Slashdot Mirror

"To be honest with you, there were no censors in sight", explained one former editor of an important daily in Prague. "We knew what we had to write, what the party line was. We knew our limits when we wanted to criticize something. Nobody had to bother to stand behind our back. We censured ourselves."

In fact, journalists were expected to be critical of the system. They were encouraged to bash low-level corruption and other minor negative elements of the system. As long as they kept reminding their readers that the system itself was superior, they were on the right track.

There were no gulags in Czechoslovakia in the sixties and seventies, no concentration camps, no torture chambers. Those who crossed the line by choosing honesty and professionalism were not kidnapped. Parents of dissidents were not tortured before their eyes. There were no extra-judicial executions (unlike in our colonies in, say, Central America). Those who decided to tell the truth simply lost their jobs, became unemployable or were forced to become manual workers or window washers. Only a few of those who decided to stand against the system were imprisoned. They included several dissidents, among them Vaclav Havel.

The system in Czechoslovakia functioned almost flawlessly. Extreme violence was unnecessary. Fear of losing privileges did the trick. Almost all journalists knew their duties: they knew what was expected from them. Mostly they didn't have to be told what to think and what to write: they knew it intuitively. They may have lacked integrity, but they weren't stupid, after all. And they had families to feed and houses to furnish!

Thank you for watching my back, I was indeed occupied elsewhere. :-)

I see no reason for me to refute the grandparent post, as the parent has done a very good job of it and besides, all the arguments of the grandparent amount to "the intended end justifies the means", which is clearly incorrect and I have refuted it elsewhere.

Nobody knows what is going to come of this war, and saying that it is right just because the actors claim to have good intentions is silly. The intentions of the actors are also highly suspect. Never believe anyone when they tell you they are going to do something wrong because of their supposedly good intentions. Actions speak louder than words.

I think the parent's quote from Matthew (which is Jesus Himself speaking in the Sermon on the Mount) is a clear representation of God's views on the subject, and is probably the most important quote in the whole Bible, as the quote itself clearly states is the case. You can argue with it if you like, but it is still Right.

I am done with this debate. I have taken a firm position on what is known as the Moral High Ground and defended it. The opposition claims the moral high ground in its propaganda and rhetoric, but they clearly have no legitimate claim to it. Pacifism is firmly positioned on the moral high ground and will continue to be so. Others can lay claim to it, but they cannot take it, as one person of conscience can defend the moral high ground against billions.

For a much more detailed defense of this position, and a great perspective on the situation surrounding this war, please see the text of this talk by Prof. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, and also the Bad News Noam Chomsky Archive which has many of his recent articles. Prof. Chomsky knows way more about all this than I do, and is a brilliant speaker and essayist. If you are interested in this debate, no matter what your political or philosophical beliefs, you might find what he has to say interesting as well.

I want to thank everyone involved for a great debate, it has been enjoyable and highly instructive. I have nothing but the highest respect and love for all of you (on all sides of the debate), and consider you heroes for standing up for your beliefs.

I call upon all parties in this conflict to listen to reason, and to stop all killing and atrocities at once, and to try to settle your disputes like decent human beings. I have little reason to hope for this, but hope and pray for it I shall.

Peace out...

We are going to war with Iraq for the freedom of the people... right?

You and me both know you are being sarcastic. We are in Iraq for one reason -- to secure its oil and to secure permanent US presense in the gulf area. I support that. All of the reasons that Bush and Blair give are just distractions at best, at worst, perhaps even lies. We've got one policy in the middle east... keep the oil flowing and keep it cheap. We do this not by supporting democracies, but rather by supporting dictatorships as this is the most cost-effective way to accomplish this goal.

Is that why the Lance corporal I saw on the BBC a week ago was writing something with the text "9/11" on a bomb?

Your Lance corporal was mis-informed, deliberately I might add. We are in Iraq for one reason -- to secure its oil and to secure permanent US presense in the gulf area. I support that. All of the reasons that Bush and Blair give are just distractions at best, at worst, perhaps even lies. We've got one policy in the middle east... keep the oil flowing and keep it cheap. We do this not by supporting democracies, but rather by supporting dictatorships as this is the most cost-effective way to accomplish this goal.

I am a little confused about this statement: Which is why I cannot support pacifism as a means to world peace

Otherwise I find your argument quite cogent and reasonable, and I enjoyed reading it. I am still a pacifist, and will probably remain so, but I definitely respect your opinion, and feel that you have represented it well, and I am glad that you are so determined to do the right thing in this conflict. Your principles will serve you will in the troubled times ahead.

We seem to have more common ground than we at first realized, which I find very encouraging. Maybe when I've had some time to think about it, I will want talk about it some more. This has been a very useful discussion, and I thank you for it.

Well fought, my lord, and may we meet again upon the field of honor. ;-)

Peace out...

I'd rather check Zmag for fair information.

"Might-makes-right?" Oh please. Is that what you think this is all about?

Well, now, let's see... the US goes to the UN and asks for legal justification for doing something it plainly intends to do anyway no matter what anyone else says or thinks. They are denied that justification for any number of good reasons. Bush subsequently claims that the US has the authority to act unilaterally and without UN support (even though the UN clearly has legal authority in disputes between member states). The US then goes ahead and invades a sovereign nation, acting as a direct agressor over the explicit protests of other national leaders, populations, and a significant number of its own people. Yeah, that sounds like a might-makes-right mentality to me.

I have the highest opinion of the American spirit of freedom, independence, and creative idealism. However, my negative opinion of US foreign policy has been formed based upon a fairly extensive knowledge of the history of US intervention in foreign affairs, which has resulted in more SNAFUs than I can possibly list here, including for instance the war in Vietnam and the entire situation in Latin America.

Oh, you mean that "same old shit" that is historically proven to work not just in the last century, but long before that?

No, I mean the same old shit which you yourself later admit has got us into this mess in the first place. If you think the history of the last couple of centuries can even remotely be called "working" in any positive sense, please go back and read it again, it has been an absolute bloody horrible nightmare.

If these ideas are so great, then why don't I hear people talking about these ideas.

Well, this is a very good question. It might have something to do with the stranglehold that US propagandists have on the mainstream press. I'm not sure. But I am talking about them now, and I encourage other people to talk about them too, and please read Prof. Chomsky's work, he makes this whole case far better than I ever could.

This action is merely the beginning of the end to the violence.

This claim sounds highly specious to me. Firstly, you cannot possibly know that this war will put an end to the violence in Iraq, that is pure speculation. Secondly, invading another country, thereby starting a war, is much more likely to be a beginning of violence than an end to it. Thirdly, I am totally unconvinced that the US intends to stop this rampant agression here. Rather, it clearly plans to fight a whole series of "major theater wars, small wars, and constabulary actions" in order to secure its position of global dominance, as clearly outlined by the aforementioned Project for a New American Century. So I am far more inclined to believe that this is in fact the beginning of a wave of violence the likes of which we have not seen since WWII.

You are also clearly incorrect in your implied statement that violence and killing will not stop atrocities.

Well, for one thing, violence and killing are atrocities. For another thing, any detailed reading of history, such as you are implying that you have done, should show you that historically violence and killing have tended to lead to violence and killing. This is hardly surprising. In WWII, the US was intervening in a war which had already been going on for some time, whereas in this case they are deliberately starting a war, and there is a world of difference. And even if you believe that violence will somehow put an end to violence, the end still doesn't justify the means. Find some other way.

I really fail to see how taking out

That sort of sums up my feelings on the subject... outright lies go unchallenged and the debate is restricted to how many supply wagons and troops should be sent into combat. That's hardly criticism of the administration. It's not that there's no debate - it's that the debate is about unimportant details, or about the severity of a course of action that is unquestioned. Individual facts are reported, and sometimes even on the front page, but they're not often used to challenge the status quo.

I understand the reasons for CNN being what it is (or at least think I do) but that's no reason to excuse them. Nobody to my knowledge has refuted Noam Chomsky's bread and butter book... if commercial US networks' coverage hasn't improved since Nicaragua I don't see why it's too likely to change now. The same style sells every year, and the penalties for pissing off your sources of prepackaged news remain the same. Hell, I wouldn't want to piss of the Bush adminsitration... they are incredibly adept at controlling and dispensing information. If you're not on their good list, you might not get invited.

Of course Al-Jazeera is just as biased. That was sort of my intent in my ranting post. One part CNN, one part The Guardian, one part the Hindu Times and a dash of Al-Jazeera, mix with the Page 16 article-hunters' reports and you might actually have a fair picture of what's going on.

This is insightful?

The flame war over the war continues! I say, To Arms!, fellow slashdotters, and flame on!

To rebut the parent's lunacy:

Nobody with any sense is suggesting that the US, or anybody else for that matter, should just do nothing. However, there are many other options in any conflict situation besides doing nothing and killing people. The US should try to address the problems which underlie the instability of the region, as well as those which underlie what is often called the "campaign of hatred" against the US by the Muslim world. The US should attempt to address these issues in a reasonable and civilized manner, instead of reverting to the basest barbarism, xenophobia, and might-makes-right mentality.

Oh wait...I guess the US should walk away and lift the sanctions. Then Saddam can do whatever he wants.

I fail to see how the sanctions were preventing Saddam from committing atrocities. Their purpose was clearly to soften up Iraq for this invasion, which has been in the works since before Sept. 11 (see the Project for a New American Century for an explanation of the real causes behind this war) and had nothing to do with preventing atrocities. In a very real sense the first Gulf War never ended, the US has been killing Iraqis ever since and shows no signs of wanting to stop. Violence and killing will never stop atrocities, only create new ones.

The US should indeed walk away and lift the sanctions, and then find other ways of dealing with the problem. There are some pretty smart people in the US, I'm sure they can come up with something more creative than this silly and pointless rerun of the same old shit they've been doing for the last century. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and staunch pacifist, for instance, has some pretty good ideas which at least bear consideration.

You can't change the past

No, but we can influence the future, and it is clear (as has been seen over and over again in history) that undertaking immoral actions such as war will more than likely have a strongly negative effect on the future. This is known as karma. If you do something wrong now, odds are, nothing good will come of it, regardless of the supposed benevolence of your intentions.

War is morally wrong and can never be justified. The US is just getting itself into a huge mess which will cause all sorts of horrible atrocities and further bloodshed, as we will all see soon enough.

If you are interested in my views on this, please see the thread linked to in my sig, which is a great debate on the issue of Pacifism vs. Jingoism in which I said most of what I have to say on the matter.

Maybe I've just been reading too much Noam Chomskylately, but they are some pretty interesting questions, with more than one logical explanation.

and, you'd probably like to have all this referenced and footnoted. so, here ya go!

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.h tml

-c

I think he's right that everyone has their own slant. I haven't read all the posts so sorry if this source has already been mentioned, but check Z Magazine for a different slant than you'll get from a lot of places. They also have articles that express a historical context, but keep the slant in mind the whole time, please :)

Ravi

You might want to check this out.

Here's a link, and here's an abridged copy:

The Hitler regime was possessed of imposing military might, backed up by an advanced industrial complex that was working flat out and was a leader in various spheres, including weaponry. The Führer, who had come to power through democratic means, boasted of the superiority of his State and his model of society and did not conceal his intention to seek world control. Such was his power and arrogance, and so obvious was the fervour of his support, that he was able to cow most Western governments. In the face of their cowardice, he was able to flout international law, aided by the Western governments' approval of his ferocious antipathy to communism, whose adherents the Nazis accused of terrorism (vide the trials for the Reichstag fire).

So how does this compare with the regime of Saddam Hussein? The Iraqi dictator - whose army could not defeat Iran despite backing from the United States and Russia - is in no position to contemplate attacking anybody. Industrially, the country lacks the means even of defending itself, with an underfed population and half its territory subject to foreign-imposed no-fly zones. Indeed, Saddam for many months has resigned himself to ever-increasing humiliations as inspectors are allowed even to look under the carpets in his own home.

Interestingly enough, the Iraqis heard this statement before from the British when they took over Iraq from the Ottomans. Some Iraqis were amused at the similarity. I agree with the sentiment...I just hope we follow through.

Care to give any proof of that statement?

link
link

Acording to SIPRI (http://www.sipri.se/) the number one arms supply for Iraq from 1973 to 1990 has been the Soviet Union for $25 billion worth of arms, followed by France and China at $5 billion each.

OK, I'll clue you in, just in case you've been living under a rock for the past year. We are not talking about conventional weapons (guns, tanks, helicopters, etc.). The whole disarmament thing was about chemical and biological weapons, which is what US happily supplied Iraq with.

They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.

But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?

So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.

This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.

So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.

This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?

Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved

All this tech looks really impressive, but don't count on real coverage affter all this is a war we are fighting to win not to pull out because of political pressure, count on some quality propaganda

I have seen more with low tech 128kbs video feed because it's from the perspective of those getting bombed rather then those dropping them.

No I'm talking about American terrorism. The Bush family has strong ties to bin Laden's family. And the Saudi government, one which is widely regarded as repressive as the Taleban, is one of the US' closest allies. Including all the family of bin Laden, with the obvious exception of Osama.

As for the thought that violation of copyright supports terrorism; even if this ridiculous suggestion were true, would that be a reason to punish kids that buy pirated stuff or rip their own stuff? Because that's who the MPAA and MS will try to punish.

The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War.

I take it you`re not familiar with the song Whitey on the moon by Gil Scott-Heron then?

I was a kid when Iraq when this happened, but I found a history of the Iran/Iraq war. The bottom line is: Saddam was financed during the period of its worse attrocities by the United States administration.

In fact, every time the CIA has overthrown a democratically elected government, it has made the situation worse for the population. In Chile (where Allende, the popular elected president was deposed and assasinated in a state coup, and Pinochet assumed power), in Iran, where the democratic government was overthrown by the CIA. The Sha's government was brutal. The brutally went to the point that a religion uprising lead to the extreme muslims to take the power again.

Given past history (and who could forget the five continous US administrations that lied to the american public, and manufactured evidence to wage a war against the Vietnamese), I am more than reluctant to believe that there are any moral reasons to wage this new war.

If morality were the real issue, why not begin by taking Ariel Sharon to the world court for his crimes in Sabra and Shatila.

The supposed buildup against Saudi Arabia was manufactured evidence. Also, the story of the babies in Kuwait: that was also a lie.

Now, since you feel so strongly about the gassing of the kurds. Tell me how you feel about the five US administrations that used agent orange and destroyed Vietnam?

You know that the US agreed to pay reparations to Vietnam, and has to this date not paid a cent?

Stop watching FOX news, it will burn your brain ;-)

• http://www.zmag.org/pelac.htm
• http://www.parecon.org/
• http://www.zmag.org/lac.htm
• http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ParticipatoryEconomics

• http://www.zmag.org/pelac.htm
• http://www.parecon.org/
• http://www.zmag.org/lac.htm
• http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ParticipatoryEconomics

Anarchism means many different things to different people, and in different contexts.

Those who advocate anarchy (lit. absence of rulers) as a political system, today, generally mean any sort of non-soviet style, non-authoritarian, socialist regime. Typically, the idea would be that the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.) are publically owned, and thus managed by whatever state apparatus you may have. However, in the words of Noam Chomsky (who describes himself as an anarchist and seems to mean it in this sense): anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.

Historically, anarchy was a derrogatory term for democracy, which we might call polyarchy (the rule of many) today.

An individual anarchist, however, may have little or no political conscience. In the philosophical sense, someone who simply does not believe in rules might call himself an anarchist.

Likewise, a Liberterian might (indeed, probably does) agree that all exercise of "authority" must be heavily justified, although they define authority somewhat differently. Thus, some Liberterians say that they are also Anarchists, in the philosophical if not political sense. Anarcho-capitalist, a term that crops up in literature fairly often, means Liberterian.

So, yes, the GPL is anarchism, in the "stick it to the man," philosophical sense of the term - "the man" in this case being the conventional software industry.

RMS himself is also an anarchist in the political sense (I think). Writing software under the GPL is perfectly consistent with an anarchist political philosophy; however, it is not a subversive vehicle for such a political philosophy.

If you're really interested in a good analysis of the Bush administration's motives in Iraq, check out this article. The conclusion is that it is primarily about oil, specifically control over the price of oil.

As far as these inevidable [sic] US invasions, you didn't say the word, but essentialy you're accusing us of imperialism, which is complete, utter, delusional nonsense. We could've ruled the world long ago. After WW II, we were the only real power left on Earth.

I think a much more cogent counterargument can be found here. We have established an empire. We just aren't as open about it as the British once were. We're content to let other people think they have autonomy.

If you're interested in the effects of media consolidation and government propaganda, check out this short summary of a pamphlet Chomsky put out during the Gulf War.

I disagree with huge chunks of what he says in this pamphlet and subsequent pronouncements. But he has been writing about the consolidation and manipulation of the American media for many years, and if current trends continue, his annoying rants may mirror the truth more closely than any of us would like.

Joe Sixpack does not have the ability to think things through anymore, as a result of his upbringing. It appears, from here in Europe, that the average American has a very poor grasp of history and geography. It doesn't help that you are being lied to on a daily basis by your government and media.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what arguments you/other Americans provide as an excuse for failing to understand why the US is so hated, or why you don't like Michael Moore. He's doing his bit to inform people, such as those too lazy (or undereducated) to read a book. I`ve seen it, I liked it, I wished more people would see it. I like having my views and opinions challenged, as I don't pick a belief and defend it come what may, but actually form opinions based on the available facts, and change them as other, more facts become available. I used to, for example, think that Palestinian 'suicide attacks' were indefensible. But now I know that the facts are that Israel, backed by the US (40% of US 'aid' goes to Israel), invaded another country, tortures and murders the people there, most of whom were forced out at gunpoint. I don't agree that civilians should be subject to bombs and shootings. But that's exactly what Israel/US have been doing for 50 odd years. What do you expect the Palestinians to do? Play by different rules?

But to listen to your moron of a leader (what sort of message does the fact that he was considered the best of the bunch by the American public send out to the world?), you'd think that its the Palestinians who are terrorists!! Those evil doers of..evil, daring to fight using the only means available (they don't have tanks, helicopters, state of the art weapons and surveillance equipment, nuclear weapons etc do they!) to..uh..take back the land which has been declared illegally taken according to UN Resolutions. How dare they! They're terrorists, that's what they are. They and their evil Muslim followers hate America...all they are trying to do is make the world a better place.

Aren't they?

Why not spend a few minutes checking out some of the articles and interviews on the following links:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Go on. You know you want to. Seriously, please do. For me. Or is Noam Chomsky a liberal extremist too?!

Sometimes it's actually quite similar: elsewhere:

The way it's supposed to work is that the political system is supposed to be in the hands of private tyrannies, private power [...]

the best way to keep people's attention away from what you're doing to them is to frighten them

So here are some more links to document the sordid history of the US abroad.

The Long and Hidden History of the US in Somalia

Us Approves Invasion of East Timor

A brief history of CIA involvement in the drug trade

The Philippine War and Anti-Imperialism

Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal

Keep modding me down and I will keep posting new links. My karma is capped right now so we could be here all night. How is it flamebait to talk about human rights abuses in the US in a story about a software license that forbids such abuses?

Here's a proper link.

I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.

Of course, Hitler didn't do it alone. He had help. Lots of help.

Hindsight may be 20/20, but this is a lesson the American aristocracy can't seem to learn - realpolitik is a great way to create trouble down the road.* I fear Dubya and his grand viziers are going down this road again to take care of problems left by previous administrations, although one current Administration member was directly involved in creating the current problem.

It is hypocrises such as this that cast great doubt upon the current intentions of the US government, and why so many people distrust the rhetoric coming out of Washington these days.

* More frightening is that a few powerful American industrialists and entrepeneurs sympathized with Hitler - Hearst and Ford among them. That goes beyond realpolitik, which I don't think had been coined at that point; powerful people made money off Hitler's aggression and slaughter of Jews, Romani, communists, homosexuals, etc., and still benefit from it today.

Capitalism is a short-sighted system that puts profits before people, dollars before the environment.

Free your mind, read Z Mag

Whether a patient's results from a BRCA test are negative or positive, the patient is left with information that does little to dispel fear and instill hope. See Marketing Fear in this month's Z Magazine.

US doesn't give a fuck about the world they only care about themselves and oil. And that's what irritates other countries.

Better in Russia than in US.

US is sticking their fingers everywhere they can profit. Go read some articles of Chomsky and get a clue.

Depends on how you define Democracy. And you don't need direct government intervention to censor the web, people can do it themselves, usually wihtout realising it. Read Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions and Manufacturing Consent.

...
is an empty lie.

And if you don't believe a Welsh rock band, try a Harvard professor.

Wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

"Telecom could invert itself and become a bottom-up phenomenon," is a deliciously subversive idea. Like the local currency systems - LETS and whatever comes after major labor music distribution this promises to really shake things up in a good way (read: shaft the bad guys) and is also right around the corner.

Then I'll get a cell phone

..links to FARC are bad... because FARC and other rebels in Columbia are the
only evil people there...

..links to FARC are bad... because FARC and other rebels in Columbia are the
only evil people there...

I might mention that the United States of America is the only country to be convicted of international terrorism, for our actions in Nicaragua. Pot, meet kettle.

• Australia Taps More Phones Than Entire U.S.
• Australia's Censored URL List Remains Hidden
• Australia Plans More Spying on Citizens
• Oz Government Seizes Games For "Full Classification"
• A Social Health Atlas of Australia
• Racism in Australia
• Statistics: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
• Asylum Seekers in Australia

sorry, URL fix

http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm

Yes, indeed these are great news! I'm really happy that Velug finally managed to pull out something good for us all :)

Oh yes, i live in Caracas, i run Freebsd in my home, i also do a little sysadmin job in another Freebsd machine on a cybercafe, and put Linux in a community FM radio (94.9FM) (only heard in parts of Caracas)

Im always trying to show the benefits of free software to my friends, and it is not easy. The same, well known issues arise again and again, but i will never give up :) Of course i don't push people to anything, in the end its their choice to give it a try. The incidents in Peru have been very inspiring for me to continue, and i hope to meet some of these fine people now finally in a position to do something positive for us all.

I can't accept the position of almost all the privately held media in Venezuela that absolutely everything out of this governement is bad and worst than the previous. This can't simply be true. Too many important people has been given now the oportunity that none of the previous corrupt politicians ever made to anyone unless a lot of cash were offered beforehand, in which case, of course was only for the benefit of the big foreign corporation interests.

Please continue to spread out the good positive news!

For people not living in Venezuela:

Most private media owners declared war to the current President, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias, who apparently refused to continue maintaining special privileges for the sector. It was clearly evidenced in past Coup d'Etat (that only lasted 2 days!) when they not only closed the only non private held TV station (and all community radios), but also they self censored themselves by not showing any kind of news coverage of the events.

People who had satellite and cable TV could watch from CNN and Telemundo the events that were taking place only blocks away, but none of the local media were willing to show. One worker who later resigned in channel RCTV was literally given the order "Don't put on air any pro chavez demonstration".

Any journalist is supposed to get and show you both sides of a story, and then let you decide. In Venezuela, most news will only cover one side. As you have clearly seen, the intent for a few (used to be more priviledged than now class) is to get rid of Chavez at all costs. Simply because he is not willing to adhere to their interests.

Yes, 10 yrs ago Chavez attempted a Coup d'Etat, failed and went to prision. He later was set free, founded a political Party, and he cleanly won elections for president in 98. Truly some people were so angered by all the previous governements that made a dream of having a sort of "mesiah" that would came and clean it all. The reality showed otherwise. Trying to revert 4 decades of corruption is no small task, and it still erodes current goverment, so there have been lots of mistakes.

Mistakes that were not disguised, or denied, mistakes thas had been admited! And countless efforts have been made to settle things down, dialogue tables, international mediators (including the Carter Center), but there is a small yet powerful sector which happens to control most media which simply cares nothing and want him out.

I am still positive though. Things like Community Radio (known as Low Power FM movement in the states) and adoption of "Free Software whenever possible by the governement, are clear indications that things can be done, and ARE being done.

For more on this subject, read Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, which explains how the seven media filters make sure nothing nasty (like, for instance, the truth) reaches the public. It's a quite heavy book to read, but very interesting.

Also, for brilliant US political satire comics, something I discovered yesterday: This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow. (I don't think the penguin is related to Linux though.)

What does this mean to employees? I find lots about investors, bankers, and bond-holders, but very little about employees.

That's because in the American mainstream media, employees don't count as much as investors.

Otherwise, what I think this means is that you need to get the FUCK out of DODGE. (Assuming you can get a job right now elsewhere.)

World Without War

Well, the article is happy with the fact that so far, the "good guys" seemingly prevail (in the author's opinion). I.e., Orwell failed.

There are two caveats here. One is measuring the existing balance and judging whether the "good guys" indeed benefit from the technology more than suffering the personal freedom loss to some extent. Different views exist on that. For a good dose of more cautious opinions read some Chomsky thoughts. It definitely is a subjective thing - while a lot of the people in the US and around the world are now giving their govts more and more surveillance and censorship power (or just have fallen prey to unfortunately elected officials who make things look as if their people give them this power), others would never sacrifice their own personal freedoms even if everybody around shouts that this would bring "better security". Depending on what is more important to you, you may or may not think the world is 1984-like today. Unfortunately for me, I am on the pessimistic side here - feeling that the mass media technology does suppress >99% of thinking out of the mainstream political lines dictated by the ruling powers and the capital behind them. The perpetual war going on right now as a series of "isolated conflicts" and hypocritic switch of countries like the US from being at war with "Ostasia/Eastasia" is so much like what was described by Orwell...

The other thing is that the battle is not over. The technologies involved are in fact moved by concrete people - so some classified techs leak out of sole govt possession for everyone's use (for good and for bad - crypto and nukes come to mind). And, of course, there is a lot of public-domain tech which first serves those trying to restrain abusive power representatives forgetting what they are supposed to be there for, even in some democratic states... The balance can shift either way - and who knows what would the article author say in 2084?

Moral media isn't dead. You just have to look harder for it.

Now that the Sept 11th jingoism has died down and it's starting to be a non-terminal offence to express discontent versus the powers that be, you're starting to see the creepings of independent thought show up even in CNN. Up here in Canada, CTV's been doing it for a while. But even then there's a huge under-reporting of stories that would knock the comfort zone of the average person.

The basic problem is this -- any media outlet is a slave to the mandate of its publisher. This isn't really new, it's as old as newspapers themselves (it used to be that if you wanted to be a politician it was a shrewd move to found your own newspaper). So, if you've got nothing but biased media out there, the only way to really inform yourself is to (a) check up on all the biases and try to develop your own conclusions from them, and (b) realize that there's no substitute for actually being at the scene of the event, or at the very least talking to someone who is.

People who critique the media as having a bias often make the mistake of trying to sound like it's forced upon them, when really, you can choose to go out and find different information from a different source. Some options include:

ZNet

The Guardian

The Independent

Le Monde Diplomatique (English version here)

Tom Tommorow

It also helps in times of conflict to go to the media outlets or websites of your political enemies to see what they're saying. It's amazing how they often take as gospel a premise that is completely different from your own. It's also amazing how often the exact same coercive techniques are used by both sides. Makes you wonder if there are average citizens over there are pissed off at their media as much as some of us are at ours.

By the way, I know I went off on a bit of a tangent, but if you click on any of the links above you'll see minimal coverage of the Elizabeth Smart case. There might be a story in there at some point to tell everyone how it all turns out, but nothing like the usual CNN sensationalism. The point is, if you don't like your media, don't go back to it -- go elsewhere. It's not like we have battered wife syndrome or something.

(or maybe we do???)