Slashdot Mirror
Project Censored 2003 Underreported Stories
gobbo writes "Project Censored has released its top 25 underreported stories for 2002-3. Everyone needs to find out about these as part of a daily anti-propaganda vitamin, but /.ers should be particularly interested in #6: "Closing Access to Information Technology," in which Arthur Stamoulis reports on how the conglomeration of control over the physical networks threatens access to content. Alternative links suggested for more info: the Center for Digital Democracy, Media Tank, and Free Press. Double plus good I say, who wants all that information anyway!"
Although its table of contents reads like a list of stories from any issue of The Onion, every one of the articles in Censored 2003: The Top 25 Censored Stories are true. With chapter titles like "United States' Policies in Columbia Support Mass Murder," "U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water System" and "Bush Appoints Former Criminals to Key Government Roles," the collection covers important news stories that were censored for various reasons. In his introduction, Robert W. McChesney laments the "deplorable" coverage of three of the past year's major stories: the war on terrorism, the Enron scandal and the 2000 presidential election. The articles, selected by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, range from an explanation of how NAFTA has ruined rural farmers in North America to a look at how the federal government bails out failing private prisons. Cartoons by Tom Tomorrow are sprinkled throughout.
Are those stories still censored? Oh, no, never mind, that's just the /. effect.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Does this mean there will be even more stories about SCO on /. now?
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003
#1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance
#2: Homeland Security?
#3: US Removes Pages from Iraq Report
#4: Rumsfeld's Plan to Provoke Terrorists
#5: The Effort to Make Unions Extinct
#6: Closing Access to Information Technology
#7: Treaty Busting by the United States
#8: US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War
#9: Where's Afghanistan?
#10: Africa Faces New Threat of Colonialism
#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre
#12: Corporate Speech and Corporate Personhood
#13: US Military's War on the Earth
#14: Unwanted Refugees
#15: Venezuela: Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup
#16: Plan Puebla-Panama and the FTAA
#17: Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism
#18: Charter Forest Proposal
#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro
#20: For-Profit Military
#21: IMF & World Bank Austerity Policies Come to the US
#22: Welfare Reform Up For Reauthorization and Still No Safety Net
#23: Argentina Crisis Sparks Cooperative Growth
#24: Aid to Israel Fuels Occupation
#25: Convicted Corporations Receive Perks Instead of Punishment
Has either been censored or slashdotted. Can someone explain the difference?
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
#6 on the report is very real. While I still have a choice, I chose DSL - sepcifically so I could host my own servers - over cable. But I paid more, not just in the service, but also due to the fact that phone line charges are separate.
I suspect, however, that the average American household will go with cable because it is cheaper, there are no line charges per say, and it rolls up nicely in one bill from the cable company along with their cable service. And as #6 says, there are fewer and fewer cable companies that control this access, which should worry most.
I chose Speakeasy.net as my DSL provider because they've had a pretty good presence on the west and east coast and they've always maintained that they're a large 'local isp'. For me, I won't have to worry about having access to a site blocked, such as the recent AOL/MSN fiasco.
But for the average American, these things cannot be promised. There have been more than a few reports of cable companies monitoring and logging traffic of their users and honestly, as time rolls on, I see this becoming more and more of an issue for mega-corps like TimeWarner - they'll be encouraged to tap into this 'gold mine'. Most users probably won't care either.
Since I don't think the policies of these companies will change much in regards to this, the only alternative for those that care about such things - besides lobbying and the like - will be to vote with their pocketbooks. This will not only affect (albiet, realistically, probably little) the mega-corps bottom line, but will help to ensure that those 'other' companies will still be able to provide quality and non-censored access to their paying subscribers.
Censored because most Americans cannot read "near Uzbekistan"
-i am n00b.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people out there get their news from the talking-heads on television. These kinds of stories will never be seen on mainstream media (ala CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, et al) as long as they are owned by monolithic corporations with their sole interest being profit.
The brain-dead sheep of the world watch their TV and are fed what the advertisers want:
"Don't question the war in Iraq, buy a Swiffer WetJet!"
Trolling is a art,
Look at the story sources. How about coming from something reputable?
It's more like a jumble of conspiracy papers jumbled together, and one sided views.
I was waiting to read about the secret unreported story about Rob Malda passing a kidney stone and why didn't I hear about it on slashdot when it happend.
It's a god damned conspiracy I tell ya!
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Any list of "underreported" stories that includes stories published in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, only the papers with among the largest publications in the US, is flawed.
They should call it... things the left is pissed people haven't gotten more excited about or something...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
This is hardly a new topic, especially around here, but I found this quote interesting:
(from the article discussing how the US removed a bunch of info from Iraq's weapons report)
<i>But perhaps most importantly, the missing pages contain information that could potentially make a case for war crimes against officials within the Reagan and the Bush Sr. administrations. This includes the current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- for his collaboration with Saddam Hussein leading up to the massacres of Iraqi Kurds and acting as liaison for U.S. military aid during the war between Iraq and Iran.</i>
Cool. Rumsfeld is a war criminal.
Too bad THAT will never come out. I wouldn't be TERRIBLY shocked of my door flew off it's hinges right now and I was faced with a squad of FBI claiming me as a "domestic terrorist" and locking me up without trial.
*shrugs*
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
was your tongue inside your cheek when you said, "Double plus good I say, who wants all that information anyway!" michael?
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Sources:
MEDIA FILE, September 2002
Title: "Clear Channel Stumbles"
Author: Jeff Perlstein
Faculty Evaluator: Scott Gordon Ph.D., Jorge Porras Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Melissa Jones, Chris Salvano
Corporate Media Partial Coverage: Now With Bill Moyers, April 26, 2002 and April 4, 2003; The New York Times, January 30, 2003 and February 3, 2003; The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2003
Clear Channel Communications of San Antonio, Texas may not yet be a household name, but in the past seven years the radio station conglomerate has rocketed to a place alongside NBC and Gannett as one of the largest media companies in the United States.
Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, the cap on radio ownership was eliminated. As a result, Clear Channel has dominated the industry by growing from 40 radio stations nationally in the mid-90s, to approximately 1225 stations nationally by 2003. The station also dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets. In addition to its radio stations, Clear Channel also owns television station affiliates, billboards, outdoor advertising, and owns or exclusively books the vast majority of concert venues, amphitheaters, and clubs in the country. According to NOW with Bill Moyers, in 2000 Clear Channel purchased the nation's largest concert and events promoter, and in 2001, the Clear Channel did 70% of national ticket sales.
In 2001, Denver concert promoter, Jesse Morreale, sued Clear Channel. Morreale's suit claims that Clear Channel's use of its billboards to advertise Clear Channel-booked shows at Clear Channel-owned music is in essence a monopoly. The suit also alleges that Clear Channel stations have threatened to withdraw certain music from rotation unless the artist's book concerts through Clear Channel and play at Clear Channel-owned music venues.
Clear Channel has also drawn criticism for using "voice tracking." Voice tracking is when one DJ produces a standardized national broadcast and formats it into their radio stations nationwide- giving the semblance of a local broadcast. By this process, Clear Channel can produce its radio format in San Antonio, Texas and play it on its 1225 radio stations without regard to local music, culture, or issues.
In January 2002, a train carrying 10,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia derailed in the town of Minot, causing a spill and a toxic cloud. Authorities attempted to warn the residents of Minot to stay indoors and to avoid the spill. But when the authorities called six of the seven radio stations in Minot to issue the warning, no one answered the phones. As it turned out, Clear Channel owned all six of the stations and none of the station's personnel were available at the time.
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota grilled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Michael Powell over the consolidation of media in the U.S., using the Minot incident as a warning and an example. At a Senate Commerce Committee meeting Dorgan warned that as large media companies, like Clear Channel, buy up the last remaining independent media outlets across the country, the public suffers. According to chairman Powell, there is strong evidence that a lot of times local independent run stations cannot afford to produce quality local news. However, a recent study by Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that TV stations owned by smaller media firms generally produce better newscasts
Such branding and consolidation is counter to the FCC's mandate of encouraging media diversity. The FCC is doing very little about the results of increased media concentration. This may be a result of the relationship that exits between the FCC commissioners and the broadcast companies and their lobbyists. According to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), media companies and lobbyists developed a very cozy relationship. As Chuck Lewis of CPI notes, "We
This is all I was able to grab:
Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003
#1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance
#2: Homeland Security?
#3: US Removes Pages from Iraq Report
#4: Rumsfeld's Plan to Provoke Terrorists
#5: The Effort to Make Unions Extinct
#6: Closing Access to Information Technology
#7: Treaty Busting by the United States
#8: US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War
#9: Where's Afghanistan?
#10: Africa Faces New Threat of Colonialism
#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre
#12: Corporate Speech and Corporate Personhood
#13: US Military's War on the Earth
#14: Unwanted Refugees
#15: Venezuela: Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup
#16: Plan Puebla-Panama and the FTAA
#17: Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism
#18: Charter Forest Proposal
#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro
#20: For-Profit Military
#21: IMF & World Bank Austerity Policies Come to the US
#22: Welfare Reform Up For Reauthorization and Still No Safety Net
#23: Argentina Crisis Sparks Cooperative Growth
#24: Aid to Israel Fuels Occupation
#25: Convicted Corporations Receive Perks Instead of Punishment
Double plus good slashdotted.
This site is now censored by the Slashdot Effect...ironic, or conspiracy? ;)
At the risk of sounding like a troll, did anyone else notice the slant to the left?
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
That's right, everyone that doesn't buy into the mainstream bullshit machine is obviously a pinko communist terrorist fag. How about finding some proof before condemning the report as incredulous?
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
There is a difference between a media story and an editorial. While I like a good editorial, regardless of topic, do not confuse spice for vitamin.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Would the slashdotting of the website fall under that category?
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:oo9QDkrHwxIJ: www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/+site:pr ojectcensored.org+2004&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Please don't dance around the issue. Say what you mean. Be descriptive and clear with your point.
Is it simply that the site is US-centric, or are either of the following true:
(a) US is censoring more important stories than other countries
(b) US is involved in more issues than other countries
?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
This looks like nothing more than the hard left-wing blogosphere having a hissy fit in numerical order. These aren't censored stories just tired old conspiracy theories reduced to 25 bumper stickers.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
>Hardly a credible report.
Right up there with that loony who claims that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Stories about The Matrix and SCO. Can't understand why it seems no one wants to talk about issues anymore.
While I would concede that we are into global hegemony and are little to quick to use force to solve our problems, this list a bit ridiculous. Take the following quote:
Excuse me, the US has zero to do with any of the civil wars in Africa. Zero. There are problems that can't be blamed on the US and the war in the Congo is one of them.The author of this article says:
Come on. That is outrageous. Africans are not babies, and we are not their irresponsible parents. I find talk like that extremely insulting to Africans as it suggests they are not as "advanced" as Western civilizations and cannot control themselves when presented with military technology.
There once was a time when people who were interested in jurnalism were interested in balance and truth, not pandering to their political supporters.
More like CENSORED to me!
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Here's the top 25 stories censored by Project Censored.
Logic is not Divine.
Why? After reading a few of the reports I realized that they didn't need any proof. They basically take one small fact and turn it into a huge republican conspiracy to take over the world. Some of the stuff are just far-fetched assumptions, some of it is slippery slope arguments, and most of it is just pulled out of their ass.
Their bullshit is no more reliable than Fox News. Someday people will reliaze that BOTH sides are full of liars, cheats, and self-serving scumbags.
LOL! Mod this up! This is the highest form of caricature of an indignant righwinger I've seen in a long time.
we refer to va lairIE's whoreabull PostBlock(tm) devise for won.
/.'s total disregard re: anything that really matters, choosing to pretend everIEthing's hunkey dokey, whilst failing to report on their owned accouNTing 'problems', or anything else relevant to the survival/success of most of US.
next, we refer to
moreover, lairIE/robbIE's increasing greed/fear based irrelevance aside, they refuse (so far) to acknowledge/cooperate with the planet/population rescue initiative, whilst casting aspersions all about (their 'competitors', contemporarIEs, mynuts won, etc...).
we extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of cowardly greed/fear based aggression everywhere.
that old tune title (hope we don't get 'busted' for using it) "make the world go away", takes on new/varied meaning in these times.
the prevalent notion that 'everything will be taken care of' without yOUR knowledge/participation is insidiously misleading.
in our estimation, the biggest 'threat' against US (aside from continuing to fire bullinedly into the 'crowd', whilst demanding applause), would be a failure to recognize our 'role' in the problems. we're victims for sure, but whoare ALL the perpetrators (see also: corepirate nazi puppets), gets lost in the ?pr? ?firm? generated propaganda spew.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. seek others of non-aggressive behaviours/intentions. that's the spirit.
the lights ARE coming up now. pay attention (to yOUR heart, for example). that could lead to new ways (see also: newclear power plan) of thinking about/dealing with, the needs/rights of others EVERYWHERE on the planet.
having the attention span of a gnat, & similar ambitions, might be ok if you are just planning to be a consumer/type one liners.
take care of each other, you're all we've got. we're here for you. get ready to see the light.
Applying the term "Censored" to a story that got less attention than you think it deserved is like applying the term "Nazi" to the cop who just gave you a speeding ticket. It's inaccurate, stupid, and it trivializes the outrages that really deserve those descriptions.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Some guy I never heard of told me I should listen to him instead!
I know the media has bias, everyone has bias, but it's easier to watch CNN or MSNBC and see through the rhetoric than to swallow crap from some guy with a tinfoil hat.
These types of articles are always a ton of allegations and theories, never any proof. They read like cases of alien abductions.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Absolutely!
The content of these articles read like a poorly constructed conspiracy theory rag.
Oh, and you forgot to mention that guy that sells sea coral calcium.
Never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity, ignorance or laziness.
I for one am glad to find good news about Argentina on this list (#23). It's very rare to actually hear good news about that country in the US.
-nando
"Won't you help a tiny company survive?"
I am. It's called Redhat.
"Justice will be done."
Yep, when you go out of business for trying to extort ppl into paying you for something that isn't yours.
"Scotty, one to beam up."
He has already beamed away any ethical standards you had. Or perhaps your referring to the fact your company is out of touch with reality...
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I have to laugh/cry when I see some uniformed person sobbing about how expensive things are, how access is controlled by the corporations, etc. These are the same folks who claim that its a shame that there is only one newspaper in most markets. Hey if the people would pay for it, then the products would be produced but instead the public wants to buy Starbucks coffee but not pay for broadband cause its too expensive. And now the only institutions that can afford to put out the big bucks to build out and support these new products are big companies (for the most part). Please study basic business management and economics and lots more of what you see today will make sense.
While the NYT and WSJ may have lare circulations relative to other papers, they don't have large circulations.
The fact that the NYT and WSJ picked up the stories imply that they (likely) passed the watchful eyes of editors... they're likely legit.
And yet they weren't picked up on by papers, or =gasp!= television stations across the nation. That makes them candidates for big stories that were underreported in my book. YMMV.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
The project censored site is non functional right now..
I wonder if it has been censored... or just slashdotted.
~ kjrose
This looks to me like someone pushing their political agenda.
How does this stuff make it to front page of
grisha.org
A related site is that of Accuracy in Media, which points out the many biases in mainstream media.
A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).
"Democracy Now" and "Sounter Spin" are some good NPR programs to consider if you want to keep track of underreported or sensored stories.
both are supperted by fiar.org
you can get a cool "Don't trust corporate medida" bumper sticker there...
Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
"Cliches are an excuse for rigorous thought." Considering your dribble against the context of the above quote, you kind sir, are without any thought whatsoever. You and Homer Simpson are in good company.
"Bitch bitch. Moan moan. Slashdot isn't a nationalist pisshole like the American news." Get over it. Most of what you've been told by Fox, MSNBC, etc is a lie. Don't expect it to fly on a site populated by angry nerds.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
has already been Project Slashdotted.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
It's all a Liberal political viewpoint!! How could you /.?
Don't you think these would be a better TOP 25 Censored Stories:
#1 The NEO-SOCIALIST plan to take your freedom
#2 Homeland Security obstructionist liberals
#3 US Goes to Iraq, liberates nation
#4 Howard Deans plan to pacify terrorists
#5 The effort to pay off Unions and cripple business
#6 Using information technology for propaganda
#7 Treaty signing by the United States
#8 Human Shields knowingly commit treason
#9 Afghanistan success
#10 Nelson Mandela is a liberal
#11 Taliban implicated in U.S. massacre (9/11)
#12 Liberal censorship and shoutdowns
#13 US Military defends country for over 200 years
#14 Illegal Aliens
#15 South Korea: Lucky to be free
#16 France: evil
#17 NPR's liberal slant
#18 Forestry now banned profession
#19 US cannot manufacture goods with all the regulations
#20 World-class military
#21 Grey Davis california budget coverup
#22 Welfare still a hand out
#23 Longshoreman Union average pay $125k / yr
#24 Palestinians blow up kids in pizza stands
#25 Liberals kill more American business
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
IAALS.
First off, when does "under reporting" = censorship?
... and so on. All legitimate stories that have also been underreported, yet I don't see that site screaming censorship.
Secondly, interesting the political bent of all of these stories. What about
* Where did all the UN Food for Oil money disppear to?
* How much business did France and Germany do with Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?
* How the "sactions are killing millions of Iraqi babies" stories were bogus.
* How much of the Arab and some European press were getting paid by Saddam.
It does seem suspicious that all of these have the same slant, i.e. Bush is bad, Republicans are bad, America is bad, and rich people are bad. Oh... and all these bad people are in league with each other to screw over the good people (like there are any).
With such non-partisan and reliably unbiased sources as "Hustler Magazine" it's no wonder these things weren't run on a wider basis.
Censored? Bah! Partisan whining from the left that they're now whimpering that it didn't get picked up by their lap dogs in the press.
Flamebait? Oh. Now that hurts. That really hurts.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Maybe /. is now a left wing site? \. I guess...
Flamebait?? Truth hurts, huh? Truth is only something a self-appointed 'intellectual' is capable of ignoring.
yeah, the lefties at /. have even more outrageous (but entertaining) lies to disinform people with.
o m. Doesn't seem to be censored here.
They should call it projectleftwingmostextremeexaggerationchallenge.c
God forbid our security screeners be denied the ability to hold the entire transportation industry hostage for grotesque wage increases at the cost of the taxpayer.
I think I like this one the best:
#17: Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism.
Underreported? Ignored? Jeez - they've been hitting us over the head with this one all year. What kind of crack are these guys smoking?
They'll have to add being Slashdotted to their censorship list.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Yes, that may be true, but you too would say
Stop chucking those bloody spears at me
if you were faced with about a gazillion Zulu warriors without modern military technology.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Why was this posted to Slashdot? The vast majority has nothing to do with technology, and instead focuses on anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments. Looking at the titles, such as Welfare Reform Up For Reauthorization and Still No Safety Net, Africa Faces New Threat of Colonialism and US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War, one can see welfare state carping, Jew-hating, nonsense, and outright lies, as depleted uranium has never been outlawed by either country. Further stories include military-bashing, U.S. bashing, world domination conspiracy theories, and other various vitrol. This is all extreme fringe stuff. What is it doing here, and why?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
26. ???
27. Profit!
Bush: Gee, Dick, what do you want to do tonight?
Cheney: The same thing we do every night, Dubbya.
Try to take over the world!
introduce 1 simple easy to follow, easy to enforce rule:
No one company may own more than x% of the media outlets that serve a particular area. (where x is some value that would be decided by some experts or something)
It would solve all the issues, be dead easy to judge and enforce and the only loosers are the big corps that keep putting out garbage (99% of whats on radio and at least 70-80% of whats on TV these days is garbage)
Take a look at Project for the New American Century. Read some of the reports, especially the ones while Clinton was still in charge. Signed by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. The real foreign relations policy of the US is there.
One assume you know that under reported is not the same thing as censored. Now if someone was to produce some type of documentaion that showed the heads of Fox and Clear Channel and whom ever making sure their news staff did not give any more attention to the stories, you might have something to complain about. Until then this is just so much whining about people not caring about the things you care about.
Case and point,
4 /1 5.html
#15: Venezuela: Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup links to
#15 U.S. Military's War on the Earth
read it yourself here:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/200
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Damn straight. Lock and load, boys!
hey, i graduated sonoma in '87. i know, BFD. but sometimes the action isn't always at the big schools.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Gosh, oddly enough every single story here seems to talk about what a nasty, horrible person George W. Bush is, and how America is an evil capitalist empire bent on global domination. There are just two big problems with this:
1. It isn't true.
2. In no way, shape or form is this "censored news."
Point 1 I'll leave as an exercise for the reader (it's not like I have all day to puncture liberal theories that have already been punctured quite extensively elsewhere), but for Point 2, just take a look at their #1 "censored story": "The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance".
Let's ignore the usual liberal ignorance in using the word "neoconservative" to vilify anyone who supported the liberation of Iraq, never mind that most of them have be unhyphenated conservatives their entire lives (Richard Pearle or Donald Rumsfeld, anyone?). Can anyone seriously suggest that this story has been "censored"? Liberals have been bitching about "neoconservative" this or "Wolfowitz" that for well over a yeaar. It's no secret. There's no way in hell that this "story" has been "censored." It's merely that Americans have heard their theories and rejected them.
In fact, none of these can be called "censored stories." Did George W. Bush or Dick Cheney send armed thugs to shut down The Nation's printing press? No? Did they arrest people for publishing any of these stories? No? Hell, they didn't even arrest that asshat Geraldo for giving away our troop's positions. Some "censorship."
All this really amounts to is one long whine: "The American media hasn't unquestioningly taken up the radical liberal view that George W. Bush is worse than Hitler! That's censorship!" No it isn't. It's a sign that America doesn't buy your conspiracy theories. It's amazing that in a country where 86% of journalists regularly vote for Democrats, these people just don't think that the American media is liberal enough.
If this were a real list of censored stories, would every single one of them support liberals and attack conservatives? No. How about kidnapped Americans being held against their will in Saudi Arabia? There's a real under-reported story, but you won't hear about it here because it doesn't support liberal policy goals.
Slashdot, if you want to slam the Bush administration so badly, why don't you just post an editorial and be done with it. Not only is the linked list not true, not balanced, and not fair, it's not even remotely news.
Is it too hard to
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
WHaaa Fox and MSNBC lie! My stupid liberal politicians aren't in power!! It must be because everyone in the country except for me is dumb...
Nope.... YOU ARE DUMB
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
I have never heard of this Project Censored, so I decided to have a look. Well, it looked just as if it was drawn by the Arab lobby. The best of all is this: "US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War"
I had to smile. Why is it not news, for example, that Egypt uses the same depleted uranium in the same way, the Abrams M1 tank's armor and the armor-piercing darts (Egypt produces these and is a receiver of U.S. financial and arms aid - and if you were wondering, no, Israel does not produce M1s, nor does it receive this technology from the U.S.). Yep, but that's Egypt, not so sexy as U.S., I guess.
Sigged!
See the right winger whine.
Whine right winger whine!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I would like to see more on those, too. I don't mind the 'leftist" views of the stories. Republicans are not freaks of nature or madmen just because they are republicans, neither are democrats baby-killing commies just because they are democrats. And i just don't see that getting these stories more press is a bad thing: when undr-reporting is the problem, over-reporting will result in people making up their own minds (we hope.) If the story is way off-base, then the story will be seen that way by more of the viewing public. Not all american consumers are blind followers, and while mainstream media tends to show the same news in the same slant most of the time, i's because they frequently get their news from the same place. More news equals more chance to ask questions, for some of us... I'm glad to see the story on slashdot, even if it means that people will rant against the left yet again. You don't have to read the story, you don't have to read or post the rants, but it's all there in case you want to, which is i think real point. No sarcasm in my gladness to see the story and people replying to it.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
While some of your statements at least seem to make sense, and yes I may be feeding the trolls on this post, I have to ask. Where in the stories you quoted the titles of, or even in the other stories do you see "jew-hating" going on?
A list like this already exists (in one form or another):
Media Research Center
and
NewsMax.com
Have fun.
I bet you're the smartest kid in the class!
"...the Arab lobby"
As opposed to, say, the Israeli lobby? Naaaah, no such thing is there?
[i] One similar program was Operation Northwoods. In 1963, America's top military brass presented a plan to President John Kennedy that called for a fake terrorist campaign -- complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans -- to provide "justification" for an invasion of Cuba, a Mafia/corporate fiefdom which had recently been lost to Castro. Kennedy rejected the plan, and was killed a few months later. [/i]
from #4: Rumsfeld's Plan to Provoke Terrorists
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
This is a sad story, and is underreported, but doesn't support your assertion that only "pro-liberal" stories are said to be underreported. The story you link to is, in fact, pretty damning to the Bush administration.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Obviously "michael" is some kind of flaming liberal who wanted to piss people off on the aniversary of 9/11. Mission accomplished, chief! You freaking goat milker!
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
Righ winger? You mean he's a Rye Winger? Gotta watch out for those evil Jews, according to story. That, and everything else decent in this world.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
On the other hand, the report does seem to allude that Colin Powell and Wolfowitz are on the same page -- from what I've read, this may be inaccurate. The power struggle seems to be between the teams of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- the hawks -- and Rice and Powell, the more moderate conservatives. Until 9/11, Rice and Powell were able to keep the President on a more moderate agenda. It wasn't until the attacks that the DOD had their opportunity to advance -- and maybe justifiably.
The change from the word 'containment' to 'preempt' in our National Security strategy is probably the most influential event of the Bush admin, and maybe the a defining moment for the 21st century.
mirrored from: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/1 .htm
#1 The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance
Sources:
Harper's Magazine
October 2002
Title: "Dick Cheney's Song of America"
Author: David Armstrong
Mother Jones
March 2003
Title: "The 30 Year Itch"
Author: Robert Dreyfuss
Pilger.com
December 12, 2002
Title: "Hidden Agendas"
Author: John Pilger
Faculty Evaluators: Phil Beard Ph.D. and Tom Lough Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Dylan Citrin Cummins
Corporate Media Partial Coverage:
Atlantic Journal Constitution, 9/29/02, The President's Real goal in Iraq, By Jay Bookman
Over the last year corporate media have made much of Saddam Hussein and his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Rarely did the press or, especially, television address the possibility that larger strategies might also have driven the decision to invade Iraq. Broad political strategies regarding foreign policy do indeed exist and are part of the public record. The following is a summary of the current strategies that have formed over the last 30 years; strategies that eclipse the pursuit of oil and that preceded Hussein's rise to power:
In the 1970s, the United States and the Middle East were embroiled in a tug-of-war over oil. At the time, American military presence in the Gulf was fairly insignificant and the prospect of seizing control of Arab oil fields by force was pretty unattainable. Still, the idea of this level of dominance was very attractive to a group of hard-line, pro-military Washington insiders that included both Democrats and Republicans. Eventually labeled "neoconservatives," this circle of influential strategists played important roles in the Defense Departments of Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr., at conservative think tanks throughout the '80s and '90s, and today occupies several key posts in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department. Most principal among them are:
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, our current Vice-President and Defense Secretary respectively, who have been closely aligned since they served with the Ford administration in the 1970s;
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the key architect of the post-war reconstruction of Iraq;
Richard Perle, past-chairman and still-member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board that has great influence over foreign military policies,
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and founder of the powerful, neo-conservative think-tank, Project for a New American Century.
In the 1970's, however, neither high-level politicos, nor the American people, shared the priorities of this small group of military strategists. In 1979 the Shah of Iran fell and U.S. political sway in the region was greatly jeopardized. In 1980, the Carter Doctrine declared the Gulf "a zone of U.S. influence." It warned (especially the Soviets) that any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf region would be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the U.S. and repelled by any means necessary, including military force. This was followed by the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force -- a military program specifically designed to rush several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf on short notice.
Under President Reagan, the Rapid Deployment Force was transformed into the U.S. Central Command that oversaw the area from eastern Africa to Afghanistan. Bases and support facilities were established throughout the Gulf region, and alliances were expanded with countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
Since the first Gulf War, the U.S. has built a network of military bases that now almost completely encircle the oil fields of the Persian Gulf.
In 1989, following the end of the Cold War and just prior to the Gulf War, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and Paul Wolfowitz produced the 'Defense Planning Guidance' report advocating U.S. military dominance around the globe. The Plan called for the United States to maintain and grow in militar
No, but when EVERY one of those "censored" stories clearly have the same agenda (ie, being miles left of center), it is fair to assume that the site's reporting is pretty highly slanted. Every one of those was an attack piece with damned shady "evidence". That's not news, that's propaganda.
I mean honestly, that stuff was up there with the conservative AIDS conspiracies from a few years ago. Would you agree that they were just people who were "interested in what happens in the world" ? I doubt it very much.
There's nothing wrong with being liberal, but this site gives non-paranoid-delusional liberals a bad name.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Man, we really need to slap the Bush administration around. All their censored and blacklisted stories show up in a book on Amazon, and are a topic of discussion on slashdot?
It's time to demand the head of whoever's responsible for Conspiracies and Coverups in the Bush administration. Incompetents!
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
"Most of what you've been told by Fox, MSNBC, etc is a lie"
So we should listen to you, a tin foil cap-sporting porn-loving angry nerd in his basement, instead. Keep spreading the FUD, zit face...
Imho I think that is what every current leader does, african, american, asian or european. It just depends on how much you got to win/loose to actually do it..
cheers..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/2 .html
# 2 Homeland Security Threatens Civil Liberty
Sources:
Global Outlook
Winter 2003
Title: "Homeland Defense: Pentagon Declares War on America"
Author: Frank Morales
Rense.com, 2-11-03 & Global Outlook, Volume 4
Title: "Secret Patriot II Destroys Remaining US Liberty"
Author: Alex Jones
Center for Public Integrity (publicintegrity.org)
Title: "Justice Department Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Terrorism Act"
Author: Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle
Faculty evaluators: Robert Manning, Rashmi Singh Ph.D., Andrew Botterell Ph.D.
Student researchers: Sherry Grant, Dylan Citrin Cummins
Corporate Media partial coverage:
Atlanta Journal-constitution, 5/11/03/, Patriot Act II, by E. Moscoso, and N.Achrati
The Tampa Tribune, 3/28/03, Patriot Act II, by Cassio Furtado
Baltimore Sun, 2/21/03, patriot Act Squel Worse than First, by Rajeev Goyle
As reported widely in the mainstream press, the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represents the most extensive restructuring of the U.S. government since 1947 -- the year the Department of War was combined with the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Air Force, to create the Department of Defense. The new Department of Homeland Security combines over one hundred separate entities of the executive branch, including the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and the Border Patrol, among others. The DHS employs over 170,000 federal workers and commands a total annual budget of $37 billion. But what does this mean for the people of the United States? What sort of long-term implications will it have on the day to day lives of average Americans? These questions have received scant attention in the corporate media.
The concept of Homeland Security was thrown around the Pentagon long before the events of 9/11. Originally titled "Homeland Defense," it was placed within the Pentagon's "Operations Other Than War (OOTW)" command, under the stand-alone civil disturbance plan called the "Garden Plot." Over the years, homeland defense has been extended by a host of Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders. Now, following the events of 9/11, the initial concept has ballooned into a vast, powerful, and far-reaching department.
One DHS mandate largely ignored by the press requires the FBI, CIA, state, and local governments to share intelligence reports with the department upon command, without explanation. Civil rights activists claim that this endangers the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans by blurring the lines between foreign and domestic spying (as occurred during the CointelPro plan of the '60s and '70s). According to the ACLU, the Department of Homeland Security will be "100% secret and 0% accountable." Meanwhile, the gathering, retention, and use of information collected is a central focus of the Bush administration's new agenda. Officially established to track down terrorists, information can be collected on any dissenter, American citizen or not, violent or not. The classification of recent peace marches and protests as "terrorist events" within DOD and FEMA documents is one example of the dangerous potential of these mandates.
As part of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act of 2001 allows the government increased and unprecedented access to the lives of American citizens and represents an unrestrained imposition on our civil liberties. Wiretaps, previously confined to one phone, can now follow a person from place to place at the behest of government agents and people can now be detained on the vague suspicion that they might be a terrorist -- or assisting one. Detainees can also be denied the right to legal representation (or the right of private counsel when they are allowed to meet with their attorneys).
William Safire, a writer for the New York Times, defined the first Patriot Act as a Presidential effort to seize dictatorial control. No member of Congress was given sufficient time
Great idea! I'm all for it, but today is 11/9. The eleventh day of the ninth month. Or 2003-09-11 (big unit - smaller unit - smallest unit) if you will.
No wonder the moslem hordes are winning when the population that has the greatest military force of the world can't even write dates logically...
Happy hunting!
Ever wonder why you rarely see a lot of media attention to these types of stories? It's a good question since a lot of these stories, if true, would be top news.
There are two possible reasons for this neglect:
1) There is a massive right-wing conspiracy, which only ultra-leftists can see through. Somehow the evidence only falls into these leftist's hands, and they are the only people who can expose these issues to the public.
2) The sources for this evidence are suspect, biased, unreliable or disputed. They don't hold up to the media's requirements for responsible reporting, other than for the occasional viewpoint or opinion piece.
I'm not saying there is no merit to any of this stuff, but I suggest that this site is run by a group of thinkers who lean decidedly to the left.
Last I knew, not everybody agreed on the leftist conspiracy model for reporting on facts. It is surely interesting material, but I'll bet there are other good theories out there too.
In what way? Haven't heard anything about that.
If you think it's a great idea to spray the environment with these bullets, then by all means, please allow me to dump a box of spent ammo into your water supply.
I'd be more afraid of said bullet's kinetic energy than toxicity. Persumably, what the bullets are removing (ie, assholes) is more of a threat than the uranium. If not, the US military shouldn't be there anyway.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Site isn't loading anymore...
good riddance. What tripe!
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
"America is an evil capitalist empire bent on global domination. There are just two big problems with this:
1. It isn't true."
So you are saying America isn't capitalist? Sorry, couldn't resist.
One problem with people like you is that you can't see the evidence in front of your face. The US forces it's military bases on others (and uses the carrot of $ if they are poor nations). How many foreign bases are there in the US? The US liberated Iraq? Funny, the people weren't actively fighting the government and there was no great outcry for us to come in. All we did was liberate a lot of people from their lives.
You still push that myth about a liberal media? Ever watch Fox? MSNBC? CNN? Read the Wall Street Journal? Get a clue.
"...liberal ignorance in using the word "neoconservative" to vilify anyone who supported the liberation of Iraq..."
Just like you are ignorant of the word "liberal" and vilify anyone who stands up against blind obedience to authority. How come people like you condemn countries like China for suppressing popular opposition but if someone does it in this country you condemn them? Sounds like hypocrisy.
"...slam the Bush administration..."
Sorry, I was flashing back to how NEOCONSERVATIVES slammed the Clinton administration. Sucks to take your own medicine, doesn't it?
Wouldn't it make sense that all these stories slant to the left? If the media is (and it is) very conservative in it's reporting, wouldn't it omit stories like these? It's just proof of a CONSERVATIVE media bias that these are the underreported stories of the year! Wake up!
* The socialist antiwar movement.
* Why Bush opponents hope for US casualties in Itaq.
* How current Iraqi militant unrest is largely the result of US policy to allow Iraqi soldiers to return home without being defeated (slaughtered).
That /.er's have great BS filters and reacted properly to this pure crap "news" article. This is clearly a place for higher functioning individuals that have no need to make themselves feel better about the world through projected liberalism. Now everbody, VOTE and beat down the morons that promote this kind of shit for brains
thinking.
Wow, these guys are really insightful. These stories won't even be censored till next year!
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
I'm not addressing the legality, of that I have no idea.
Depleted uranium is still radioactive, just not radioactive that much. Weapons grade uranium is enriched. Depleted uranium has 40% less radioactivity than natural uranium, but it is most certainly radioactive.
But then, so are some glow in the dark watches and the mesh bags from a propane lantern.
What makes DU rounds troublesome is the burning of them, and that releases airborne radioactive particles, which many people argue about the toxicity/lethality of.
If they are in the impact area they ARE ALREADY DEAD.
If you want real censorship, try living in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or North Korea, my friend. Incidentally, I'm sure "Project Censored" stands a much better chance of being covered in those countries than does any story about how an Iraqi today might actually want and enjoy his new-found freedom.
"Project Censored?" Ha ha.
Oh, I'm a Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb niggahs
and make a lot o' bling
I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.
You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue
I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice
'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow
Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'
Liberals! Faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears
Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts
Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well FUCK YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!
And the idiot moderators are not moding up our postings of outrage... They are in effect censoring the right wing view on this story. Its sad that such bias and censorship has infected this once-noble board with its disease...
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
Most of these stories aren't anything i haven't heard yet. I also never turn on CNN. Up here in Canada, this is the kind of stuff they teach us at public school (atleast where I am). I find it unfourtunate how uninformed our southerly friends are on their own happenings. Maybe there is an education/media crisis in the US?
Hi there
[the application of the term "censored"] trivializes the outrages that really deserve those descriptions.
Then why is bleeping street terms relating to sex, elimination of body wastes, and body parts used primarily therefor, commonly called "censorship"?
Will I retire or break 10K?
We always hear talk of a secret group of people, aka The Aluminati; The Skulls; The Secret Society; The Free Masons; The New World Order. But, we never hear about the 'falling off the edge' leftist who wish to take over the world with thier ideology from communism that has FAILED! I think THAT is the most secret of stories. It's pure GENIUS. They are crying out sooo loud how the U.S. is trying to take over the world so everyone's attention is concentrated on how the U.S. is conducting itself against the terrorists, all the while the leftist commies are planning thier own world domination my pinning everyone against everyone else.
No better way to win than to let your enemies fight amongst themselves and then swooping in and cleaning the ashes of what is left.
They do not want Michael Sims as a customer.
That makes them A-OK in my book.
A poll last weekend showed that most Americans believe 9-11 is linked with Iraq war and Saddam sponsored the terrorism. With such blatant ignorance of international events, censorship is unnecessary. Americans got the president and government they deserved.
If we are ever to get to the Star Trek Star Fleet era then we need one world government. I don't see that as bad so everyone is on the same page.
Thank you for calling me a troll, I think. See #24, Aid to Israel Fuels Occupation. To call it an "occupation" is disingenous. The Balfour Declaration gave Israel territorial rights over the so-called "occupied" territories. However, Israel was unable to claim it at the time, due to it's unfortunate placement surrounded by total dictatorships. During the 6-Day War, Israel defended itself against Arab aggression, and in doing so, gained these territories, in accordance with the Rules of War. If it had wanted to, it could have conquered the entire Middle East, mind you.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
These are COMMENTARY, not news reports! They are copyrighted anyway so it's not like ABC and CNN can go use this! Okay, I know that /. has a decidedly leftward slant but generally the ARTICLES are rationally entered in good faith. This goes over the top. It's false, it's editorial commentary, and it's not underreported. The author may be right but that doesn't make his OPINION news. That is all.
Check out: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf
This has been quite disturbing to everyone I've talked to about it... My wife flat out refuses to talk to be about it because it makes so much sense and is so upsetting... This has gotten a lot of press lately. Check out:
911 and the Bush Administration
The Guardian
Those with Weblogs should contribute to the weblog project mentioned on Metafilter about this:
WHO were you?
Unfortunately, it just makes more sense that we provoked these arabic countries to either let us build a pipeline to feed China with Oil, or we would do it by force. "A carpet of Gold, or a carpet of Bombs..."
Can we all just take a moment to savour the irony here?
"The years most underrated stories" -- and the site goes down when it gets an appropriate amount of attention.
Which is fine with me since these stories weren't "under-reported" they were "under-interesting" and "under-truthful".
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
OMG, consolidation of ISP's! Our freedom is destroyed unless there's 100 ISP's in every town, village and county in the US!
If you can get online and get to any website you want to then your freedom is still intact. Not being ablt to chose between a thousand ISP's however is not freedom threatening. Jesus. Industries mature, did these guys bother to take an economics 101 course before posting this mindless drivel?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
It is well known that leftists tend to be racist. The whole idea that the "neoconservate right wing" is so much more clever than the poor Africans/Iranians/Iraqis/(insert favorite group here) and used their superior intellect and funding to make them pawns in their game of world domination is an INSULT TO ALL OF THESE GROUPS.
Their bullshit is no more reliable than Fox News. Someday people will reliaze that BOTH sides are full of liars, cheats, and self-serving scumbags.
Amen brother, and thanks for the reply. Reasoned arguments are much better than one-line condemnations.
However, just because those folks may be overly-paranoid does not mean that there is nothing to worry about. Some of the recent actions of the Republican Party (with help from some Dems) certainly lead one to wonder. For example, PATRIOT Acts I and II, the current redistricting debacle taking place in Texas, and the lies and deceit on the part of Republican hawks in their rush to war in Iraq spring immediately to mind as possible indicators of Bad Things [TM].
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Ok, Churchill was a bad boy and all, and this bears mention, but it DOES NOT make it OK for Saddam, or anyone else to stand on precedent.
If it were, I'd be first in line to get me one of them hard-working house niggers. (I'm just driving the point home folks, relax)
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Oh wait, a media conglomerate can't have a son. It is not a person. Yet it get's to decide what the truth is based on what sells. And what is selling right now is ultra-insane patriotism: Let's bomb for peace!!! For Freedom!!! (?)
~~I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank...~~
In story #8 (US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War) one of the sources quoted is "Hustler" magazine.
I don't know if I can trust someone that buys "Hustler" for the articles.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I smell someone coming here to promote their book... Peter Phillips, is that you?
I always used to laugh at the comments that one could buy a Slashdot story, but now I'm beginning to wonder how much you paid Michael under the table to get this on the front page...
I find it interesting that one can read French, German, Arab, Chinese, Russian, etc. newspapers and news agencies on the web in the USA, most with decent English translations. These provide substantially different points of view or even greater coverage than the US. For example, U.S. news avoids gruesome war images. Up to 7-8 years ago you had have shortwave radio, or trudge over to some dusty university library and read snail-mail delayed versions. When I lived in one of the above countries, with limited access to US news, it was eye-opening to see other points of view.
Even with this unprecedented access, I still dont do this too often. You have to wade through a lot of local content and strange English. And the news everyone- in and out of the US- has a lot of ingrained editorializing which is grating after a while.
For Example:
This Story
American Science: Addicted to Pentagon Cash?
Cybersyn And Early Uniminds
etc... It's not TOO bad yet, this is not the end of the world, but I find the number of low geek, high politics stories increasing.
Hmmm.....they seem to be worried about just anti-Bush stories. They weren't concerned with stories spiked about Clinton or Democrats or the like. Hmmmm.......
No agenda there.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Yeah, he should have posted the links that others posted for him in response. Substantiation is always good. However, WTF does not including any support for his statement have to do with the NY Times? They don't even enter into this; you're the only one who brought them up, and it is utterly confusing to me why you should do so.
Name a single right that you have lost since Bush took office, you lying asshole. NAME ONE! I dont mean some assumed right that you THINK you should have, name a right that is actually in the Bill of Rights or Constitution that you have lost, asswipe. And dont spend an hour on Google trying to come up with one. Tick tock, you fag.
First, as to the accusation that the site is somehow un-American (a coinage that seems to have discovered a new lease on life since 9/11) since many of the stories somehow involve US involvement in affairs that do not put us in a very glowing light I'd respond that given the United States' pre-eminence economically, politically and culturally you would be hard pressed to find a situation that through our active or passive involvement, we are not implicated in. For proof of how our passiveness affects other countries, read your history of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Hussein communicated to the US ambassador an interest in seizing Kuwait. When the US offered no opposition or even statement of opposition, Hussein invaded. One wonders if Gulf War I could have been avoided had a clear message been sent to Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait. On the other side of that responsibility is our active involvement in international affairs. On that note, take a brief consideration of our historical actions in Iran and ask if the hostility towards the US there isn't at least in a nationalistic sense, well grounded.
As to the sentiment of un-American, this one statement can be reduced to nothing more than vitriol. I have personally been accused of being un-American and unpatriotic for at various times voicing my opposition to the policies of the current administration. Some reasonable people, who failed to call me unpatriotic before we attacked Iraq, called me that afterwards since I wasn't "supporting the troops." The very indictment is flawed and irrational. In the very essence of voicing my opposition to the opinion of the sitting President, I am acting responsibly AND patriotically. Responsibly, in that one should not grant assent to a leader just because he's in power and patriotically, in that I am upholding the very rights, which this country so magnanimously grants us. As any developer knows-critical thought is eminently fundamental to the development of any system. Political dialogue is critical thought on a peer to peer basis.
Finally, was the site's use of 'censored' the best choice? No, probably not. Under reported and under-represented by the major media outlets? Absolutely. Even liberal leaning old me had failed to hear about several of the items on their list. What should be kept in perspective is the fact that the site seeks to highlight the information that people may not have heard too much about from their traditional sources. Does Project Censored have a clear agenda? It would definitely appear so, but then ask yourself if Fox News doesn't as well. Or ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ad inifinitum. When news became business, such a thing as objective journalism went away. Why else does just about everyone in the country know the name of Laci Peterson? Can you think of one prevailing reason why her victimization trumps the victimization of millions of other people around the world? As the Fox affiliate in Miami phrased it, "If it bleeds, it leads."
And at this point I am probably off-topic. I just felt that some contrary opinion was needed to balance the bulk of what I'd read. Immediate dismissals are just as culpable as the blind acceptance of what one's been told. If you disagree with a 'fact,' establish the reasons why without resorting to off the cuff retorts or invective filled denials. Rationally approach the problem and if you find it important enough to speak about, speak with at least a modicum of informed opinion. Or don't, and fill the ether with the tiny murmurs of blind assent and self-righteous denial.
I wasn't comparing the acts, but how they are portrayed (or not) in today's media.
One mentioned at every opportunity against the enemy, the other hidden under the carpet. Which is really what this /. topic is all about.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
That could just be because this book is about the underreported stories of 2003, well after Clinton left. Although I actually prefer Bush to Clinton, it's naive to assume that *anyone* with as much power as the president of the U.S.A. isn't going to be corrupted in some manner.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
Phew, after reading that I sensed some serious misunderstandings....
Ok, here's how it works:
a) people have rights (which do not include free room, borad, and care coerced at others expense BTW)
b) people organize in the form of government to secure those rights
c) that often implies use of force both at home and abroad
d) in order to controll that force and to keep it from getting out of hand, we have a representative democracy and a constitution that tries to check and balance powers (in the USA at least)
e) But democracy is not an end in itself, but a tool for protecting individual liverties and rights which are the true end in themselves.
f) Therefore, if you wish to have a liberal agenda, then fine, but please don't expect us not to use force to defend freedom, because that is the purpose of government, and please don't expect us not to resent all those massive government social programs because they're upheld by restricting peoples freedom (mostly in the form of coercing their earnings from others)
Hope that helps.
> This looks to me like someone pushing their political agenda.
Welcome to the exciting world of journalism.
Slashdotters dont need an hour if debate before detecting leftist bullshit. If I rubbed Cow Feces on your face, how long would you need to know that it is bullshit? Take a wif, stupid. Bullshit stinks from the moment you get near it.
Yes, there's a lot of kooky stuff there. But it's not 100% kooky.
1. Depleted uranium has been classified by the UN (yeah, yeah) as an illegal weapon. The more I read on DU, the more concerned I get. Check this interview and this site for some info.
2. Please don't confuse criticism of the policies of the Israeli administration with 'Jew-hating'. It's a diservice to all concerned. Including those of us whose ancestors lived through anti-Semitic pogroms, but who may not think that the Israeli government has the right idea.
How sad to see many comments that reflect the following: "It's left of centre, hence shit".
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
look which "editor" (and I use that term loosely) posted this story, that despicable michael.
I love how slashdot has the elaborate, convoluted moderation system to control the "good" comments from the "bad", but can't control themselves from posting garbage like this.
Michael must go.
> Not only is the linked list not true, not balanced, and not fair, it's not even remotely news.
That's funny, I was just thinking that same statement while watching some news show on tv...
That's because they're anti-Bush and anti-America commies.
Otherwise, I find the Terms Of Service of my cable provider absolutely abhorrent, and their plain-old service isn't 100%, especially the DNS.
Fortunately they don't seem to be enforcing the "no servers of any kind" rule, though I haven't needed to have my SSH port open for a few months now, anyway. But I'd jump ship in a minute for better TOS, assuming the price jump wasn't TOO bad.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
How can any true geek be a left winger? You don't believe in Guns? You don't believe in capitalism?
You go against the tenets of ANIME, and thus your geek credentials are called into question. Hilary Clinton would ban the Buster Rifle...
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
Thus, the only good Jew is one thats in my oven.
Remember that story about Keanu Reeves donating something like $50,000,000 to the special effects whizzes on Matrix Reloaded? Try to track down the name of just one recipient of that money.
The idea that American leftists are somehow secretly in sympathy with the Soviet Union is so ludicrously antiquated that it's hard to even believe you said that one. Last I heard the Soviet Union was universally denounced as a totalitarian nightmare state. What newspapers do you read, the 1953 kind?
Maybe, just maybe, the Soviet Union isn't being blamed for trying to take over the world right now because it no longer exists. You think?
Both superpowers poured arms into Africa. That's your "stage," and the story now is whether we do something to defuse it or continue to make foreign policy choices that rip the region apart. And sorry, those are our choices -- a story about how Leonid Breschnev wouldn't have fixed things either isn't all that relevant next to our actual policies today.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Let's see some evidence where American money or military has gone to Rwanda since the start of this civil war.
Do something constructive in Africa even if it doesn't have any oil.
What country do you live in, and what is it doing?
Personally I think it's pretty bloody obvious that there are some countries that cannot control themselves when guns are lying around.
I'd agree, but that 1.5 billion dollar figure to all of africa between 1950 and 1989 amounts to $40million per year for the entire continent. First, that's ancient history. Second, you can't fight a war on $40M divided however many ways. The "evidence" for this claim is ridiculous. Perhaps you can provide us with better.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Great item to post on 9-11, you biased wankers.
In Al Franken's new book, he makes an interesting response to this "Liberals hate America!" type of claim.
He says that the far right loves America the way a 4-year-old loves his/her Mommy - anyone who says anything bad about Mommy must be BAD!
On the other hand, there is the way the mother loves her 4-year-old son/daugher - realizing that nurturing and behavior modification are needed, loving the kid in spite of flaws and helping to correct them.
Perhaps the latter view doesn't apply to all of these items, but it is another point of view to apply toward criticism of America.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
michael. How else? Really, man, take your damn politics elsewhere.
That or diversify the political bent of the editing crew to balance things out. I could do without the daily indoctrination, thanks.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Maybe you would like to read the article? Try starting with the quote I helpfully included in that first post. I tried to make it easy on you that way, see? A little more, in case you doubt it's down there:
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I was thinking the same thing. One of the most underreported stories going right now is about the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). You never hear about it in the mainstream media because it is a movement to amend the Constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, to hedge any attempts by activist judges to legislate otherwise.
You're not hearing about it because it stands a great chance at being successful, and because it has broad support across party lines, racial lines, and class lines. The media doesn't want you to know that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage, so they just don't report on the FMA.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
How about the right to have a President that was elected.
Hey, does FoxNews know that you stole their slogan? They might sue you over this, you know.
All of course in the interrest of being fair and balaned.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I can't go any further into that pile of shit. My waders are only chest high.
The reason these things didn't get any real media attention is because the CREDIBLE media prefers to base their stories on FACT.
You may remember, way back two or three messages ago, your dismissing the idea of this story as "liberal propaganda." Please write Pat and let him know how he's fallen into sin and error. How surprised he's going to be!
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Book sales, I'd wager.
A mirror of the top 25 stories here. Even though it is pretty much worthless drivel.
The site is well and truly /.ed now, so I unfortunately can't get to it to see what they have to say. I did notice, however, that the title was top UNDERREPORTED stories--not censored, underreported.
As for Bush being evil and wanting to take over the world, his entire entourage (except for Colin Powell) are members of the Project for a New American Century. Have you read their goals? Primary plans are: Extending US influence in the Middle East by instigating regime change in several countries, starting with Iraq; and Undermining and reducing the effectiveness of the UN. All of this is because they feel they have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interests of the US.
This is not a crazed leftist conspiracy either. It is the publically stated goal of the organisation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. founded several years before Bush got into power.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
One might begin to wonder if that is not the 'censored story' we should be talking about.
And let's ignore your own ignorance in using the word "liberal" to vilify anybody who disagrees with you.
Liberating Iraq? I thought we were defending the world from weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, I forgot they changed the story when they didn't find any, and hoped nobody would notice.
Read the laws, not just those you agree with. Loser.
I am proud to have assisted in Slashdotting these morons and increasing their bandwidth costs for the month three-fold.
Specifically, I've heard about meetings where US and British envoys have discussed strategic control of the world's oil supply (or a large percentage thereof). For what long-term purpose? To make sure English-speaking civilization maintains its superiority over the "enemy" of tomorrow: an ascendant China.
Take this with a grain of salt, of course. But word comes from someone who actually agrees with the policy and not a frothed-mouth conspiracy theorist. I, for one, suspect that it is true.
======
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
If they have Bush or Rumsfeld on the hook for this, that's one thing. But quoting one nutjob and assuming that he speaks for anyone but himself is stupid.
Also, I notice that article was by Pat Buchanan. Do you want to set a precedent of taking that lunatic as gospel? You may recall he was once the most extreme Republican candidate until he broke off. Sounds like some pot and kettle to me.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
For those wondering what a neoconservative is click here for a nice summary.
Personal opinion on it is this may be the worst school of thought to come along since fascism.
...I'd have rated most of them "Troll" right off the bat. While I have no doubt that all these items should be covered in regular news, rather than being totally ignored because they can't be soundbite-ed, nearly every single "headline" listed is purposely designed to be inflamitory. Further, there are several "headlines" that seem blatantly leftist. I went to the site expecting to see something unbiased, I was severely disapointed.
I have no tag line
;) No, in that case, it's good old-fashioned revenge. Particularly since Pat's turned a 180 since leaving the Rep. party. I never heard anything like that in 92 when he was running for president as a republican.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
How about the right to have a President that was elected.
LOLx2 Bush won the electorial college. The supremes denied a recount that basically obliterated equal protection. How about you change the constitution to popular vote majority?
-- $G
The media doesn't want you to know that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage
They don't? Links please. BTW, it matters not to me if 2 men or 2 women want to form a lasting legal relationship and call it marriage. It does not effect my marriage one bit.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
"#6 on the report is very real. While I still have a choice, I chose DSL - sepcifically so I could host my own servers - over cable. But I paid more, not just in the service, but also due to the fact that phone line charges are separate."
.
Actually most people do have a choice. Not always a comfortable choice, but a choice nevertheless.
1-Do without.
2-Dialup.
3-ISDN
4-Wireless.
5-Cable
6-DSL.
7-Satellite.
8-T1 on up.
I wouldn't worry too much about control, or monopoly, unless you can get all the above to colude. Costs? Well freedom always did cost.
I did not bother reading all of them, and some have little interest outside the US. But those I checked was either news or viewpoints that are represented in the news sources I subscribe to.
> Hmmm.....they seem to be worried about just anti-Bush stories. They weren't concerned with stories spiked about Clinton or Democrats or the like. Hmmmm.......
Clinton and the Democrats haven't made a heck of a lot of news in 2003, underreported or otherwise.
Uh, I read The Washington Post and don't have much trouble finding out about it. They've also had a bunch of editorials etc.
The Post also did a nice big fast A1 lead story on its own poll finding that the majority of Americans don't support gay unions.
This despite that the Post as an employer is gay friendly, is in a gay-friendly city and is gay friendly editorial-wise.
Heheh I read your blog for a second too. Calling America's liberal's "socialists" just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. This country, including most "liberals" balk at even the most minor shifts towards "social democratic" type of institutions, which are a far cry from socialism.
Anyway, you outweigh the liklihood and support of the FMA.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
You spelled "Finklestein" wrong, you fucking idiot. If you're going to troll, do it properly.
Wow, that is quite a few insults in a such a short post...
I don't read or respond to AC posts
This list should be titled: The Top 25 Wacko Nutball Leftist Propaganda Lies.
These are the type of lies they put on Communnism Now.. er oops I meant democracy now.
Hey if your ideas can't handle intelligent discussion just spread lies to coerce the weak minded.
but I've already responded to some of the other lame comments made by liberals. Well put. Too many non-Americans are just jealous and will go to great lengths to take pot-shots at the US. As for Americans liberals - they're just guilt-ridden members of the Blame-America-First Club.
Because if the media were liberal than these would be OVER-reported
Vote Quimby!
Great Book....But The Censored Book is Censored!!
...but the censored book comes with a free frogurt!
...but the frogurt is also censored!
All this kind have stuff has been going on throughout history and has been censored. The United States has played a large role in state terror, obviously starting with the Native Americans. Britain, Russia, China, everyone has done it and is doing it in the interest of maintaining power. Read Understanding Power by Noam Chomksy if you want a really in-depth look at the history and the reasons. This isn't whiney liberalism, this is a straight analysis of fact with a reasonable adherence to well-accepted moral codes, a lot of it quotes from declassified U.S. Government documents. All heavily footnoted. I highly recommend it.
Just a bunch of low self esteem wannabes looking to get laid by some chick with hairy armpits if you ask me. Most of them couldnt find their own ass if someone told them that John Ashcroft stole it from them.
Unless you consider Democrats AND Repulblicans, for whom 95+% of Americans vote, to be right of center, then you're off your rocker.
I do think that the Democrats are too conservative. I find the republicans slightly more so. The list of issues on which those two "diffrent" parties agree is longer than the list on which they disagree. They are more like two branches of a somewhat conservative party. Look at how they work together to exclude other parties from the political process. The barriers to entry are ridiculously high.
t'nera semordnilap
Note that I am not stating that US troops did engage in such behavior, only that there are journalists who claim they have evidence in support of such allegations. That such a story was buried instead of followed up vigorously by the media speaks volumes of their priorities in war reporting. Whatever your political persuasion, you must admit you would want to know if your country was violating a long standing treaty like the Geneva Convention during times of war. Wouldn't you?
--Maynard
www.Salon.com
www.Clearchannelsucks.org
www.Media-Alliance.org
infomedia-allianceorg
www.Youthmediacouncil.org
Certainly a "Who's Who" in objective news sources, wouldn't you say? Especially Clearchannelsucks.org; no agenda there, folks! Really!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
This has been stated less clearly in other responses to this "project", but let's be clear here - hypocrisy is bad. And when you point to articles that have been "censored" (which doesn't mean they weren't published, just that they weren't front page news on all the major outlets), and these articles are all obvouisly tied to a specific agenda (and ignore articles that we find interesting - for example, most of the open-source communities' response to SCO), then you invalidate your ability to present this information with honesty, accuracy, etc. Bottom line - this "project" is pure propaganda. I don't recommend ignoring it - these stories should be read, and understood. But screw the "conspirancy" feel - that's bunk.
From a quick look, it seems like the author leans a teensy bit to the left. Paranoid about right wing conspiracies? Still p*ssed about Alger Hiss? The author might want to spend a little less time hanging out on college campuses, get a job, pay taxes, and spend some time asking why 50% of income was just lit on fire by liberals who then start screaming for more money.
-- No sig for you!
If you read the list of underreported stories during Clinton's administration, you'll see that Project Censored is not biased.
And for those of you who haven't taken the time to study government or history, "liberal" is not a bunch of welfare-requesting hippies any more than "conservative" is not equal to corporate corruption (Enron, et. al.)
Look past the biased bullshit dished out by both the left and the right and learn to think for yourselves.
"How do you know?" and "Where did you get your info?" are among your best friends.
ps
I happen to think the media was extremely biased against Newt Gingrich in years past but now the exact opposite is happening: the media is overrun with neo-conservatives who try to spin any criticism of our government (one of the most cherished American freedoms) into "liberal bias" or "treason". Since when is opposition to corporate corruption or support for campaign finance reform or simply stating FACTS considered "liberal" or "treason"?
"The Post also did a nice big fast A1 lead story [washingtonpost.com] on its own poll finding that the majority of Americans don't support gay unions." I don't really have a problem with gay unions but it does get on my nerves when they threaten to strike if they don't get to listen to Barbara Streisand in their office.
STOP the "double plus good" NONSENSE, you Orwellean freak. Double-talk was the crack of his time.
Check out #24, which alerts us to "the convergence of Christian fundamentalism, white supremacy and Zionism". These wackos apparently think that Jews are joining the Aryan Nations. At least this article exposes the anti-Semitism on the far left for all to see.
nice comeback
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
You sound like just about any American.
The rest of the world operates on another scale of left/right, but that is another story...
I hear this shit everyday.
PNAC is ruling the world... genotype bombs... OBL isn't a murderer... GWB is Satan/Dumb/Evil/A Puppet... Dick Cheney runs the show... Laura Bush killed a guy... Vast Right Wing Conspiracy... it was just a blow job... 16 words... what did he know and when did he know it... hate radio...
This
Well, as others have said, it's not about censorship, but about underreported stories. And when you see how the US press does it's "reporting" these days, it's no wonder why they are underreported. But don't take my word for it, Greg Palast is an american reporter (living in the UK), and he wrote the following in a recent book:
"I freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, brother of the republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls - real felons who had served time but obtained clemency, with the legal right to vote under Florida law. [...] The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." And how do you think the multibillion-dollar CBS network determined this? Answer: "We called Jeb Bush's office." Oh."
What it boils down to is that reporters generally don't bother to actually investigate and report anything anymore, they mostly just cut and paste from official press releases (there are exceptions, thank god, such as BBC news).
Anyways, what bothers me is that it is true - the neoconservatives want world domination. And they're not even trying to hide it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many other friends of Bush are part of a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for a New American Century. To quote from the PNACs official website: "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
There is an excellent, well-researched article on GNN by a former british member of parliament, Michael Meacher, on how Afghanistan and Iraq both are part of an PNAC plan on establishing a US presence in the middle-east to secure future oil-supplies. This plan was first described in a document, called Rebuilding America's Defences, which was published by PNAC in september 2000.
I want you to just please read the article (it won't take more than 10 minutes of your time), and then tell me something's not going on here...
Uhh... you are vaguely aware that to amend the constitution you have to have a two-thirds votes at the state level, aren't you? How do you propose they are going to sneak this past the people?
1) Scan submissions for sharply divisive and/or completely false crap
2) Post said crap to the front page to incite a SlashRiot
3) Count the ad impressions all the way to the bank
4) Repeat (often with same crap)
5) Profit!
See? Nothing missing... (except a couple of Karma points)
If I was going to compare slashdot to myself, then it is leaning so far to the left that it is horizontal. From now on I'll call it dashdot (-.).
On a more serious note, however, the labels "left" and "right" only tell part of the story. There is a second dimension of political philosophy that measures the degree of individualism supported by that philosophy. There are individualists and anti-individualists on both sides of the left-right spectrum.
For example, when the right wing lobbies for relief from anti-monopoly laws, they are advocating a reduction in individualism. When the left lobbies for trade unions they also advocate reducing an individuals rights. The extremes of these positions are fascism and communism. As a practical matter fascist and communist societies look very similar because the are similar. Both systems foster the reduction of the individual to some greater good. All that differs is the window dressing used in their propaganda.
In opposition to these forces on the right wing are the libertarians, and on the left are the Civil Libertarians. Both groups seek to limit the ways that individual liberty is undermined.
The corporations that control the media are not intrinsicly left or right. Corporations act in their self interest and tend to support either the left or the right depending on where that self interest lay in that particular issue. Corporations are, however, anti-individualist.
Have you considered the idea that perhaps most Americans like the idea of making the world more like us? Just wondering...
/want/ to make the rest of the world more like the US? Could it be, perhaps, that we've had the world's greatest economy for a few generations and we'd like it if the rest of the world could do the same -- and all live without killing each other?
Also, can you understand why the "Project" guys might
If the rest of the world "serves the interest of the US" that means we'll be pretty well-off. I don't see a problem with my leaders trying to make (and keep) us the best on the block.
Liberal stories? you guys live inside your
own bubble. I do live in South America,
and such stories (Specially the Venezuelan and Argentinian ones) actually depict the situation
a LOT better than CNN or other north american
media. Anything you could see on TV about the argentinian issues were purely economical, NOT
social. And while it is true that these stories
are sightly biased, they are much closer to the
facts than the regular sceptical slashdot reader
might think.
While I fully agree with you that this censorship stuff is just some wackos with an agenda whining that nobody cares for their conspiracy theories; I can't help adressing the issues you raise:
* Where did all the UN Food for Oil money disppear to?
Food for oil, I don't see much money in that deal. No money can't disappear.
* How much business did France and Germany do with Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?
None that I know of. Of course I have seen a lot of this crap on public forums or frog-bashing sites. But no report of those on any remotely reliable source, not even on Fox News (only exception is an op'ed column by William Safire in the NYT, which allegations have been denied by the US administration itself). Given the unusually aggressive stance the Bush administration has taken against those countries, I guess that any credible lead on that subject would have been leaked to the press in no time.
* How the "sactions are killing millions of Iraqi babies" stories were bogus.
Economic sanctions are a useful tool to destabilize a regime or prevent it from endangering its neighbours but you have to admit that the population ends up paying the highest price to them. It might eventually be worth the price (South African Apartheid regime) or not (Cuba comes to mind). In the case of Irak, I guess that the food for oil program somehow prevented the most severe famines but I don't know of hard facts. Do you have them?
* How much of the Arab and some European press were getting paid by Saddam
Come on! You're not saying that any media that voiced opinions differing from the official White House point of view were sold to Saddam, are you? And which countries do you target in "some European press". Given your post's general tone, I guess you include France and Germany. But what about Spain, England or Poland. Even though these countries participated in the "Coalition of the Willing", their press (and public opinion) were mostly opposed to the war. Do you think the Blair administration would not have noticed or would have allowed it if the BBC was paid by Saddam? Do you know that the BBC is state-owned?
This whole hate story between the US and some other countries is childish and now sickening, with so many people dying. IMHO, all of this is the consequence of over-reaction from the US coupled with underestimation of the 9/11 trauma by most foreign countries. Add a layer of really poor diplomacy from both sides and you get the current diplomatic mess.
These conspiration theories and aggressiveness from both sides are really NOT constructive. Americans must understand that the reason why some countries opposed the war is that they genuinely thought that it was a Bad Idea (TM) that would not cure terrorism and may generate new problems. This has nothing to do with hatred of America of some more sinister goals. On the other hand, I think that the US (even the neocons) genuinely thought that Saddam's demise would help fight terrorism and bring more countries toward democracy. Considerations such as world hegemony or oil are absurd or secondary. President Bush's style and personnality is also secondary in comparison to the primary goal of bringing stability to Iraq. IMHO, he's not a very good president but I'm not saying that because of a European or leftish stance : I personally think that John McCain would have done a better job than both Bush and Gore.
Sorry for that long post, I guess I had to write it down somehow. And a disclaimer : If you hadn't guessed it yet, I'm French.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
PLONK...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
So far you've dropped the charge that it's exclusively liberal propaganda that's the story here, which is what I was answering. Moving on:
So you have a few articles from some nutball conservatives who wants America to take over the world.
Not quite there yet, but you seem to have read a little bit of it this time, so I'll give you another bite: We have a few articles from some "nutball conservatives" -- your words -- who want America to take over the world who are presently in positions within Bush's cabinet where they weild enormous influence, and who urged Bush's current Iraq policies on Clinton back in 1998.
Ever hear of Paul Wolfowitz, and Don Rumsfeld's, and Dick Cheney's, roles as founding members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)? PNAC is what Pat Buchanan is writing about, here -- they've enunciated the 'strategic vision' Buchanan's quoting from at length, and did so back in the late 90s in various papers on the subject.
Why does this register as a story that should be covered more? Because they laid out their plan for attacking Iraq well before Sept 11th, 2001 -- placing it squarely within the context of their "creative destabilization" ideas about the middle east. They urged Clinton to go to war against Iraq and remove Saddam because he was a "hazard" to "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil". They also called for America to go to war alone, attacked the United Nations and said the US should not be "crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council". In 1998.
Here's the letter on the PNAC's Web site.
Other members of PNAC: Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs. The letter was also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
#1 is listed as "The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance". This and many of the other items on this list were discussed extensively on various the extreme left-wing and extreme Libertarian conspiracy theory radio shows here on Cleveland's WRUW. On the other hand, my cat got stuck in a tree and the fire department had to rescue Fluffy. This only made a blurb at the end of the local channel 3's 11:00 news one night, getting even less attention than all 25 items on this list. So I'd like to submit a correction to this list and suggest "Fluffy Gets Stuck in Tree" be listed as the top under-reported item. Plus it has more credibility than many of the stories that did make the list...
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Right to a fair trial...Right to due process...Right to... Any consolation would be the liberals broke those rights first with the misconception of victims rights (concessions to create media hype to get the female vote). Innocent until proven guilty means in a rape trial she/he is concidered to be lying.
If men went through the same media sensationalism that women did, alot more women would be going to jail for rape, a spin on that would also having alot of marriages annuled.
Fraud and marriage could be a issue now.
180 degrees means a full turnaround. Let's see, in 1996 Pat was to the right of the Republican party. You've just said he's now an ultra-liberal. Writing "liberal propaganda" for American Conservative magazine. That weasel!
(This fits Pat's messages in the last two presidential races perfectly. He's always been an isolationist, more or less -- his opposition to NAFTA matches up very well with this reaction to neocon ambition in our foreign policy.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
1. It isn't true.
Point 1 I'll leave as an exercise for the reader (it's not like I have all day to puncture liberal theories that have already been punctured quite extensively elsewhere)...
Where? Whether it is money for guns or for food, it is still the US manipulating foreign soveriegn nations. Why can't we be friends while also minding our own business? Why do we feel that shaping the rest of the world is actually doing good for the long term? The American ideology set out in the US Constitution will never die--it is too clearly a good model of government. Why not let other countries discover this for themselves? Why gag them with it with some "I want it yesterday" attitude? Or is all this a matter of "Manipulating Foreign Governments for Fun and Profit"?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
above
This is not a crazed leftist conspiracy either. It is the publically stated goal of the organisation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. founded several years before Bush got into power.
So, now that we have an expertly marketed President (the whole bit: jeans, a pickup truck, and an anti-homo slant) how do we convince Joe Blow American to vote for someone else in 2004?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I read their list of so-called "Underreported stories". They were reported on. Just because PS, and perhaps their readership, isn't paying attention doesn't uncover some vast conspiracy.
More to the point, PS obviously doesn't do anything approaching investigative journalism on their own. Had they elected to do so, they would have realized (assuming they are level, rational, objective individuals) that there is nothing to these stories.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) did an investigation, in which it dispatched teams of researchers to Kosovo to inquire after the effects of depleted uranium in that conflict. A report on the UNEP's findings, presented last year, appears in the journal Science (requires subscription or pay-per-view). Here are pertinent quotes: 6
... [M]aintains Testa, "for me this is a false problem. We could be spending money on more urgent problems" -- toxic solvents, heavy metals, and organic pollutants, to name a few, he says.
The team, led by physical chemist Pier Roberto Danesi, former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) laboratory in Siebersdorf, Austria, confirmed that some patches of soil from known impact sites in Kosovo are tainted with DU. But the amounts, the team maintains, are so tiny that the radioactivity poses virtually no cancer risk. Moreover, Danesi's group found no evidence of elevated plutonium levels in the soil. Their findings jibe with those of other bodies, including the U.K.'s Royal Society and the European Union, that have surveyed the DU literature. "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat," says Danesi. The latest findings, asserts radiochemist Corrado Testa of the University of Urbino in Italy, "confirm that there is no risk from DU."
They found that in the most contaminated places, a few milligrams of soil could contain hundreds of thousands of DU particles -- but still not a high enough concentration to elevate cancer risk, Danesi says. Plutonium levels in the Kosovo soil -- about 1 becquerel per kilogram -- accorded with global levels of fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests. For comparison, soil levels in the Alps, near Salzburg, are nine times as high, thanks to Chornobyl. "As far as the plutonium is concerned, you could feed this soil to someone and he'd be fine," Danesi says. His team will elaborate on its findings in companion articles in the December [2002] issue of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity.
The World Health Organization has done its own reviews of the (considerable) scientific information available on the health effects of uranium, depleted or un. Here's a selection of its results: 7
In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
The European Commission of the E.U. has issued its own comprehensive evaluation of the situation with regard to depleted uranium. Here are its basic conclusions: 8
[...] On the basis of available information, it is concluded that exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that might be received. Moreover, in view of the fact that committed doses from incorporated DU build up over a lifetime and in view of the minimum latency period of cancer induction, such effects could not occur during the first few years after incorporation as a result of radiological exposure.
This conclusion applies in particular to leukaemia: while the latency period for leukaemia is shorter than for solid cancers, uranium accumulates very little in blood forming
Your totally fatuous, recklessly immature example must be right.
Which is why I think you should go in front of the American people and honestly explain this position of yours: "I'm sending your children overseas with the specific goal of destabilizing the Middle East, because I think that's a 'creative' thing to do." I'm sure that'll go over awfully, awfully well.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
FYI, The burden of "proof" is on the one making the allegation.
We do not have a system where you have to prove your innocence, at least not yet.
Help fight continental drift.
All of this is because they feel they have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interests of the US.
I would submit to you that the leaders of the United States actually do have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interest of the US.
The US government serving US interests?! Stop the fucking presses!
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Prime Minister Sharon calls it an "occupation." I guess he is a jew-hater too?
If you buy drugs does the money go to support terrorist? Actually it goes to support the Mexican army and the Mexican Government.
. customscorruption.com/mexican_cartels_integr.h tm
The Mexican army has been crossing the Texas border in force on a daily basis since 1997. Here are a couple of links to old papers and news stories. These just touch on the fact that The Mexican Army is involved in the trafficing.
http://www.abqjournal.com/border/c1-16.pdf
www
If you search long enough at your favorite SE for the keywords durango, cocaine and cartel. You will eventually find an incredible paper presented at a Custom's seminar several years ago.
The Mexican Army and Mexico state governments don't just protect drug producers and smuggler - they are the drug producers and smugglers.
Why would this story be suppressed? Could I even begin to list the reasons? The war on drugs is such a total and complete failure that a friendly neighboring nation now uses it as a primary source of funding for their military. Why wouldn't the Republican want this to be common knowledge? Why wouldn't the Democrats want this to be common knowledge? Why don't the people in favor of legalization use this as ammunition in their cause? I can't understand why they would not want it widely know that they are the primary financiers of a bastion of civil rights like the Mexican Army.
What about a potential backlash against Mexican-Americans? Clearly the Mexican government doesn't want this information becoming public in a big way.
This country, including most "liberals" balk at even the most minor shifts towards "social democratic" type of institutions, which are a far cry from socialism.
When Dennis Kucinich claimed that we needed to remove the "profit component" from medicine in Tuesday night's presidential debate, it sure sounded like socialism to me.
Good Lord. I'd make some kind of argument about 2/3 majorities and how that applies states in the Senate, but somehow I don't think you care. Instead I'll just link to some PENISES!
Look! Gay porn! Penis penis penis. Perhaps even a nut sack or two.
Maybe you have a point and I'm just distracted by this (that one's not a penis, it's another under-reported story) shit, but hey, we can always use a little more gay porn.
I don't know, I'd probably be more passionately against you people if I thought that a hypothetical anti-gay ammendment would last more than a decade before it gets repealed. Sure, I'd be embarassing historically, but I get the sense that we're just gonna be writing off this whole decade 50 years down the road. "The 1950s Part II" or something. They'll probably find some logical explaination for how stupid we all are. Like the hallucinagenic wheat fungus they came up with to explain the Salem witch trials.
Whatever. I'm just keeping my head down until 2015 and hoping I don't get burned at the stake before we get out of this.
The 180 was on his war hawk stance. I could be very mistaken, but I though he was gung ho on the first gulf war. His new stance does fit with his isolationism, but there have been many republicans who saw no problem with the apparant contradiction of being militarily expansionist and economically isolationist.
I honestly think he's just taking potshots at the party for effectively booting him, and because he has a massive ego and can't stand being out of the limelight. Hell, that's why he ran in 2000. Reform my ass - if Buchanan is the reform, I don't even want to know what the actual problem is.
That's not to say he's necessarily wrong - however, I'm always wary about listening to people with such a clear axe to grind.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Wrong, oh turnip breath.
The Constitution states that enemy combatants are not entitled to those rights, even as American Citizens. It also states that the Attorney General of the United States has the authority to designate enemy combatats for reasons of national security.
And guess what? Those rules were in place BEFORE John Ashcroft ever came to office.
Next?
P.S. Completely correct on the victims rights and women thing, though.
Did your daddy own slaves? Welcome to the 21st century you white trash fuck.
It always saddens me when I read these posts, or anywhere for that matter, where so many people only view the world in terms of liberals vs. conservatives. It seems to me that you're really not thinking very hard about something if you're dividing everything up that way.
That's all I really have to add on this one.
My ears pricked up a lot sooner than that. My Kook Alarm goes off whenever I see or hear the word "Neoconservative."
... locating stories about significant issues of which the public should be aware, but is not, for one reason or another."
;) ;) ;)
The main reason this word tips me off is because you'll never hear a conservative call himself "neoconservative." The phrase is used by folks who do not merely disagree with conservatives and not only want them removed from office, but who have demonized the Right, and view them only as targets to be attacked -- for great justice!
Indeed, I clicked on the website's "About Us" button, and this phrase from it confirms that:
"The Primary Objective of Project Censored is
In other words, they do not exist to find instances of Censorship -- as the title of the site suggests. Rather, THEY EXIST SOLELY TO PROMOTE THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW.
They say they do this to explore the extent of censorship. Of course, the reason these stories are underreported couldn't POSSIBLY be because of (a) lack of evidence or (b) lack of understanding of the issues, now could it? Obviously, if these stories are being underreported, then the ONLY possible explanation must be that there's censorship going on! It's not that depleted Uranium isn't a radiation hazard, Transcendent.. it's that you JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DANGER!!!!
Let's talk about censorship HONESTLY. Let's talk about cases of people wanting to say something and being prevented from doing so, or persecuted for doing so. The ACLU does this when they defend pornographers, artists and Klansmen. The ACLU has an agenda as well (notice they leave the 2nd Amendment to the NRA), but they're doing a far better job than Sonoma State University's pathetic "Project Censored."
The got the bigger guns, that's why they've got control. That's likely going to be changing soon anyways because of the genicidal gap created by hiring yes-men (honestly, truthfully). America has fallen behind terribly in some areas, it's just going to take a while for it to become appearent. You can shout success all you want, it's still not going to stop the ship from sinking. The timing is interesting.
Thank you, racist, sexist, bigot. What you are not a racist/sexist/bigot? Oh, so words DOOO mean something. Simply saying someone is something does not make it the case. The word marriage DOES mean something just like my examples do mean something. And just because the gay lobby wishes to in someway justify/make easier etc.etc. etc. does not change the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman. It does affect your marriage. The dilution of family values and standards has an effect at the neighborhood, community, state and national level. It may not impact you tommorow, however it will impact you and your children at somepoint.
OK, if a conspiracy is a bunch of people getting together and planning to take control of the government, then I have a conspiracy theory for you. It goes like this: there's a group of people in power now whose stated purpose is to use our military to shape the rest of the world to benefit America.
i nc iples.htm
You're right that many Americans have heard this theory and rejected it. This is a bit surprising -- considering this 'conspiracy' has a website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofpr
If there are Americans out there who still reject this theory, then I would say by definition that the story is underreported -- because no one responsible is trying to deny it. The linked page, which is undersigned by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and, of all people, Quayle, is pretty upfront:
"We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. [...] Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"
From another page:
"The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East. This is an objective of overriding strategic importance to the United States, as it is to the rest of the international community - and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that."
As long as we discuss motives for invading Iraq outside the context of this objective, I would say this angle is decisively underreported. Call me a thinktank theorist.
you are a liberal. You always were and you will always be a liberal.
When the grownups get back you deserve to be sent to your room without supper.
How much did you get to post this story? I smell kickback. Either that or you two are sweet on each other.
The left will report will tend to champion stories that will support their political agena and underplay those that do not. The right will do exactly the same thing! Where the left will be quick to mention that the US installed major corporations in Iraq to assure a stong American business presence with or without a military presence, but look over the fact that France and Germany have engaged in commerce with Iraq for years despite UN sanctions, the right will do just the opposite. It is rare that you will find unbiased reporting anywhere these days.
The intelligent pay attention to information from BOTH sides, and learn to judge what is propaganda and what is fact.
There is substantial evidence that there is a liberal media bias in this country. There is equal evidence to suggest a conservative bias.
GET OVER IT. READ THE FACTS, NOT THE BIAS.
"p2p stabbing is such a vast, untapped market"
...with 'Massacre in Mazo'? Further, when did I say that I accepted the claims presented in the film at face evidence? I didn't. But you replied with demagoguery by making reference to a completely unrelated documentary as proof (or implication) that the film in question is somehow non-credible. What kind of logic is that? If, by your logic, anyone can make false claims therefor we shouldn't believe any of them, why investigate anything at all? Do you argue that only those stories why receive mainstream press coverage are credible? If so, are you arguing that the mainstream media isn't biased in one way or the other? And where does "truth" fit into any of this at all? At some point one must answer the question: Are these allegations correct? Regardless of one's political persuasions, the allegations are either factual or non-factual. If you can't face a factual statement that flies in the face of your personal politics it is you who are biased, not the story. I'm less than impressed by your non-argument.
--Maynard
I'm black, you stupid fuck. I just happen to be a black man who can think for himself. Kiss my ass, loser.
Interestingly enough, we (the US) has not signed the entire Geneva convention. We do abide by most of it, but compbat troops are trained to follow the Law of Armed Conflict. This is a US Dept of Defense product that may contain some of the same considerations as the Geneva Convention, but is not exactly the same. FWIW
Since when is the left anything else other then a power grab to get votes and wield power/status, it's the economy or that the left is likely going to loss this one, even with the majority of news organizations overwhelmingly liberal.
You can't tell me the left is severly limited on what it can draw from this time around, they've lost the black vote, female vote and hispanic vote. A minor populization of psychology discredited pretty much every lefty stance of the last 20 years. The media is slow on reporting it because so many of those people are in the media and potential liability.
Stalin and hitler had it right, control the media-control the population. The only way to fix it is liability of FUD.
Have you considered the idea that perhaps most Americans like the idea of making the world more like us?
/want/ to make the rest of the world more like the US?
And the 19 hijackers that flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon two years ago liked the idea of making the world more like them. If you believe that the totality of your culture is superior to each and every other culture on the face of the Earth, then you will obviously want to make the rest of the world more like you. This does not mean, however, that the rest of the world is obligated to become more like you.
It's an interesting choice of words, by the way; "making" the rest of the world like us, as opposed to "helping" the rest of the world become more like us. The former implies force and compulsion, whereas the latter implies aid and assistance.
Also, can you understand why the "Project" guys might
I certainly would want to make sure that other peoples and nations who sincerely want help to reform their societies and governments gets whatever assistance they need, but I cannot support the (thoroughly bizarre) notion of "imposing freedom." America should lead by example, not by force. America should be respected and looked up to, not hated and feared. Nations and groups who actively decide to make an enemy of America should fear our capabilities, but the recent oderint dum metuant policy of this administration has gone far beyond that.
The PNAC's agenda is pretty transparent: a "New American Century", regardless of whether the recipients of said Century actually want it or not. And that's horribly, horribly wrong. If the underdeveloped world is to become more like America, it should be because it wants to become more like America, not because it's been forced to. If we have to resort to military force to spread our way of life, then we've taken a very long stroll down a very wrong road.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
...Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). You never hear about it in the mainstream media because it is a movement to amend the Constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, to hedge any attempts by activist judges to legislate otherwise.
There is no way that this would pass. If it does, then I really need to consider moving to an island somewhere, way out there, to get away from these insane ideas about what the government is for.
Marriage is social in nature and often religious in nature, for the purposes of genetic propogation. If a person finds it their destiny to marry a woman, three men, and a goat, then fine. The government shouldn't stop them, nor would it ever be the government's business to do so.
Also, I'd like to see a sound non-religious argument for forcing all marriages to be heterosexual. What? Such an argument doesn't exist?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
"Marriage is between a man and a woman." Your naive statement completely ignores the point. The question is, *should* marriage be only between a man and a woman? Marriage means different things to different people. You think that the sexes of the parties have something to do with it; I think it is a commitment and bond between two people, afforded special legal status by the state, regardless of the sex. Your fud about 'the dilution of family values' is quite amusing, but not worth responding to.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
When Dennis Kucinich claimed that we needed to remove the "profit component" from medicine in Tuesday night's presidential debate, it sure sounded like socialism to me.
I find it intersting that Richard Stallman supports Kucinich. I guess free speach != freedom of choice in medical care. What if I don't want to pay taxes towards medical care I don't want to use? Well fuck me, it doesn't matter, they'll take my money anyway or send me to prison!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I've read plenty about the FMA. The tools over at National Review seem very worked up about it. Andrew Sullivan has been fulminating against it on his blog. I followed the debate over Lawrence v. Texas quite closely, and this is just a follow-up to it. NY Times magazine had a good article by Jeffrey Rosen about the sudden resurgence of theoconservative activists since the ruling; this is probably still online. The chances of it actually passing are pretty minimal; it's just a bone thrown to the reactionaries. Only a handful of senators bothered to show up at hearings last week.
You need to be a little more specific by what you mean by The Media. I've seen the polling data on gay marriage plenty of places; it's not too surprising. (Much more shocking, to my mind, is that a large segment of the population believes that the government should outlaw gay sex.) The Media is too busy reporting on the runaway success of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy to concern itself with the behavior of wing nuts like Weyrich.
How's that for next.
Half of this shit is nothing but constant blaring liberal bullshit in the media.
The Balfour Declaration by not means gave Israel any sort of territorial rights - it was merely a letter written by the British Foreign secretary, specifying that the British government would support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. (link)
.
This would be similar to Jack Straw (the current British FS) writing a letter to some "pro-Chilean" figure, stating that the British government would support the establishment of a Chilean nation in Argentina.
The Israelis, in fact, initiated the 6-Day war. It is true that there were troop build-ups on both sides and that there was a great deal of threatening from all parties, but it was the Israelis that started the fighting. (link)
It is interesting to note that as part of the Israeli's initial attack, they assaulted a clearly marked American recon ship (USS Liberty) from the air - disabling it completely with several phases of attacks, there is also evidence that the Israelis shot down US planes that were deployed to the assitance of the Liberty. (link1 link2 link3).
Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights were occupied by Israel during the 6-Day war (There were other pieces of land occupied during the war that were later returned).
The reason that it is accurately refered to as "Occupation" is that it precisely describes the situation (Similarly in concept to how the US is now occupying Iraq). The legal situation is that Israel has been mandated to return to its pre-1967 borders by a UN Security Council Resolution (242) and has ignored the international community's pressure along with several other Security Council Resolutions. Therefore, it is illegally occupying these territories
What are these "Rules of War" that you are referring to? We've come a long way since the times when people could just take land from eachother just because they had a bigger army.
for "Whiny Liberal Bitches 101". C'mon, couldn't there be something in there that's actual news as compared to made-up conspiracy crap that's being recycled here? Pierre
A lot of people keep talking about how Saddam used chemical weapons on "his own people". He used them on Kurds living in the area that most people around the world call Iraq, but that Kurds still like to refer to as "part of Kurdistan". The Kurds didn't like being Iraqis (nor Turks for that matter) and were openly rebelling. The Kurds were "Saddam's own people" in the same sense that the Cherokee were Andrew Jackson's own people.
This is not to excuse the use of chemical weapons in what was effectively a civil war. But the way it keeps being stated makes it sound like Saddam just rounded up a few randomly chosen Iraqis and gassed them for the fun of it. It was done in the context of putting down the Kurdish rebellion.
Americans and western Europeans (particularly the British) have done things at least as bad as Saddam did, if not worse with nasty weapons of mass destruction. (I'd be happy to cite examples if you'd like.)
All of these stories have been mentioned in the mainstream media, but they have not become reoccuring stories, but they certainly are issues talked about in the foreign press.
For example...
#1 It is *fact* that the Bush administration is made up of hardline conservatives with the stated ideology of increasing the US's power in the world including increased control of the middle east and optionally sidelining the UN.
This should be an issue to you if you are conservative or liberal. To any thinking person this should be a huge issue - whether you agree with them or not, because they have a pretty radical vision for the US's role in the world that most people would find shocking.
How could this group's ideology NOT be a important determining factor in attacking Iraq?
How could the US press not investigate this link further without being derelect in their duties?
It should be the press's role to keep the Government honest, it is sad that many Americans don't understand that questioning the motives of your rulers isn't always politically motivated.. it is what the press are there for.
Do they have a site like this that DOESN'T have such an obviously slanted liberal bias? I wouldn't call what this site is reporting "censorship" - it's more like "a complaint that the already leftist biased media doesn't cater more to my extreme left point of view"
In re: to point 1: I believe it is true.
There, we have opined our views, each giving equal amounts of points to back it up.
As to point 2: Your logic in attempting to understand the propaganda offered by those in power is simply flawed. For starters, we didn't go to war with Iraq to liberate anyone. Neither Bush nor Cheney would agree with that assessment either. If that was their agenda, it would have been met with force by the rest of the world (even more than it attempted to do). It was to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions with regard to WMD'. That was their only way of "getting in".
No, there were no thugs at the printing presses, just threats from advertisers (income) to not appear anti-patriotic. The effect is the same.
You seem to have a far bigger problem with the fact that these stories "appear" to be "anti-American" than with any of the facts presented therin, which does little to support your views.
Good luck.
The problem with this statement is that most Americans are quick to say "we're the best country in the world, we've got the best democracy, ..." but they haven't been out of the US or only in a "all of Europe in a week" tour and haven't lived in a different country to be able to judge for themselves and considering the infinitesimal amount of world news in the US mainstream media, they're just regurgitating the propaganda they have been fed with. It's always amazing how fast Americans point to the commie propaganda but fail to realize that they too are subjected to propaganda...
Note that this is not a personal attack on your comment as I don't know what kind of international exposure you got.
I think, if you'll notice, we've used the military rarely to accomplish that goal (spreading our way of life). Take a look at all the carrots we use to spread our ideas -- most of it is commercial - foreign direct investment. I think the U.S. has given away more in aid and assistance than any other nation. And yes, we've brought out the big stick when the leaders (whoever the were at the time) deigned it to be in their interest.
:)
You're right, the 19 hijackers did want the world to be more like them. It's a game on a very real scale: We are winning at the moment, but since we're playing on "Nightmare" level, it's not too easy.
America already does lead by example, and some countries (obviously) don't agree. That's ok, I don't see us piling into Moscow on tanks to force them to come around to our way of life, do you?
My thoughts are getting scattered, so I'll leave it with this: Of course we're going to try to influence events in our favor, given the alternative. If we don't "impose" our will on the world, the world will impose on us, and I don't have a problem with PNAC trying to prevent it. I don't know all their positions, so I can't say if I agree with all their methods, but I hardly call it evil or immoral.
Oh, hell, one last thing: How do we know what the people of country X desire, if they're subjugated by a horrific regime smashing any attempts at alternative systems? (and don't try to say "that's America" because it's patently false)
I read all these posts by angry American men whose sense of patriotism is dented because someone believes that perhaps D Rumsfeld and Co, perhaps were not so interested in WMD as they claimed they were and perhaps not so keen on Iraqis actually ruling themselves.
What a shame.
Wrapping a flag around one's face in blind patriotism and then running into a lamp post is not conducive to clarity of vision.
Gaining power over other countries, particularly countries in important areas like the middle east, is something that pretty much any government of any country sees as a good thing. For example, it's an explicit aim of the EU.
The only question is the cost. Bush was on record as believing that the cost was too high. It was a campaign position of his that America was better off keeping its troops home, attending to its own economy and staying out of trouble spots. The NAC people were SOL.
For some mysterious reason, about two years ago, he changed his mind. Something, I can't imagine what, triggered him to think "Hmmm, those people who said that America's security depended on projecting military power around the world, maybe they had a point after all."
Now I'm not saying that the NAC are right. There are other ways of attempting to protect a country. There are problems with being an imperial power rather than a purely economic one. But I don't see much that's secret or hidden about the motives behind recent US foreign policy. Even when the articles quoted talk about the Oil situation, they say that US policy is based around the US strategic need for access to oil supplies, rather than a desire to make profits for oil companies, which is in my eyes a defence of the policy, but which something I have occasionally doubted.
The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.
The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.
By the Articles of War, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military
tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses
that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons
subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment.
But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any
other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals'
and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article
15 by military commission....
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limi
Um, no.
The vast majority of the 4 and 5 posts are exactly that- ignorant, annoying, tired whining about the "liberal media", with no support whatsoever. I think I've yet to see a 4 or 5 post that actually deals with the subject at hand.
The best strategies are to debunk, ridicule and associate valid stories/opinions with undesirable words/people like "communists", "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", etc.
For example, when interviewing "people off the street" make sure you have only the wackos presenting opposing views while you pick out "decent-looking, well-dressed" people to present your own views. And if there aren't enough people who share your views, hire some people off the street or go with local actors/models if your budget allows. Even if both views get equal airtime, the opposing views will be associated with ugly weirdos and who the hell wants to share the same views as them even if they're right?
A similar strategy is to hire strong-looking & charismatic tv/news personalities that support your own views while hiring ugly-assed & uncharasmatic "wimps" to offer very pitiful opposition. I'm sure you can find a decent example of this tactic by watching TV.
As you can see, your previously unpopular views can be easily associated with "winners" and opposing views are associated with "whiners, losers, traitors, communists, etc." without resorting to outright censorship.
The best part of this strategy is that it works because the average joe-sixpacks don't understand how to detect bullshit.
To sum it up: associate undesirable words/concepts/people to opposition and associate desirable words/concepts/people to your own views and don't let the pesky facts or Truth get in the way because perception is usually more important in manipulating the public.
This of course goes hand-in-hand with manipulating opinion polls and surveys by carefully crafting questions in ways that lead people to pick desired answers and then hiding the exact original wording of these questions when presenting the results to the public.
Who needs censorship when these tactics work so well?
Funny that there is no mention of some other stories:
The main group behind the anti-war protests in the west (ANSWER) is funded by the Workers World Party and among other positions, supported Stalin, the crackdown on students in Tienaman Square, and the current crackdown on Iranian democratic dissidents againsts the ruling Islamic theocracy.
Al-Jazeera reporters were caught in Iraq paying protesters to carry weapons and provoke a violent clash with U.S. troops so that Al-Jazeera would have the scoop on the "heavy handed overreaction" of the U.S. troops.
Damn kooky left would get a lot more credible if they didn't have such a knee-jerk bias.
Go ahead and keep spouting off this crazy propoganda; we need the entertainment. The only problem is that some people actually believe this stuff.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
...Hitler!
You so lose.
Also, that makes a great campaign slogan.
"Bush in 2004! Still not quite as bad as Hitler!"
Maybe he'll be able to correct that oversight with a second term.
If i interpreted this article correctly, it means that the US is basically censoring certain types of news from the American public- to be more precise, news that might cause an inflammatory response to our government. I understand that the government has to do some things, but can't we even get a right to know what happens in the world?hell, i'm moving to australia as soon as i graduate! :) really, though, all governments that have hidden this much from the public have collapsed.
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
Why exactly would protestors need funding to march in the streets? I'm serious please explain.
Fuck you and your reactionist hyperbole. Learn a little about a subject before you blather off about it, cocksucker.
"Family Values", my ass. You are the problem that is affecting your children, not whether two gays somewhere want to commit to one another..
So do you seek medical attention when you have problems?
The site and the person who wrote up the slashdot intro are really, really liberal.
To add just a bit of balance I invite you to go here: http://www.mediaresearch.org/
Quick! Mod me a troll!
#1: Responsible, logic-minded people already control most of the planet. ............
#2: Laws that disobey the Constitution don't last very long and for the most part I trust the guys and girls in law enforcement to protect us from the baddies (even if they bend the rules a teensy bit.).
#3: UN reports are 99% bullshit just like the UN itself.
#4: Rumsfeld like many members of Bush's staff actually had better, higher paying jobs outside of politics.
#5: Unions are making themselve's extinct by being so corrupt at the top and not standing up for workers.
#6: IT is more free(er -Bushism) today since the citizens of at least two new countries can participate(Afghanistan and Iraq).
#7: Clinton signed a bunch of bullshit in his last year he was too much of a pussy to sign when he would have had to live with the immediate consequences.
#8: Depleted uraniumim is FUCKING DEPLETED URANIUM and the actual chance of harmful effects (impact aside) is small.
#9: Afghanistan is the same dusty shithole it was 100 years ago. Afghanistan never was nor ever will be a paradise but is a least a little better off today.
#10: Africa is a shithole no-one with a brain would want to colonize.
#11: Talibs are nutcases and madrassas should all be bombed into extinction.
#12: Corporations need a death penalty for bad behaviour just like other bad citizens. Corporate death penalty should be viral unto the corporate officers.
#13: The US Military is mostly doing UN and NATO work.
#14: Refugees -listen to old Sam Kennison improv tapes.
#15: Venezuela: coup failed because US left it alone. The people of Venezuela need to try a little harder to get the crooked bastard out of office.
#16: Panama should be annexed.
#17: Clear Channel will not exist in 50 years.
#18: Charter Forest Proposal - beating back tons of unreasonable legislation a little.
#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro -Uhhh, whatever. Think EU civil war within 150 years.
#20: For-Profit Military -I wish.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
So do you seek medical attention when you have problems?
Only for problems I can't treat myself. I am not a person to go to a doctor for every ailment, real or imagined, to beg for magical prescription treatments whose placebo effect is more effective than the medications themselves.
Regardless, my point was that with a full-blown tax-supported national healthcare system, my ability to choose private healthcare and not pay taxes towards the national plan will be stripped from me. It's already bad enough to be forced to give money to so many social programs I disagree with, when excersizing a choice to not give money to them literally results in a prison sentence. Only the government can extort money from people without fear of retribution. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
"Is" means different things to different people, too...and look at what results.
When you clearly haven't seen the actual film in question in order to substantiate this 'burden of proof' for yourself. --M
Geez, why are do so many Americans fit the "cowboy" menality stereotype? Makes me ashamed to be an American. "I'm a loner, a rebel, all alone, on my own, I don't depend on anyone else for anything. Society? Never heard of it, don't want to be a part of it."
Well, fine, I think we should provide special tax-exempt status for you people. And we can also exempt you from all public services. No doctor who has ever received any publicly-funded education or received any knowledge from any publicly-funded research. No use of roads or public transportation. No minimum wage protection. No labor protections. You can walk to work (not on a sidewalk), get paid $1.00/hour (with no taxes!) by an employer who bears no responsibility for your workplace conditions and treatment.
Oh, and no public services provided to your home, either. You can provide your own water.
I'm not trying to make the case that all taxes are fair and that all social programs are the best they could be, but the "socialist" (if you can call it that) paradigm of medical care is pretty well proven in other countries. It works, and would definitely work better than our current system, if we had the balls to stand up to the insurance companies and initiate it.
As computer animation production becomes more accessible and easy to use, I hope that one of the implementations will be homemade movies based on things found on this and future lists. A short 5 minute movie about each subject matter on these types of lists, showing animated simulations with decent electronica music scores(must keep the plot moving), would serve the public well and outsell the bland, oversimplified, corporate news we see now from the rich and influential.
For those who complain that these subjects aren't censored, only unpopular; I would suggest that accusation to be shortsighted. The general public is spoon-fed via television news and their interests are highly influenced by that media. If the subject requires more than a few steps to put together complex, yet related facts, the news is unlikely to air it. That is a form of censorship. Imagine what else the rich and powerful who own the news companies keep out of the spotlight when "friends" of corporate media are involved in embarrassing and potentially explosive situations due to their past behaviors. Corporate media that claims to present unbiased news is not fulfilling its role as a news entity. And, if corporate media makes promises to the public that they don't keep, is that not a lie?
Corporate media decides what is aired based on market requirements (in this case the attention span of the overworked, underpaid and about to lose overtime), not based on facts that impact the population (this is one definition of "news"). Occasionally, the two will happily coincide and corporate media as a small herd (not much diversity in this market) will generously spoon-feed the populous with facts that impact their lives and are factual from a very limited perspective. For instance, the events that occurred in New York, Afghanistan, and Iraq are covered from a single perspective and can technically be described as factual (if superficial). For instance, there was an attack on the U.S., there was a war in Afghanistan, and there was a war in Iraq. All are facts. However, the connections between these places and the events that occurred before them as a cause are "uncoupled" by corporate media to assist digestion when the consumer does what consumers do. It is as if events spring out of nothingness in a reality where cause and effect are unrelated. Unfortunately, this results in a distorted message, as it is only half the truth or less. Then, when the misinformed public makes a decision not to act and stop those in power from abusing their offices and responsibilities as Public Servants, we look foolish. Is it then unreasonable to think that the other populations in the world would look at us as potentially the greatest threat in the world, in fear and hurt? To blame us, the public, for not reigning in those we've so irresponsibly allowed to slip their leash? Are these not our Public Servants, our responsibility?
I don't mean to say that other governments aren't involved in the nasty business of exploitation and divisiveness, or that foreign news services are any better than ours. Often, the governments and news media are worse. It is simply that other than Great Britain, most scoundrels in power are out of their league when compared to our servants. That includes amateurs like Saddam and bin Laden. Both were created and used to the end by our servants.
At some point we'll rouse ourselves (we always do) from our short attention span and focus our scat
I find it intersting that Richard Stallman supports Kucinich.
The bit about removing the "profit component" from medicine could be interpreted as pure socialism.
But what is consistent with RMS's message is that much of the fantastic profit in the pharmaceutical industry can be attributed to the lengthy periods of patent protection they get for their products.
In that sense, the situation is similar to what he's ranted against in the software industry.
When industries or companies become unusually profitable, the public at large owes it to itself to ask questions about whether there are imbalances in the marketplace that hinder competition, increase prices, reduce quality, etc. Doesn't matter whether it's software, drugs, cars, electric power, cell-phone service, recorded music, consumer credit, or battlefield defense systems.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
From their site
"The Primary Objective of Project Censored is to explore and publicize the extent of censorship in our society by locating stories about significant issues of which the public should be aware, but is not, for one reason or another. Thereby, the project hopes to stimulate responsible journalists to provide more mass media coverage of those issues and to encourage the general public to demand mass media coverage of those issues or to seek information from other sources."
Why do they think theses are important stories? I actually have read these stories in the media. I saw them reported. They didn't get traction. The storys don't matter. There was no censorship. Nothing to see here move along. However a bunch of people who chose to live in a liberal monoculture in one of the most expensive areas of Califorina that have decided to think for the rest of us about what is "news." It must be that they think the rest of us stupid to reason for ourselves. Maybe if they claim it's censorship they will get attention.
It's OK to lie if you are left wing democrat.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Slashdot posters deftly illustrate that they are out of touch with their surroundings and the world at large. Many don't give a flying fcuk about anything but their precious Linux (don't even think about calling it GNU/Linux) and wish that all this type "ultra-left" hogwash would stay the fcuk out of their favourite forum.
Asked whether they are concerned with their freedom and freedom of their descents is slowly but surly being diminished and eventually will lead to a slave society, many clamored their demands that yours truly be given the boot (i.e., 1, Troll) and never be reminded that they are living in the real world where real bad people have more power and access to propaganda outlets than they do.
Many also acknowledged that they have become a typical Have; not giving a damn about the Have Nots.
More propaganda at 11.
That you are talking about a "bullshit machine" kind of says more about yourself than anything else. And where is YOUR proof that anything that you said in this post is valid at all? (Much of it included a few apparent misunderstandings... maybe certain comments were made to point out the absolutely blatant slant.)
"It's already bad enough to be forced to give money to so many social programs I disagree with, when excersizing a choice to not give money to them literally results in a prison sentence."
I don't want to pay taxes to support building nuclear weapons. I don't want my taxes to support covert wars. I don't want my taxes to support prosecution of non-violent 'criminals.'
I don't want my taxes to help bail out failing corporations. I don't want my taxes to fund clear-cutting our national forests. And if I don't pay the taxes, I'd go to jail too.
We all end up paying for things we don't agree with. What makes you so special?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Zero curent governments in the middle east were "appointed" by the US.
Let me repeat that.
Zero current governments in teh middle east wwere appointed by the US.
Most are the inheritors of goverments set up by Europeans and the UK pre and post WW2.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Society? Never heard of it, don't want to be a part of it.
This isn't a matter of alienating one's self from society, it is a matter of successfully tackling the challenges we face every day without resorting to a centralized, inefficient, and corrupt government regime.
The only people with the cowboy mentality, BTW, are among the people who voted for Bush. Yeeehaw!
You can provide your own water.
If I have a well, I don't have to pay a water bill. If I have a septic tank, I don't have to pay a sewer bill. There are probably hidden subsidies, but at least these systems are fairer than an all-or-nothing government-run health care system.
Actually, if people paid by usage for public roads, we would see a much different population distribution in cities. The hidden gas tax isn't the sole source of money for roads, so it is an insufficient motivator to get people to actually want mass transit.
The minimum wage doesn't prevent sweatshops in the US. The expectation for a standard of living and competition among factories for laborers does (look at companies finding themselves priced out of Mexico, of all places, and moving operations to Asia).
The same standards mandated by OSHA would have happened anyway, but for less cost.
It seems that nationalized government solutions are borne out of pessimism and a lack of patience rather than a real justified need.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
What makes you so special?
Nothing. This wasn't my point.
I don't want to pay taxes to support building nuclear weapons. I don't want my taxes to support covert wars. I don't want my taxes to support prosecution of non-violent 'criminals.'
I don't want my taxes to help bail out failing corporations. I don't want my taxes to fund clear-cutting our national forests. And if I don't pay the taxes, I'd go to jail too.
Exactly. Why are tax dollars going towards imprisoning pot smokers and overthrowning foreign governments, anyway? Tax shouldn't even be collected for these things because they fall outside the bounds of the federal government's responsibilities.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
agree
"The Constitution states that enemy combatants are not entitled to those rights, even as American Citizens. It also states that the Attorney General of the United States has the authority to designate enemy combatats for reasons of national security."
Read the Court's judgment carefully and you'll realize it has no basis in actual Constitutional provisions but rather in the Articles of War. The only Constitutional reference is an extrapolation of the duties given to Congress and the President. Further, from your own reference enemy combatants are "those who during time of war pass surreptiously from enemy territory into our own." So all those 'enemy combatants' cooling their heels in Gitmo right now were in the new American territory of Afghanistan? Don't think so.
Regardless, this wasn't your statement. Your statement was that the Constitution grants the designation of enemy combatant (which it doesn't) and that this is determined by the attorney general (which it's not.)
Maybe you just tend to make sloppy arguments. I'm more inclined to think you are just a fool. I am done with this thread. Respond as you will, comfortable in the knowledge that you'll have the last word.
Underreported stories?
probably the best resource is FAIR anyway, just to check-up on the 'actual' newspapers
But what is consistent with RMS's message is that much of the fantastic profit in the pharmaceutical industry can be attributed to the lengthy periods of patent protection they get for their products.
Patents are artificial and not really a part of the pharmaceutical industry. The industry takes advantage of long patent terms, of course, because they would be foolish not to. Dealing with inappropriate patent terms can be done independently of establishing a socialist government program.
The high profits seen in the pharmaceutical industry are propped up by the FDA in addition to the patent terms. Again, nationalized health care isn't required to deal with this problem.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
A lot of the posts here have been saying that all the "censored" stories on the site are all liberal, ant-american, etc, and wondering why they don't print another story. The site isn't purporting to have EVERY single censored or underreported story-just the ones that they find important.
Even if the site has a liberal slanting, which it probably does, that has NO effect on whether those stories they linked to are accurate, or whether they're accurate in saying that they were censored or underreported.
So, if you disagree with the authors of this site, provide proof that the content of the stories is false. Even if this was posted on the Liberal Anti-American Web Site, that doesn't affect the validity of their opinion and those linked to.
-Neil
While it's true that injecting someone with cowpox will allow them to build antibodies which gives them immunity to smallpox, I don't think the analogy works in news-media.
More propoganda isn't what we need, and just from glancing at the headlines, that's all this is, uncorroborated propoganda that the major news/propoganda outlets *wish* they could print, but they're too worried about their credibility.
Have you ever thought that the rest of the world DOES NOT WANT to be "more like you". I like living in a country without 15,000 gun related homicides a year and 1 in 10 in prison thanks. Fuck off and die.
Just in case you want to find out just how nasty DU can be, see this story on ABC's website
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
You may feel that Project Censored has a political agenda, and that's certainly your privledge.
What I'm curious about is -- where did you get the idea that they didn't? In what way does their annual list "Masquerade as a news piece?" Or as anything other than what it is, in fact? The "About Us" link seems pretty forthright.
If you're looking for dirt on the Clinton administration, try their 1999 Report. Lots of juicy stuff in there, especially about the Kosovo war.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Thank you, racist, sexist, bigot. What you are not a racist/sexist/bigot? Oh, so words DOOO mean something.
huh? Did you find your logic inside a cracker jack box? Obviously by my statments, I would most definitly not fix into the bigot crowd. Those are the people who are threatened by people who are different from them. Uhh, kinda like you.
Simply saying someone is something does not make it the case.
See above about logic and lack thereof.
The word marriage DOES mean something just like my examples do mean something. And just because the gay lobby wishes to in someway justify/make easier etc.etc. etc. does not change the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I guess that is what we are debating, whether or not marriage should be changed to include same sex. OBTW, your examples above were shite!
It does affect your marriage.
NO it doesn't. My marriage is not based on words, but rather deeds and actions and love!!! Yes LOVE and respect and dedication and trust and so on.... No other actions by other people will change this. And if two guys getting married will ruin your marriage, then your marriage was shite to begin with.
The dilution of family values and standards has an effect at the neighborhood, community, state and national level.
Whose family values? The christian right? Certainly not the values I cherish as a family man. You know, all those one I mentioned above and others like tolerance, patience, understanding, etc.
It may not impact you tommorow, however it will impact you and your children at somepoint.
How? Because two people who love each other got married? LOL
My child does not have a racist or bigoted bone in his body. (Except for hating the SF Giants... as all Dodger fans do :) "Live and let live." You should try it. Oh, and another really good one, "Judge not, lest you shall be judged"
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Maybe if US citizens could get a clue and see that serving the interest of the world also serves the interest of the US, instead of just looking at it from a childish "us and them" perspective, we wouldn't even be having this pointless discussion now.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
My God, when did being a linux/unix enthusiast mean you are a socialist?
Jesus H, that is the most biased, leftist list I have ever seen.
How about a little balance people?
I think you need to improve your reading, or better yet, go find the passage on your own, because I only included part of it. Some of you are so uninformed it is embarassing to witness.
Seriously. There might be five useful posts in this article, drowning in a sea of content-free OMG LIBERAL MEDIA whining.
It's as if Bill O'Reilly declared Slashdot the new Fox News forums and a thousand trained monkeys are doing his bidding.
Then how the heck did the 18th Amendment get voted in under those conditions??
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Since we repeatedly keep hearing from the media that the media has liberal bias, my bullshit detector won't stop sounding the alarm for me to wear rubber boots.
If you want to know if the media is really biased, find out which opinions/views/guests get the most airtime and you can quantifiably determine actual bias.
For example, make a list of current news anchors & TV personalities that have their own UNSHARED TV news/editorial shows and see if there are actually more liberals vs conservatives. Seriously, count them and see what you get.
Some sites like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have interesting reports like
Media Citations of Think Tanks in 2002:
- conservatives received 47%
- centrists received 41%
- progressives received 11%
If the media were indeed biased left, why would they keep telling us they are biased left while giving conservative think tanks over 400% more airtime than progressives? You'd have to be a moron to fall for that one and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.
Actions speak louder than words--this is precisely why smart citizens look at the actions of politicians rather than their highly agreeable platitudes to see where they actually stand on issues. The same goes with media bias--see which views/people they give more coverage to in order to determine their bias.
But again, don't take my word for it (or the media's) about bias--do your own thinking and examine factual evidence from a variety of sources rather than mere opinions to form your own conclusions. Good luck.
The main point here is why the hell is someone trying to make a law preventing others from being made? Why not just directly try to prevent the law you are opposing, instead of outlawing certain kinds of laws? Who needs to be slapped with a cluestick?
And furthermore, why on earth should just idiocy be included in THE CONSTITUTION? You consider "purity" and "sacredness" of marriage to warrant this special protection? Jeez, that's just one of practical institutions most societies have that's evolving over time. Compare that to actual fundamental important rights like freedom of speech, fair and impartial trials and such.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
do you realize that this is September 11?
Yes. It'a a great day to actually think about its causes rather than be patriotically deluded by notions of this nations grandeur.
What a sick gift to the terrorists.
A better gift would be the quiet deconstruction of the Bill of Rights via a third Patriot Act. Damn, sign me up.
Yes, I'm a [neo-]conservative, and whoever supports the hatemongering lies on that site is a neo-Nazi.
I don't follow. Most of it is a critique of American policy and media habits. Anything article that may be pointing out that Israel is not a saint, and is acting just as selfishly as Palestine is right on the money.
I understand there is a lot of emotion vested in Israel for you, but try to divest yourself from that and see that the world is not black and white. Israel, Palestine, America, France, Iraq, etc. No one is good, no one is evil, everyone is acting in their own self interest.
Was one Holocaust not good enough for you Jew-haters?
Flame-bait you say... Hard to resist, apparently.
We need to end the Arab occupation of Jewish land. Can't the Jews have a measly 20k kilometers on this huge planet?
Just as much as we need to end the European occupation of Native American land. Be careful what you say or your logic may be extrapolated to apply to you.
You don't you see anything wrong with Arab imperialism.
Theoretically, I see just as much wrong with it as American imperialism; however, practically, it does not exist.
The Islamists are out to conquer the world. It's no secret, but that is the truly under-reported story in the West.
Heh. At least liberal conspiracy theories are backed up by some sort of evidence.
God bless America! Am Yisrael chai! Come, Lord Jesus!
There is no God. There is no Jesus. You are not justified in your self-righteousness.
Cheers,
Ed
What's going on in this country? Why are people taking extremely polar-opposite views (liberal vs. neoconservatism) attacking the other like little children throwing tantrums? Geez, it's gotten really bad these past fewer months, not to mention witnessing a real fistfight over politics. If you try stating facts either way you're chastised as a liar or a traitor. Just take a look at the previous posts above, where are the facts? Are we heading towards a left/right civil war?
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
David's Armstrong's "Dick Cheney's Song of America," which is one of the number one censored stories, is available here.
"How do you know the media are biased?
All the major media surveys for the past 20 years have shown that 80 to 90 percent of the mainstream media consistently vote for Democrats."
COMMON SENSE DISAGREES WITH AIM.ORG:
You can tell the media is biased based by actually measuring airtime they give to views/opinions/people categorized as conservative, centrist and liberal. There is no better method than this if you do your own measuring instead of relying on others unlike surveys which can easily be distorted (i.e. survey only well-known liberals while avoiding conservatives so we can say that the media are mostly Democrats or survey the idealistic journalists fresh out of college instead of the editors in charge).
As stated in an earlier post, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have interesting reports like
Media Citations of Think Tanks in 2002:
- conservatives received 47%
- centrists received 41%
- progressives received 11%
Don't take their word for it, do your own measuring of airtime and see for yourself.
Gee, the media keeps telling us they are biased left while giving 400% more airtime to conservative views & guests. Do they think we're retarded?
Whether you are left or right, bias and distorted reporting hurts America. Fight fictional news even if it promotes your own views--if your views are sound, they won't need biased reporting as a crutch.
But if your views are not sound, they'll need to use biased reporting, ugly weirdos representing opposing views on TV, decent-looking people representing your views on TV and carefully worded survey/polling questions to make the masses think more people agree with you than them (and the few that disagree with you are ugly/weird/wimpy).
Check out the bio pictures on this page and ask yourself who you'd hire to represent your views and who you'd hire to represent your oppositions views. The confident jock or the wimpy/creepy Frankenstein mutant?
What a totally disappointing day. Slashdot posts a link and story about some of the issues that are being covered up in our nation, and instead of seeing a host of informed responses and insightful messages, I see cognitive dissonance on display.
How disgusting.
No, it is not un-American to be critical of our nation's foreign policy. Quite the contrary; as it is our tax dollars that build those bombs that rip children apart halfway across the globe.
No, it is not a gift to the terrorists to expect human beings to think for themselves; to possibly examine an issue from multiple angles, to apply some rigor in their application of logic.
If the collective intellect of those who monitor Slashdot are so conditioned that they react with anger, venom, and invective in the absence of any true context of the stories involved (and ignorance has been the constant companion of the decryers), then why hope for change?
If you are an American, you have blood on your hands. The blood of children, the blood of innocent people, and you blather on to the other Eloi about how great the Morlocks are. We feed the war machines, and those machines kill for money, kill for profit, and it isn't coming to us. The same people who bleed us farm our jobs overseas, and yet you're cheerleading for these fuckers.
Is it plausible to assume that all men and women in America fall on one side or the other on every conceivable issue (democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, left, right)? Using these terms is one way the propaganda machine keeps itelf wll-oiled. We can easily discount any number of salient points by marginalizing entire segments of populations with a word.
Prediction: This gets modded down immediately, and one person will have read it.
Here's to Slashdot Suicide!
2. Please don't confuse criticism of the policies of the Israeli administration with 'Jew-hating'. It's a diservice to all concerned. Including those of us whose ancestors lived through anti-Semitic pogroms, but who may not think that the Israeli government has the right idea.
In many, most circumstances to criticize Israel in any context is called antisemitism.
If one says that Israel is not completely blameless in their conflict with the Palestinians, instantly the title of antisemite is given. I suspect this is why such stories are often censored.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Believe me, the "rah rah" of the good ol' bible thumpers bothers me as much as anyone. The trouble is, I expect it's the same everywhere: the "peasants" can't be bothered to learn anything but what the "praetors" tell them.
Take, for instance, the average islamic fundamentalist, who sees the U.S. as a festering swamp of debauchery (or some-such). It's not like the poor in the rest of the world are out there reading all sides of every issue any more than the uneducated in the U.S. are.
Just to be complete: I did actually spend 6 months studying in Wales, and did travel quite a lot while I was there.
Problem is, the average Joe here just doesn't care about the rest of the world. I wonder how much worse off the world would be if we took the Pat Robertson "lock the borders" approach... Probably much worse off, but who can say?
You sir, have obviously never been to America and are just spewing the anti-American propaganda you've heard... just as bad as Americans buying into every "U.S. good, them bad" nonsense.
I've never seen a gun in public other than a policeman's, and until I moved here where one of my neighbors was, I think, in jail, I never knew anyone who'd been in jail either.
America's quite a mild-manndered, peaceful place. You should visit someday.
Boston Public Library's President Bernard Margolis delegated BPL Director R. Kowal to censor public city archiveso m / faq
http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.blog-city.c
http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.WebLogs.com
All of these stories were covered extensively on the ABC in Australia. I wouldn't be surprised if they raise them all again just to have another shot at America.
Only for problems I can't treat myself. I am not a person to go to a doctor for every ailment, real or imagined, to beg for magical prescription treatments whose placebo effect is more effective than the medications themselves.
How old are you now? 19? 22? Good to hear you are in good health. Check back with us when you are 68 and let's see how often you need to see the doctor for a prescription. In case you did not know, even after people have been diagnosed with an illness and prescribed medicine for that illness, they are required to return to the doctor regularly to re-up that prescription. That gets pretty expensive after awhile. Then there is the cost of medicine to be contended with, which is overly inflated for no good reason.
As people get older, they tend to need to see a doctor more often; it is a spiral because they have to go regularly for the prescriptions they already have, plus things keep breaking so they have to keep going back for that, too. All at a time in life when they generally have no income and by law can be prohibited from earning one.
Regardless, my point was that with a full-blown tax-supported national healthcare system, my ability to choose private healthcare and not pay taxes towards the national plan will be stripped from me. It's already bad enough to be forced to give money to so many social programs I disagree with, when excersizing a choice to not give money to them literally results in a prison sentence. Only the government can extort money from people without fear of retribution. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
If you disagree with healthcare, support candidates who are against it. It is nice you can afford insurance now, but that may not be true forever. Meanwhile most americans have no insurance and most of those who do only have it so long as they have the same job, the one we are shipping off to India. And more of the population is getting old as well.
IMHO, part of the cure, regardless of national insurance, is getting rid of the malpractice cold war and taking away the free ride the pharmaceutical industry is having these days. They take government funded research and then patent it themselves and get monopolies, then extend it by making modified versions of drugs which are less effective and pushing them on doctors. That's only the beginning of their evil. If we cleaned house in the healthcare department, we woudl have cheaper healthcare. Socialized medicine is another matter, but I think some level of guaranteed care is a good thing for society, so we don't have crzy bag ladies that could be productive citizens if they were just given their damn medicine, or grandparents who die because they and their family are too poor to pay for decent healthcare.
Then how the heck did the 18th Amendment get voted in under those conditions??
It's called the Temperence Movement. Perhaps you should read about it. It was very strong among women, who demonized alcohol as a destroyer of families and a causation of spousal abuse. There is a lot to be said for their point of view, as well. Any cop on the street will tell you the most dangerous drug on the market today is alcohol. It keeps them busier than anything else.
Anyway, there was a popular movement to ban alcohol, and politicians votd to ban it to get elected. Pretty simple, really.
I have to disagree, at least when you consider Europe. The average person on the street is much more aware of what's going on in the world. Part of it is because of the size of its member countries, you just cannot ignore your neighbors but if you look at the evening news or the mainstream press there, international events are discussed more and it's not limited to European events, i.e. it covers events in the entire world.
Also, I was not thinking of the uneducated peasant struggling to feed his family but the average, university educated person but your comment "Problem is, the average Joe here just doesn't care about the rest of the world" sums it all pretty nicely but personaly, I put part of the blame for that on the media, although you could argue that they feeding the public what it wants which of course brings us reality shows, sound bites in the news instead of real journalistic analysis, ...
that reminded me of this
Look all you leftist fuckers should just face up to the facts. These ragheads attacked us and we're gonna smoke 'em out and kill every one of the fuckers. Anyone who wears a rag on their head is a threat to our security. No fucking website's gonna change that.
Perhaps it's being too picky, but the question remains: What other "Censored" research is screwed up? I mean, the gold standard thing is a small issue, and It's so easy to check on. Due to that however, I question the accuracy (and thus validity) of the rest of the data...
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
make sure you have only the wackos presenting opposing views while you pick out "decent-looking, well-dressed" people to present your own views. And if there aren't enough people who share your views, hire some people off the street or go with local actors/models if your budget allows. Even if both views get equal airtime, the opposing views will be associated with ugly weirdos and who the hell wants to share the same views as them even if they're right?
Sounds like Fox News, all right.
As someone who has been out of college for nearly 20 years, has a job and pays taxes, I'm more righteously PISSED (and I spell the word) that Bush the Lesser has squandered the federal deficit, given his wealthy corporate cronies tax breaks, shot the economy in both wings, lied to the people and got our military into a long and expensive conflict with no winners. A good centrist government would not have done any of those things. A good liberal government, in addition to not doing that stupid crap, might even be fixing some of the deep problems in the US, like education, immigration, the economy, rotting infrastructure, and corporate cartels run amok.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
Unfortunately, it seems that the majority favors the FMA. If so, and if the members of the Houses vote in accordance to the wishes of the majority, then it does indeed have a very good chance of passing. Maybe we'll visit you on your island; maybe not.
The concept of marriage is actually religious in nature. It only appears to be social in nature because *gasp* the USA was founded more or less on Biblical principles, and/or by folks that believed in the same. (Okay, so the previous country's social structure likely had a lot to do with it, but what was the official Church of England? The Catholic church?)
You don't need to be married to propogate. However, propogation is generally in the best interests of the government to expand its power and tax base (read: "resources"), and as such, it provides those that choose to declare their formal implied intent to propogate with certain benefits.
Fastforward to today, where we have a group of people that are physically unable to propogate the species, yet want the same benefits provided to those who can and are (implied) doing so.
So, here's a likely-crappy comparison for you: "I'm a lard-ass, but I want an Olympic gold medal for my last-place performance in the 100-meter dash!" If I get my medal, won't that cheapen the existing gold medal winners' victory to a certain extent? If so, consider the large mess made when one miixes in the subtle effects of "family values," morals, personal ethics, and that whole bucket of stew - there's really only one name for the change in state:
degradation.
You actually take Palast seriously? Hmmm ... In my opinion, he's a sloppy "reporter" who makes the "facts" fit whatever ax he's chosen to grind. But then, to each how own.
" Have you considered the idea that perhaps most Americans like the idea of making the world more like us? Just wondering..."
Right now, I actually don't think they do. I've not seen the US populace more embarassed on the whole of their country and their leaders since Vietnam.
But regardless, it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't give the US the right to invade my country, or any other. It's a basic statement of freedom: You are free to do whatever you want, until it impinges on my freedoms. Influencing by making decisions about foreign aid is well within a country's realm. Expansion by hostile invasion is not. Not India, not Israel, and not the US.
As far as 'not killing each other,' let's not forget that the coalition has killed far more than ten times as many Iraqi civilians as they've lost in soldiers. I don't think the American people condone this, but neither do I think that Bush and his cronies give a rats ass about any number of incidental casualties.
It all boils down to a difference between minding your own affairs, and wholesale conquest. If you support the latter, then god help the rest of the world.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I like a good conspiracy myself, but I prefer them to come from a more imaginative perspective than from some group trying to push a political agenda. These are censored news stories because there was no news to censor, only conjecture. Let's examine the list:
1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance - If these guys had done their homework they would have found out that the neo-cons are just a smoke screen for the real group scheming for global dominance, the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers!
2: Homeland Security? Yeah, yeah John Ashcroft is going to rifle through your undies drawer. That's why I left a particularly nasty pair on top for him!
3: US Removes Pages from Iraq Report - This was just part of the "Paperwork Reduction Act" which unbelievably applies to all reports done by 3rd world dictatorships. Besides, I think the 8,000 pages was actually included in Hillary Clinton's best seller "Living History" and credited to a ghost writer.
4: Rumsfeld's Plan to Provoke Terrorists - BFD, he does that every time he appears on Fox News. If it's underreported, it's only because the reporters are now afraid to speak to him for fear of looking like the stupid, vacuous idiots that they are.
5: The Effort to Make Unions Extinct - This got plenty of coverage by the press...in India!
6: Closing Access to Information Technology - Why would you need the FCC for this when you have geeks putting out stuff like the Nachi worm. Besides, if you turn off the pr0n pipe you'll have geeks in the streets with torches and pitchforks within an hour.
13: US Military's War on the Earth - Well, we are working on conducting war in space but those damn Greys never show up for the fight. I am all for fighting wars on Mars for instance because if CNN and FOX had to get live coverage, we might actually end up with a Martian explorer that worked!
19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro - Now there's an explosive headline for you. Have a news outlet run this as a top story and they'll have an audience to rival that of NPR...come to think of it I think NPR actually led off with this story yesterday.
22: Welfare Reform Up For Reauthorization and Still No Safety Net - Translation: we had to go out and get a job and now we have less time to write about how the Bush administration is screwing minorities, women, children, immigrants and the environment.
What you have here is a list that reads like a promotional brouchure for the Communist Party of the USA. I really think Slashdot ought to keep the postings to LEGITIMATE conspiracies rather than the political rantings of some wash-up, has-been commies out in California.
So when can we opt out of that "communistic" government run police and army and fund our own self defence? I guess in America there are Militia groups. But what exactly is the general justification for socialised defence/policing of people but not of disease/illness.
I just don't get it. On their list, story after story is favorable to the liberal agenda, and yet people STILL claim that the media is too liberal.
Wouldn't a so-called "liberal" media WANT to run stories like "The Effort to Make Unions Extinct" or "The NeoCon Plan for Global Dominance"?
Two years after the innocence of a nation was shattered, we remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice -- And as America moves forward -- 'We will never forget'
I will not comment on just how fucking infuriating and immature that fucking statement is because I am sure to get pounded by napalm from the american crowd here...
I just wanted to say though, SilentMajority, the the propaganda link is brilliant. Thanks for posting it!
this?
It's just an article picked from the ether, so it can be whatever it wants. You want the Neocon view represented? Then stop complaining and present it already.
The Neocons who complain about socialism, (and when exactly did having awareness of what's really going on in the world become, 'socialist'?), have never really been able to show any real arguments for hate and violence which held up logically or factually to the light of day.
In the end, after debating for a while, it usually turns out that the Neocon is either woefully under-informed; laboring under a structure of ignorance, denial and wishful thinking, or is a real Neocon; that is, driven by selfishness and greed and not much else.
If somebody can give me a good and sane reason for extending complete control over the people of the world, mass murder, and generally burning the world to a cinder, then I'd love to hear it. --Because all I've heard so far are stupid lies and bad logic designed to make massively selfish behavior sound reasonable.
-FL
Well, I read Principles for a New American Century. And I'm going to tell you ... nothing's going on here. You may find it shocking that a country invests in its military so as to protect and advance its interests. I find that unexceptional. Why else would a country invest in its military?
And how do you measure, 'Traction'? CNN and Foxnews don't poll for each story in order to measure what is and what is not popular enough to keep hammering the public with.
Indeed, that with which you keep hammering the public becomes the popular story! --And the defacto 'truth'.
For instance. . , why is it that so many people believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? There was NO connection EVER established. Period. And yet, somehow the belief persists. --And this is done through the big media, by its actions and its inactions. And no, you can't call the overall process 'censorship', exactly, (although it certainly plays a part). A better term might be 'Mind Control'.
As for the whole, Democrat v.s. Republican thing; give it a rest. It's just another dumb trap designed to keep people so wound up worrying over group-identification and ridiculous debate over meaningless issues that they fail to think for themselves and see the whole picture.
-FL
OK, it did cross my mind there might be something like that. I guess I should have looked it up. If you want to know if something is true, it's easier to claim it isn't and wait for contradiction than to do a bit of research. :-)
Since you've volunteered to be my tame US Constitution expert :->, how are conflicting laws resolved? Is it simply that the later one overrules the earlier? In this case, a budget passed by Congress that says "DoD has $5Bn to spend on developing missile defense" might overrule a previous treaty that says "the signatories will not develop missile defense" (note: I'm simplifying the ABM issue somewhat).
Regarding "true international law", the problem is that different countries have different systems of government, and many people in many countries like the system of government they have. Never mind the US, you'd have problems persuading the people of almost any vaguely democratic country that they would be better off surrendering sovereignty to a "World Court". For the forseeable future, such an institution can only have authority delegated (revocably) to it by national institutions, not supremacy over them.
You might want to poke your head out and expand your range of knowledge beyond the boundary of orthodox data so that you know when you sound like an ape.
I know a dozen guys like you; they're all the same, carrying themselves with a pompous air of knowledge but who are deathly afraid of crossing the lines beyond what TeeVee says is real.
Amazingly, despite all their smarts, none of them were able to position themselves in life so that they actually feel fulfilled. Curious, that.
-FL
It's funny, I wrote a paper in high school claiming that the US constitution isn't discriminatory, with the exception of the rather strange 3/5 compromise during the slave period. Kind of funny that Congress would prove me wrong.
Have you considered the idea that perhaps most Americans like the idea of making the world more like us? Just wondering...
Which begs the question: Have you considered the idea that perhaps most of the world doesn't like the idea of becoming more like you (the US)?
Or it simply doesn't matter, because obviously the US is the best and the greatest and should therefore be allowed to do what it sees fit?
Really wondering...
But what exactly is the general justification for socialised defence/policing of people but not of disease/illness.
One prevents invasion from foreign countries and complete anarchy; the other is a domestic issue that can be dealt with independently of the government.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
As people get older, they tend to need to see a doctor more often...
I think even the older people I know go to the doctor way to often. They almost insist on getting prescriptions for every little ailment even those that are entirely preventable. Why is it that it isn't uncommon for even young people to be on high blood pressure medication? There is a growing cultural problem where people think "health care" really is the solution to their problems, when just a little introspection would prove otherwise.
Healthcare, even for older people, should consist of regular physicals to catch preventable disease, avoiding prescriptions unless absolutely necessary for things like infection, and relying on insurance for what insurance is meant to be for--catastrophic illness. For older people who have nothing (no family, no money, no friends, no church, no community), then they can rely on charities, similar to the Shriner's Hospitals for kids, for example. People that simply can find no refuge in society will waste away on their own no differently than they do when neglected by a nursing home that manipulates Medicare and other systems to suck all the money out of someone before killing them anyway. The federal government can't make nursing homes more dignified; already they have their hands in every Medicare recipient's bank account for full financial molestation (I have even heard of bookkeeping errors, where the government took every penny of a "dead" person leaving them fighting an uphill battle of living broke while fighting the government).
It is nice you can afford insurance now, but that may not be true forever.
If insurance were what it is supposed to be, and the medical industry had sufficient checks and balances between people, their doctors, and the insurance companies, then basic care would be affordable to everyone and insurance would not be several hundred dollars or more a month. For the relatively few people that can't spend a few hundred dollars a year on physical checkups, then, again, private charities can fill the void. Why not leverage religious compassion for all it's worth? Do Catholics still run mission hospitals?
I just think that all the woes we see today can be dealt with very effectively without creating a 1,000,000-person government bureaucracy, whose leadership is made up of politicians rather than businesspeople and physicians. Also, privatization also insulates the government from a gold mine of domestic intelligence gathering (the personal medical histories of every man, woman, and child in the USA).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
It seems almost every (or all) Security Council Resolution regarding Israel has been vetoed by the US despite most situations where the majority voted yes.
h ip/veto /vetosubj.htm
s .html
Here's the link:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membs
The latest one on record being December 20th, 2002, "on the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse". This wasn't some stupid resolution, you can even read the draft on the site. Check it out, it's wording is very reasonable.
12 yes-votes, 1 veto, and 2 abstentions.
The one veto came from, as always, the US!
Here's some more info:
http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/vetoe
What a load of garbage. I could only stand to read two of the 'news' stories. This is a great example of how to lie and mislead with (unreferenced) statistics, and how to ignore facts that I'm guessing they don't like. Hugely pertinent facts are ignored to an extent that I actually find offensive. Don't get me started on some of the 'conclusions' they draw, and the incredible bias shown. Even stories on The Onion have better reasoning than these do, sheesh... Maybe they should reorganize as a humor site, it wouldn't take many changes.
I will strike anyone listening to Barbara Streisand in my office, gay or not.
I've been to the US several times. My parents moved there and lived in San Diego for a whole year before they left in disgust. What I'm saying here is that like it or not the numbers are astounding. Great you don't know anyone in jail and have never seen a gun in public that's irrelevant. What I said was 15,000 gun related homicides a year not you're all a bunch of gun totting freaks. In Canada we have just as many guns per capita as the US does. We have no where near the number of gun related homicides per capita as the US has. We enjoy all the freedoms Americans do (arguably more freedoms) and I think any move towards becoming more like you would be a shame.
And here were are, full circle. You point to a completely irrelevant side issue as an indication of false claims, demand a 'higher bruden of proof' for these claims you consider aprioi suspect, and then walk away from a debate over any specific points which you think calls the claims of the documentary into question. That's because you haven't seen the documentary or apparently know anything about any specifics presented. But you certainly have an opinion on its veracity.
Oh, right, but that's irresponsible of me, not to become a globetrotter tracking down proof.
No. It is irresponsible of you to claim bias and irresponsible reporting on the part of others when you are unwilling to spent the time to discern any facts for yourself. You point to the Snopes article on 'Bowling for Columbine' as if that has any relevance to "Massacre at Mazar", when what you really should do is read the Bowling for Columbine report on Snopes and use the same standards they apply to Michael Moore to your own argument in this thread. If you did so I expect you would find your train of thought quite lacking in logical analysis. --M
This is all very entertaining, and you've managed to demonstrate to the world quite well my propensity to permit myself to get dragged into silly side arguments and meaningless defense of personal attacks. It's a failing of mine, I readily admit. I am far from a skilled debater.
But at the end of the day, I still entirely refuse to accept (as I've pointed out in another reply to a more sensible reply to my post) that the a documentary alleging atrocities not garnering headlines is proof of media bias or censorship. You are utterly convinced, by your own admission, that it shows media bias. I am not. No amount of dancing around various points relating to debate or what-not is going to change that.
You haven't described censorship, you described propaganda.
You're pretty good at it, since you engage in a fair amount of it in your so-called explanation.
Personally, the examples I would have given would be No Blood for Oil, Haliburton is behind the war, Bush=Hitler and other purely propagandistic statements that use trigger-words to evoke visceral emotional reactions. Of course, that crown jewel of Howard Dean calling Hamas' terrorists soldiers cannot be left out of any truly complete compilation of propagandistic rhetoric.
But if you want to fixate on Sean Hannity calling Cynthia McKinney a socialist idiot, which is a factual and accurate description of both her political views and her mental powers, then feel free.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Michael Meacher is not just a former MP, but a former member of Blair's cabinet.
Political career:
Under Secretary for Industry, 1974-75
Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, 1975-79
Candidate for Labour Party Deputy Leadership, 1983
Member of Labour Party National Executive Committee 1983-89
Member of Shadow Cabinet 1983-1997
Principal Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on: Health and Social Security 1983-87
Employment 1987-89
Social Security 1989-92
Overseas Development and Co-operation 1992-93
Citizen's Charter and Science 1993-94
Transport 1994-95
Employment 1995-96
Environmental Protection 1996-97
Minister of State for the Environment and Privy Counsellor May 1997 - June 2003
That is correct Captain Obvious, hence the subject of the post and other statements in my post that make this clear to anyone who understands English. In other news, water was discovered to be wet.
You're pretty good at it[propaganda], since you engage in a fair amount of it in your so-called explanation.
I challenge you to cite specific examples from my original post to support your accusation.
Personally, the examples I would have given would be No Blood for Oil, Haliburton is behind the war, Bush=Hitler and other purely propagandistic statements that use trigger-words to evoke visceral emotional reactions.
I'm not familiar with ANY major media organization presenting any of your examples as fact. And if they did, they should be sued for slander & libel unless they can proove it. Just because Haliburton reportedly continues to pay VP Cheney around $160K/year and just because Halliburton received $1.7 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts doesn't mean they are behind the war even if part of those contracts were NO-BID (no other companies allowed to bid). I propose that a full and open bipartison investigation regarding this matter take place immediately so that you wackos and other opposing nations can clearly see we've done nothing wrong.
And as far as I know, Hitler died years ago so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to be Hitler!!! You conspiracy theorists need to take a break and get a clue.
But if you want to fixate on Sean Hannity calling Cynthia McKinney a socialist idiot,
I've never even heard of Cyntia McKinney, what the hell are you talking about? If you continue to imagine others saying/posting things that obviously never actually happened, perhaps professional counseling is in order.
Simply put, people understand pictures so presenting a link to a page showing a picture of both Hannity and Colmes was the EASIEST way to show a very effective tactic used for winning the public to your point of view. For the purposes of illustrating my point, it doesn't matter what Hannity's views are as long as he's the one in alignment with Fox's views and the ugly/creepy one is in opposition to Fox's views.
---
Message to politicians: Democrats, Independents and Republicans Unite Now! Fight media bias even when they support your own views and fight corporate corruption! Support campaign finance reform and tax reform so that offshore havens can't be used by unpatriotic companies to shift the tax burden to other hard-working Americans. Fight terrorism & unemployment by spending more money to secure our shipping ports NOW! Bring terrorists like Bin Laden to justice before attacking any other countries based on unconfirmed assumptions--our job is to protect America, not to help Bin Laden in his recruiting efforts! Disable well-known threats like N. Korea now with international support because they've ADMITTED to building nuclear capability and is attempting to blackmail America into paying them! Balance our budget!!! Most importantly, please stop sacrificing America's long-term security for personal short-term gain. Do these instead of dividing us with religion, abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action and other issues frequently used as diversions.
Project Censored's quality varies a lot over the years - they've been doing this for a long time. Some years, they're pointing out really critical stories that haven't gotten enough coverage. Other years, most of their "censored" stories weren't actually censored, they just weren't reported with a sufficiently leftist politically correct spin as opposed to a neutral spin or a right-wing spin - "Those Mean Nasty Republicans Did _X_ and they were BAD!" vs. "The Republicans screwed up and got caught doing _X_" vs. "The Republicans were noticed doing _X_" vs. "Our Boys did _X_ and Really Kicked Ass!"
But that's OK! It's important to have analysis of the news as well as having news, and it's important to have analysis that tries to be balanced and occasionally slips leftward as opposed to just having Rush Limbaugh and his ilk whining about the Liberal Media when the media is so blatantly not liberal. That's one reason to take advantage of the Internet and of the few actual leftie media outlets like Pacifica Radio and get some variety, not just a single ostensibly-balanced source. It's easy to read around biases that you know about in stories your read - it's much harder to read around the biases that result in stories not getting reported, or around biases you don't realize are there. One of my friends even reads World Socialist Web Site, a raving Trotskyite mouthpiece, because they've got different and occasionally insightful commentary on their opponents, even if they're blind as a bat about the faults of the people they do approve of.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
What a pile of far left elitist snob propaganda! I thought this was News for Nerds, not warped, ill considered political pap.
All blow-hards have ongoing projects. Keeps 'em distracted.
I've traveled the globe as well, and the hostels were filled with idiots. Strangely, most of them were also Americans.
Have bubble, will travel.
But seriously, about two thirds of your points were semi-accurate, albeit in an over-simple and callous sounding manner, (which is, to be fair, far better than most can claim)! The other third, however, was just plain under-informed, blustering stupidity. You really ought to do more reading. And while you do, be sure to pay more attention than when you were out 'seeing' the world.
-FL