Slashdot Mirror

Not one person has been locked up because of his or her name.

http://archive.webactive.com/freespeech/fsrn200209 16.html

OK, that was because they just looked funny rather than their names, but the basic assumption is the same.

A form of Pentagon-supported censorship... http://www.democracynow.org/static/hiroshima.shtml summary: After the bomb drop on Hiroshima, press are confined to a barge off the coast of Japan. Wilfred Burchett, an independent journalist, decides to go and see things first hand and writes about it ("I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world."). William L. Laurence of the New York Times, and on the Pentagon payroll, writes a series of stories discrediting Burchett and gets the Pulitzer Price. Democracy Now is trying to get the Pulitzer stripped from the NYT. from http://archive.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn200 10806.html Soon after the bombing, as reporters converged on a ship off the coast of Japan to cover the surrender of the Japanese, one independent reporter named Wilfred Burchett took a train for 30 hours to Hiroshima. He couldn't believe what he saw: people with their skin melting off them, images of people engraved on the sides of buildings. He sat down with his Hermes typewriter in the rubble, and tapped out the words, "I write this as a warning to the world." He talked about something he called, 'bomb sickness', that he had never seen before. Another reporter did a ten-part series on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was William Leonard Laurence of the New York Times. He was also on the payroll of the Pentagon. One of his headlines was, "No Bomb Sickness Found." He won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting. Wilfred Burchett died of cancer decades later, but always traced it to Hiroshima.

> it was technically legal. That's why I get annoyed when people start ranting about the "stolen" election

There are lots of things that are technically legal, but aren't the kind of thing you want your president to be doing! I think most people know that nothing is going to change what happened, and now just make a reference to it as just another dig against Bush, without spending too much time on it. (There's lots of bad stuff Bush has done since the election to talk about that would still be bad even if he had clearly won the election.)

You should listen to this report on the media-funded recount, and distorted coverage of it.

> it distracts attention away from the underlying problems and makes it harder to get mainstream support.

Good point. It sure plays well when preaching to the choir, though.

> ("Voting machine improvements? That's just another whiny democrat who can't accept that he lost!")

That's unfortunate. I hate politicians who try to find reasons not to do good things.

As much as I think it's unlikely that low power non-ionizing EM radiation is harmful, I wouldn't ask anyone to take Fox's word for it. The article provides enough information to do some digging and maybe come up with a journal article, but I wouldn't trust Fox's reporting on anything besides sports results.

They don't tell you on the website, but the FreedomForum and the Newseum were founded by Gannett, the corporation that has done the most to destroy local newspaper ownership. There are many, much smarter than me, who belive a media that daily tells us our freedoms are not important does a lot to undermine democracy.

Every day by around 2PM Eastern (US), DemocracyNow.Org - a progressive news show - posts their hour-long broadcast in mp3 format and keeps several days of shows. WebActive.com - a venture funded in part by Real.com - has a lot of progressive shows but they're all in Real format. Check out these progressive news sources; you'll be suprised to hear "the other side" of the story and a well balanced news broadcast unlike the goverment warhawk mouthpiece drivel you hear on Fox News and CNN.

In the same way as (I believe) Dubya's still a little bit miffed over Rick Mercer's "greetings from Jean Poutine" after his Michigan primary win last year? (a Link including sound-bytes and another link)

Okay, mod this down as flamebait and Anti-American, but this is my opinion:

Unlike Afghanistan? Yes, 9/11 was a horrible atrocity committed by a bunch of nutjobs who we should go after. However, if you don't think that oil is the primary reason we're meddling in Afghanistan then you've bought the US government propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

US oil companies have been drooling over the prospect of building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan for more than fifteen years and were perfectly happy dealing with the Taliban in an effort to make it happen before 9/11. What we have in Afghanistan now is a puppet government installed by the United States.

I comple0tely and utterly support our troops - the soldiers are doing their duty by going where our government orders them to go and doing what they're ordered to do. They are not to blame. The government of the United States and the US foreign policy are to blame for the antipathy toward the United States. 9/11 was horrible, but it was chickens coming home to roost.

We killed just as many, if not more, innocent civilians in bombing the shit out of Afghanistan. Just listen to Democracy Now and some other NEWS organizations like The Progressive and Mother Jones. CNN has become nothing more than the mouthpiece of corporate America. Have you heard or seen of civilian casualties? When was the last time we had press coverage of a military action like we did during Vietnam?

How many more innocent civilians will the United States kill in vengance for the murders of 9/11? 10,000? 100,000? Millions?

Who will we invade next? Will their prisoners be treated humanely, like the Nazis we tried after WWII? Will the prisoners of the next country we capture be "unlawful combatants" or will they be white and thus qualified for "prisoner of war" status. How many "terrorists" will be captured as the definition is expanded to include anyone who objects to what the US government is doing? Will we too be denied civil liberties without legal representation and kept in prison without trial indefinitely? Will citizens face a military courts martial?

Search Google for the relevant keywords for more information, particularly since the Grey Lady was also a target of Mr. Giordano's investigative talents, and thus they're not likely to give it the coverage it deserves ...

• Google: narconews + banamex
• audio: Giordano reports on AP conflict of interest in Bolivia reporting (the worst sin in journalism)
• IndyMedia's interview with Giordano

Fox news has more hot news chicks than all the other news networks combined.

Well, it's about time someone had something nice to say about FOX News! I really can't comment myself--in times like these, Democracy Now! is where I turn my ear. But maybe we can chalk that up to a difference in target demographics. Even if she were on TV rather than radio, I doubt of her listeners would be encouraged to think that way about Amy Goodman.

please donate money to PBS

1. Pacifica Radio. Still good, even with all the current problems. Be sure to listen to Democracy Now! with your RealAudio player.
2. Radio for Peace International Free Speech non-commercial shortwave station broadcasting from Costa Rica
3. Public Access Television. NOT affiliated with PBS. On your local cable network. Watch it, and support it by taking the classes and MAKE YOUR OWN SHOW!
4. Deep Dish TV. Available on Public Access and on some Satellite networks.
5. Free Speech TV. Available on Public Access and on some Satellite networks.
6. Paper Tiger TV. Available on Public Access and on some Satellite networks.

In the Democracy Now Archive

Try actually reading the article. FAIR doesn't like the fact that Stossel fabricated evidence to support his position.

"Do you ever see FAIR criticizing the networks for running BOGUS scare stories from leftist thinktanks like the Alar-scare a few years ago..."

Yep, their radio show has a piece on it here.

"The media is neither left nor right."

Correct, they are corporations.

Now, where is the proof that this is a bad thing?
After all, isn't increased trade good?

Take the Nestle Infant Formula in Ecuador as one example. Nestle gave Infant Formula to UNICEF for impoverished, uneducated Ecuadoran mothers. The package had a picture of a plump, healthy baby that led these illiterate women to believe that the Infant Formula was better than breast feeding for their babies, which is very far from the truth. Both UNICEF and the Ecuadoran government passed legislation (democratically) that banned the use of packaging that might be considered misleading. Nestle complied until the creation of the WTO, when Nestle brought charges of unfair trade barriers against Ecuador. Ecuador repealed the legislation due to threats of severe economic sanctions, undoing the protections for the most vulnerable segment of the population.

Something I just learned about listening to Democracy Now! at Pacifica News was that the Australian Beef Industry has charged the US with trade barriers due to the fact that the USDA must inspect beef. The US government has decided to accept Corporate Inspected Beef as the equivalent of USDA Prime, complete with stamp. That means you can no longer trust USDA beef as having passed certain standards. If your wondering what the problem with that is, please go find out why the USDA was created and look at many of the causes for food labeling and standards that began being passed at the turn of the century. You'll lose your appietite.

Another example is the EU and the opposition of the European public to accept hormone treated beef. The US has imposed massive trade sanctions against EU exports due to legislation (democratically passed) banning the import of hormone treated beef. While you may not see anything wrong with hormone treated beef or other products, Europe does, and Europeans have every right not to accept it on the same terms they accept non-treated beef. Yet the WTO seems to think otherwise.

You can argue that no-one has to join the WTO, but look at the pressure the US and other developed countries have put on those who do not seem eager. Not joining the WTO can limit foriegn aid, foriegn investment and trade at all.

I believe that peoples rights come before corporate rights, and that none of the things we do in this world are worth anything unless it helps the common good in one way or another (yes helping yourself can help the common good). Pushing corporate profits is not more important than helping humans better themselves. I also think that those that have more ability and resources have a moral duty to help those that don't. I live by this and I think that anyone who wants to be seen as a truly productive member of society should believe this principle true to some extent. We are all part of a system on this planet, with the environment and with each other and we are only as strong as our weakest link. We can't help everyone, but we can ensure equal oppurtunity for most. The WTO is not about that or any of the other principles that the US or most democracies were founded upon. Please get more info before passing judgement on the protestors in Seattle, they may be saving your health and your freedom.