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!"
#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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
#8: US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War
I had no idea that depleted uranium was illegal to use as munition? Really it's not radio-active anymore, just really frekin heavy.
Anyway, how is that "unpublished"? If you are any sort of war-buff, aviation-buff, or anything else that would tie you to knowing about the A10 Warthog, you would know that the A10 uses depleted uranium rounds in its massively powerful gun. In fact, I just watched a special about the A10 and it's role in the Gulf War and how they used those rounds to easily penitrate the hull of enemy tanks.
So we used heavy bullets.... what about the chemicals that Iraq used?
Although I've listened to Noam Chomsky, I think he has an axe to grind. I think anyone that uses the term 'Neocon' has an axe to grind.
Does this include neo-conservatives that refer to themselves that way? It's true (sorry, no link to the actual article, but check the list of articles...).
Personally, as a Classical Liberal that is beginning to lean toward Classical Conservativism (i.e. liberalism), I believe the neo-cons have shifted the Republican party away from their libertarian roots and towards facism packaged as patriotism (sound familiar?).
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
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!
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..."
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.
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
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
Uranium consists of u-235 and u-238. U-235 is used in nuclear reactors. Depleted uranium is u-238 that has been "depleted" of its nuclear fuel. u-238 is still 70% as radioactive. (Yes 238 is way less radioactive than 235, since removing 0.3% of the material removes 30% of the radioactivity. But it is still radioactive) Further more, uranium is a heavy metal. Like all heavy metals, it is highly toxic. Symptoms of heavy metal poisioning include: Frequent headaches, nausia, vomiting, cold sweating, and neurological degeneration which is often misdiagnosed as Lou Gehrig's disease. Symptoms of radiation damage to the lungs include: Weakened immune system, chronic fatigue, chronic cancer, difficulty breathing, fluid in the lungs.
The pentagon released an internal report warning about all of this, since DU rounds spray large clouds of uranium-oxide dust into the air, which can then be breathed in. The Pentagon now says "We were wrong, it is harmless" But crews of tanks equipt with DU are still told NOT to get out of the tank anywhere near a target that has been hit. Infantry is told not to go near a target that has been hit or they will get cancer.
And no, DU isn't illegal in the US. But it has been determined by the UN to be an illegal weapon, as it violates the Geneva convention. First, they cause undue suffering (Long lasting heavy metal toxicity). Second, they continue to affect the area after they are used (Millions of years, in fact) Third, they are toxic agents. Toxic, biological, and chemical weapons are all illegal.
On the subject of of the Geneva convention, it is also illegal to attack any building, city, or town that is undefended. (Such as the house of a general) Additionally, civilian targets may not be targeted, such as hospitals, orphenages, churches, and so on, UNLESS they are being used for protection by the enemey in a firefight. This means that even if there is a general directing the battle from inside a hospital, you CANNOT attack unless they start shooting. (This means that if you see an enemy soldier haning out with some civilians, you may not fire unless he is shooting back AND using a civilian for cover. If you take a shot with a sniper rifle and hit a civilian, you are not protected and can be tried for murder. If said soldier was engaged in hostilities, then you are protected as long as you did not intend to hit a civilian)
Additionally, it is illegal to present POW's for "public interest." Which includes photographs and television. Further more, on the prisoners in Cuba. The Bush Administration says that the Geneva convention does not apply to them because they are "illegal combatants" but the Geneva convention specifically INCLUDES illegal combatants in protection of POW's rights. If you are a POW you have the right to send and receive mail. It may be read, but not witheld. If you are not then you have the same rights as any civilian prisoner. Right to your phone call, lawyer, etc.
My source for what the Genvea convention says is the USMC conduct guide, so it includes the Marine Corps' interperitation.
In conclusion, two wrongs does not make a right.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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
> Not sure why this story -- Saving Private Lynch covered by the UK was in there. A bunch of us spent long hours searching through major newspaper and network achives to see how people in the US would react to it.
What gets me is how two-faced the media is about this kind of stuff. ABC clearly reported the de-propagandized facts, but then they turned around and reported her trip to the hospital in Germany and her welcome back home to the USA as major news stories, catering to the heroic myth rather than the boring reality that they had earlier acknowledged.
What you don't realize is that in the current climate (the media being owned by the same people who make the weapons used in war e.g. GE/Westinghouse etc.) the news is right of center. In this case right does not refer to "conservative" and "liberal" but to "Laissez-faire Capitalism" and "new deal."
Also remember that this "liberal media" never grilled the current Bush on his war record, (being put on the "Champagne Flight" the name for the Texas Air National Guard, or that he went AWOL from it when he ran for congress (and lost) in Texas.
Conspiracies are conspiracies and damning the press (or anyone else for that matter) for believing that something wrong was right is silly. e.g. AIDS conspiracies.
Do I damn Bush, Cheny, et al. for lying about Uranium, WMD's, Terrorism is Iraq? Well yes I do but they lie a great deal more than the media.
Did you know that the Bush family was charged under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" and had all of their possessions taken away from them? Why? BECAUSE THEY SOLD WAR BONDS FOR THE NAZIS AFTER WWII. Is that a vast right wing conspiracy? No it's pure greed. I think that it skips a generation in the Walker Bush clan.
Also you use the word CENSORED like it was a guy in a dark suit that ran into the office whacked the author on the head and ran out with THE ONLY FLOPPY! Give me a break. Censorship happens at a level of editor's body language. It happens at authors wondering subconsciously if they should really run a story about PCB's and GE when they work at a NBC affiliate.
And for the record there is something wrong with being liberal. Are you fiscally liberal? Socially Liberal? Give me a break. Paranoid people find the holes, paranoid liberals are the Linux hackers of our social fabric. You make it seem like we should trust vertical social monopolies to find the truth. Do you trust Microsoft to find the truth in your OS? Then why would you insinuate that you can trust NBC/GE or Disney (you know the people who want to restore the power of oligarchy through unlimited copy right extension.
Use you critical skills on the media for 6 months then ask the same questions again.
Lean to the left? Bogus! If there's one thing we can be said to lean towards, it's love of sensationalism, esp. regarding RIAA/MPAA, SCO, latest gaping wide open Microsoft hole, etc. I myself lean to the left, which means most of the people are to the right of me. Therefore I will think X is slanted to the right, where X is any large group. So if you think Slashdot leans to the left, that just means you lean to the right. The more you think that X leans left, the more to the right you are. Voila!
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
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 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.
#1 is just a rewrite of something signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and those other guys. The Project for a New American Century isn't some kind of secret. It's the platform Bush's foreign policy and military policies are based on. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wrote letters to both Clinton and Newt Gengrich in '98 demanding that they invade Iraq. So, once they're both in charge of the army, they do it. It's not paranoia, it's just what they did.
The part most people would dismiss as paranoid would be Rebuilding America's Defenses (also available in ridiculously huge pdf from their site) where Wolfie and Rummy outline their plans for taking advantage of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor", missile defense, increasing independence from the international community, a more mobile, flexible army, robot exoskeletons, tactics for use of robot exoskeletons culled from that 08th MS Team anime, ultrasonic guns designed to induce the brain to release chemicals to produce intense panic, rage, or anything else, drugs that would allow soldiers to deaden their consiences, and chemical and biological weapons tied to certain gene types that would allow them to carry out undetectable assasinations by spraying around genetically engineered ebola viruses.
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
Those dastardly Fox News conspirators! And apparently they now control the Associated Press too!
Lawmakers see abuses in Iraqi oil-for-food programs
The UN collected a commision on every barrel of Iraqi oil handled under the UN administered Oil-for-food program. That comes to something like $12 billion dollars total. But strangely enough, the money that was supposed to go toward humanitarian aid in Iraq never seems accompished much aid. In fact, no one seems quite sure what it was used for. How odd. The UN has denied reporters access to the records that show how that money was spent. Embezzelment? Well, a $12 billon slush fund, secret accounting records, huge piles of cash found in Iraq, and a documented history of fraud in other UN aid programs suggests that the UN probably didn't lose it under the couch cushions.
I don't think the European press was "bought and paid for" (nor is that what the original poster claimed) but I don't think most of the journalists in Baghdad have anything to be proud of. They reported only what Hussein's government let them report, and they didn't try very hard to do otherwise. CNN, for one, has admitted that they chose their stories to keep the Iraqi government happy in return for being allowed to report from the country. And Al Jazeera is a trustworthy news outlet in the same sense that professional TV wrestlers are distinguished sportsmen.
* Where did all the UN Food for Oil money disppear to?
/. article is about stuff that hasn't gotten a lot of attention. There's been no followup as far as I know.
Food for oil, I don't see much money in that deal. No money can't disappear.
Well, you don't walk into a grocery store with 10 gallons of unleaded and trade it for food. Oil gets sold, money buys food, food goes to Iraq... or at least that's what was supposed to happen. The UN got a nice "administation" cut off the top, but no one seems to know exactly where those billions went. And as much as people like to point the finger at Haliburton and claim they're a bunch of war profiteers its interesting how no one brings up the TotalFinaElf scandals and their involvement in some very, very shading dealings in Iraq.
* 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.
See the TotalElfFina articles above. Plus, the Germans and the French were trading *a lot* with the Iraqi gov't in the late 90s. It would be interesting to see just how "liberal" their interpretations of the sanctions exactly were. I think its been underreported.
* 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?
This assumes that if there was no oil for food program there would have been "severe famines" which also seems to be a pretty unsubstaciated claim. What looks like what happened was Saddam hyped up and played the "starving" baby angle for all it was worth. The "food" he got for his oil didn't make it to the Iraqi people. If you average $5billion a year in aid and spend $13million on healthcare, that's a lot of money unaccounted for.
* 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?
Not at all. What I am saying is that there were reporters/editors in the Arab press who were getting money (commissions, bribes, call it what you want) from the Iraqi gov't to file reports that were sympathetic to Saddam. There was speculation that some European editor/reporters were pocketing cash. That, as far as I know, hasn't been proven, but the point of this entire
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 thou
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.
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
So we should agree to what delegates from other countries, who are totally and utterly unaccountable (as they should be) to American voters? That's not democratic in any sense of the word. Also, we are a constitutional republic, which is a bit different from a pure democracy.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997