it is both planned and true that firm believers in alternate histories and shadow elites are crazy, because the evidence is so tainted, that to believe it wholly is to be inevitably duped. Still, some of the evidence is for real, right? Occam's Razor suggests that documents like the PAO's "Greater CIA Openness" and Pentagon's "Information Operations Roadmap" memos are real, and that there are always those-who-would-be-king pulling whatever strings they can grasp.

Here's the situation for media skeptics:

• you have to question nearly every source, cross reference, etc.
• it is extremely tiring and brings about malaise (an intended effect)
• on public fora like this, expect the spanish inquisition

How much of USA's population celebrates indefinite ideological domestic and global war? Millions. And the first casualty is always truth (sorry). To answer your first question: conformity is comforting, and authoritarian.

Yes, those practices were eliminated many decades ago. Thanks.

Officially? Yes, mostly. De facto? No, discriminatory hiring practices still exist, as do race-based blocks to voting.

There's a direct link between social instability and terrorism. Even Bush agrees with this. Well. He has it half right. It's not poverty. It's instability. Chaos breeds chaos. Investing in public infrastructure can help a lot. Now I admit to being a bit of a technological utopian, but I there really is a strong case to be made for technological advancement fostering freedom, democracy, and social stability.

It will be 6 dull months, but then it is over and remember that there are independent music and film

Welcome to 2007 (or 2006, it's an old map), there are 5 companies which have a stranglehold on everything you see and hear, and every one of them has worked hard to convince people that "independent" is merely a budgetary constraint. If you can find a movie that doesn't have one of those logos on them, congrats, you've found a true independent film and not something that's just an audition for the main stream. Bonus points if it's good.

Now all you have to do is convince the general public to not go watch the emotional pablum advertised by pretty people staring at them from every magazine cover and billboard, then convince the juggernaut multiplexes which are mostly owned by studios to show them. If that doesn't work, all you have to do is convince the "premium" cable channels (also owned by the same 5 companies) to throw it into their rotation. To round things out, you'd also have to find a distributor that's not either owned in part by or extremely friendly to those same 5 companies (otherwise you run the risk of your work being "vaulted", which means thrown away until Hollywood can churn out something similar) who'll try their best to convince rental outlets to waste valuable shelf space on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent media and stifle a slight bit of anger whenever a mom and pop theater closes or Disney releases another High School Musical, but too many people sat by idly while this system built itself for it to be easily stopped.

Just make sure you know what companies are owned by the media corporations:

http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

You wouldn't want to purchase your "fat internet pipe" from the very same corporation that used to provide you with television.

I'm in a quandry. I see policemen beating lawyers on the streets in Pakistan. How should I be feeling?

That's a tough call. You should already be depressed, worried, upset, mad, and overall just frickin' pissed off at the terrible rape in the Congo (or even the U.S.), the starvation in Somalia (or North Korea, mothers dying around the world from a condition that can be treated simply and cheaply, incredible pollution in China and everywhere else, intense economic inequality in Latin America and how it's driving the obesity epidemic elsewhere in the world, the war in Iraq that will never end, and the spread of MRSA thanks to decades of using antibiotics too liberally.

This stuff in Pakistan is just more of the same. Please feel sad, perplexed, and angry.

The real question (which you missed) is this: what can you DO about it? Other than make snarky comments on Slashdot, of course.

When was the last time a virus jumped out of your computer and ate you? There is no evolutionary pressure involved with such intellectual pursuits.

Anyways, these days mortal combat is now primarily an intellectual pursuit, because technology dominates. Usually nowadays we wage war by economic sanctions, which can kill just as many people as bombs. When we do apply violence, those without technology die like flies. Look at Vietnam and the Iraq war: the fact that we're angry and surprised when we achieve only a 5:1 or even 50:1 kill ratio only confirms the primary role technology plays. Disagree? Wake me up when the tables turn and low-tech nations from half way around the world paddle over the pacific ocean and conquer Washington DC with swords and spears. Nope, it's (still) all about technology.

Well worth reading: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman - "The Secret History of Lead: Special Report"

Basically, there was no point in putting lead into gasoline in the first place, and it was known to be poisonous from the early days. The story
bears some similarity to that of the tobacco companies -- one can hope the infamy will one day be alike too.

Honestly this is the LEAST of my worries regarding these machines.

Hacking these machines is like using a bump key on a standard lock. Anyone can be shown how, even idiot politicians.

Why would ANYONE go through the trouble of bribing or threatening the vote when they can just hack the vote?

• Engineers (geeks in general) are treated like crap
• Engineering jobs, just like other jobs, are being offshored and outsourced left and right. (And why spend a pile of money on a degree if you can't find a job after college? In 2007 America, a college degree is a bad investment.)
• Foreign engineers in the US on H1B visas drive down wages

Education is the red herring the globalization crowd trots out when globalization is criticized. After another round of offshoring and outsourcing, the newly-unemployed are told that they "just need some training/a degree/to take some classes".

"Their people will be paid a third, a quarter of what our people are paid. And it's unreasonable to think you can educate our people so well that they can produce four times as much in the United States."

Chaotic Citizen 631995,

See this web site, one of hundreds like it: A Timeline of CIA Atrocities. And this one, too showing U.S. government documents collected by George Washington University: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, 1953.

And, hundreds of books like Blowback

Summary of your comment:

The U.S. government doesn't engage in violent secret behavior.

Besides, other governments engage in violent secret behavior, also.

It's impossible to know what happened in secret, because secrets always remain completely hidden.

Discussing violent secret behavior of the U.S. government is too popular.

People who read Slashdot should focus on the violent behavior of other governments.

Although you haven't read any of the books, or followed the history of the U.S. government of the last 70 years, your knowledge is far superior, and you feel "justified" in being disrespectful.

Yes, some interesting information, but the underlying purpose of releasing it is TOTALLY dishonest. My understanding is that the CIA is releasing information as a public relations gesture. My understanding is that the agency is releasing only information that no longer matters to it, with any modifications it wants to make.

Almost the CIA's ONLY purpose is to help rich people get richer by providing information and violence paid for by U.S. citizens. The organization did not just suddenly become honest. (Read the linked article.)

Bush and Cheney have consistently claimed they are above the law. This fits the definition of a dictatorship: "A form of government in which the ruler is not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition".

The CIA invented a term for the destructive consequences of its actions: Blowback. Blowback doesn't matter to the agency, however, since it still gets what it wants. Also, for CIA employees, more trouble in the world means more money and promotions.

Remember, the terms NSA and CIA are just names that you are allowed to know, to try to get you to think you know what the U.S. government is doing. There are many agencies with names and purposes you are not allowed to know. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are, however, expected to pay. If you are not a U.S. citizen (and sometimes if you are), you may be expected to pay with your life.

I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.

Yeah -- even a backwater town like New York City.

Committed to Excellence in Defense of The Nation
Wow, they really take the First Amendment seriously!

OK, so that wasn't really fair. :-)

Here's the executive summary: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm

Some more references:
http://wiki.ffii.org/Martin041109En
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/21/business/wh o.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,73 69,665969,00.html
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman200207 25
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory .cfm?story_id=5014990

"Within the past five or six years, economists in particular have started to question the USPTO's practices, finding little correlation, if any, between patent proliferation and invention. Economists have identified many situations in which patents actually retard the introduction of new products. "
http://members.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

1. Why would a President concentrate so much power into the position of the President less than a year before he is supposed to leave office? It is clear that there is absolutely no chance of Bush regaining his presidency in a free and fair election and neither is he standing for election. So why Bonus is Bush doing this?
2. Why does he specifically bring in directives which hand over power to the Homeland Security and not to the congress in times of catastrophe? Read this: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/01/america/ NA-GEN-US-Bush-Cheney-Secrecy.php?page=1
3. Why is Bush opting to use "signed statements" as the way to subvert the bills which have been passed? When the president does not approve of a bill, he has the option of vetoing the bill and it will go back to the house for discussions. However, Bush has opted to use a "signed statement" which is just a statement appended to the bill which he signs off on. This statement can be used to completely change the meaning and purpose of the bill - and this does not come up for review. This is not an action of a stupid person - this is the action of someone who clearly understands the process by which bills will be discussed in the house; so he has opted to use a mechanism which can get around this process and allow him the leeway he wants. This is a cunning move and Bush is the *ONLY* person other than Thomas Jefferson to never veto a bill.
   
   http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04 /30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
4. Why a private army? and why is Bush unwilling to release details on the number of people deployed from these private armies (Blackwater etc)? Why are private armies being deployed within the continental US when there are specific directives against such a deployment? Why is he preventing even the law enforcement from having any jurisdiction over these private armies? Did you know that during the Katrina relief, Blackwater was allowed to go in huge numbers with assault rifles when ordinary citizens were being disarmed by the administration? Why was Blackwater used during this crisis in the first place since civilian law enforcement and other search and rescue teams were available?
   
   http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/scahill
5. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Why are the Democrats not raising this issue? Why do they seem so ineffective? One hint - It is clear that it is not just the Republicans who are privy in this game, but it appears that the Democrats are equally complicit.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Inquiry_into_In telligence_Community_Activities_before_and_after_t he_Terrorist_Attacks_of_September_11%2C_2001
   
   Senator Bob Graham (Democrat) was one of the primary movers behind the 911 commission. and he and Porter Goss (Republican - who later on headed the CIA) were the people who cleared Bush of any prior knowledge of the 911 event. But these are the same people who sat in for a meeting with the Head of the Pakistani ISI days prior to the 911 attack and who knew that the ISI were funding the perpetrators of the attack.
   
   http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.h tml
   
   And

But this much is certain: On Saturday, as protesters packed the streets and the presidential palace changed hands for the second time in two days, Venezuelan TV viewers were left in the dark. Instead of news, most got cartoons, reruns and Pretty Woman.

The next day, with Chavez safely back in the palace, none of the country's main Sunday newspapers appeared.

"It was a media coup, a complete blackout," said journalism professor Antonio Almeida, who teaches at the Central University of Venezuela. "Instead of informing the public they covered up the facts."

The media's Saturday blackout contrasted sharply with the blanket coverage of events Thursday leading up to the coup. That included dramatic footage of the repression of a massive antigovernment march in which at least 15 people, including one photographer, were killed and hundreds injured.
....
There was no denying an ugly climate of intimidation Saturday by Chavez supporters, as well as looting. On the other hand, there were no reports of journalists being hurt.

Ferreres, Venevision's president, denied the media delegation was pressured to censor its reporting. "We received no instructions either from the de facto government, nor any government," he said. "No one tells us what we can and cannot do." Privately, however, Venezuelan journalists from several media outlets say news desks stopped taking their stories. Citing concerns over job reprisals, they agreed to speak on condition that their names not be used.

All this [media stakes in ousting Chavez] helps explain why, in the days leading up to the April coup, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Chávez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements."
...
Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell.

Given that the firm, Blackwater USA, is responsible for performing the security background checks on TSA employees (I believe there was a news article several months back where four recently hired employees in the Seattle-Tacoma area were convicted - and jailed - for pilfering luggage - another fine Blackwater USA mission accomplished!), any compromised data is pretty much a moot point......

American Journalism and Russia's Tragedy
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001002/cohen

The Media's New Cold War
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/cohen

More on the true agenda hidden behind the "spread of democracy" propaganda carried out by our own influential media...
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/stephen_f_ cohen

American Journalism and Russia's Tragedy
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001002/cohen

The Media's New Cold War
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/cohen

More on the true agenda hidden behind the "spread of democracy" propaganda carried out by our own influential media...
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/stephen_f_ cohen

American Journalism and Russia's Tragedy
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001002/cohen

The Media's New Cold War
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/cohen

More on the true agenda hidden behind the "spread of democracy" propaganda carried out by our own influential media...
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/stephen_f_ cohen

I assume you were posting things on FreeRepublic that would be counter to the perspective of that forum - liberal, democratic or whatever. I do have a question for you: what is the attraction?

I subscribe to The Nation. I read its blog posts and the commentary of posts I think are interesting - just like Slashdot. I find that there is a sizable contingent (maybe as much as a quarter?) that basically trolls the boards offering libertarian, conservative, and other perspectives that differ significantly from the general perspective of The Nation and its readers. What I cannot figure out is - why?

I would never think of spending time reading blog posts from the Free Republic, National Review, Washington Monthly, Townhall.com or other conservative sites. Maybe an article here or there when I'm looking for different perspectives on a particular issue or an issue of these magazines when I am trying to understand what issues seem to be top of mind for conservatives. But I would never read blog posts or commentary - or troll those forums.

Why did you do it? Did you think you would change people's minds? Were you trying to get people's goat? What motivated you?

It seems to me that participating in forums where you don't agree with the thrust of the forum - whether it be an issue (Luddites posting to Slashdot, gun control advocates on NRA sites or whatever) or political philosophy - is a huge waste of time. Yet, it seems like no matter what forum you choose - someone is doing it. Why? Any insight?

1
2
3
4
5
6

I could keep going, but I don't really feel like patronizing you. You do read the news, don't you?

I'm not sure if this is a troll or what, but if you really think that someone like Lamont -- who couldn't get elected in one of the Bluest states in the country -- typifies what Americans want, you've been spending too much time smoking dope in Boston or L.A.; people want out of Iraq, sure, and are pretty pissed about what they perceive to be American jobs lost to outsourcing and imports, but to equate that with some wellspring of progressivism/socialism is a mistake.

I live in a precinct and county that consistently vote Republican. My congressional district is "represented" by Dennis Hastart, who was until recently the most powerful Republican in the House. My town is basically trying to kick non-whites out through a series of nationally reported racist ordinances. I do not live in Boston or LA, but smack in the middle of the Midwest. I won't comment on my personal habits, but I've only been around people who were using pot once in the past year or so. The American people don't support the left on the wedge issues of immigration, gay marriage, evolution, etc. However, when it comes to economics, they are vastly more left wing than the Democratic party. Most Americans want more regulation of corporations, higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the working, and single payer nationalized healthcare. Socialism really is in the best interests of working America and that's why the first openly socialist member of the senate was just elected.

I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.

Surely you jest.

Mainstream media outlets owned by publicly traded corporations are the "right wing" media outlets. As for journalists themselves, they are mostly centrist, with a right-wing bias on economic issues.

(It is true that, like most educated and cosmopolitan people, journalists tend to be more liberal on social issues. Yes, I'm saying that conservative social positions correlate with provincialism and ignorance.)

It is the control of media by right-wing corporations (a large publicly traded profit-seeking corporation is, by definition, a right-wing entity, favoring capital over labor) that shuts off alternative viewpoints, and makes people wonder if a "fairness doctrine" might be the answer.

While the problem is real, the proposed solution sucks; a better idea is to restrict corporate ownership of media, preventing concentration of the control of information.

The big media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT, etc) basically support the powers that be. 40 or 50 years ago, when liberals ran the country, there may have been some truth to claims of "left wing media bias". But conservatives have run the country since at least Reagan (arguably since Nixon), and so the media has actually had a right wing bias for many years. See, e.g., http://www.fair.org/index.php

If you want to read real "leftist" media, try The Nation http://www.thenation.com/ or The Progressive http://www.progressive.org/

How is the "fairness doctrine" different from Chavez putting all media under his direct command ?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein

We can try to stick our heads in the sand as with climate change, but statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise. Do you have a better explanation than a weak-kneed permissive social attitude or a conditioning by media influences?

How about knee-jerk reactions based on a puritanical social attitude conditioned by pervasive media witch hunts? OF COURSE pedophilia charges are going to go up when you start charging parents for taking pictures of their children.

. There is no "moral question" -- it's so important it's a physically hardwired response to view such activities with disgust and contempt.

And this is exactly the reason we as a society need to think calmly and rationally about the issue. There is no moral question concerning abusing or hurting children. But what does that have to do with looking at computer generated images, again? Oh right, nothing. You just view it "with disgust and contempt", so you want to prevent anyone from doing it.