Slashdot Mirror
Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004
An anonymous reader writes "Project Censored has come out with its list of the most censored media stores of 2003-2004. Some of the gems are "Bush Administration Censors Science", "U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses", "Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies" and "Reinstating the Draft"."
#1: Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy
#2: Ashcroft vs. the Human Rights Law that Hold Corporations Accountable
#3: Bush Administration Censors Science
#4: High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians
#5: The Wholesale Giveaway of Our Natural Resources
#6: The Sale of Electoral Politics
#7: Conservative Organization Drives Judicial Appointments
#8: Cheney's Energy Task Force and The Energy Policy
#9: Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. government for 9/11
#10: New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers Support, Industry Profits
#11: The Media Can Legally Lie
#12: The Destabilization of Haiti
#13: Schwarzenegger Met with Enron's Ken Lay Years Before the California Recall
#14: New Bill Threatens Intellectual Freedom in Area Studies
#15: U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses
#16: Law Enforcement Agencies Spy on Innocent Citizens
#17: U.S. Government Represses Labor Unions in Iraq in Quest for Business Privatization
#18: Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies
#19: Global Food Cartel Fast Becoming hte World's Supermarket
#20: Extreme Weather Prompts New Warning from UN
#21: Forcing a World Market for GMOs
#22: Censoring Iraq
#23: Brazil Holds Back in FTAA Talks, But Provides Little Comfort for the Poor of South America
#24: Reinstating the Draft
#25: Wal-Mart Brings Inequality and Low Prices to the World
"an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media."
This is a total non-story posed in a dishonestly sensationalistic fashion.
Your viewpoint has been determined to have a left-leaning slant. You have been marked for censorship.
But seriously, how naive are you? Who controls the media in this country?
Liberal journalists SERIOUSLY outnumber conservative ones.
Maybe political power rests with the "right" but the last time I checked the balance of power in the Senate and House was pretty evenly matched. Take off your tin-foil hat.
How about highlighting the wholesale corruption of the UN with money Saddam stole from his starving people?
How about a story on the infiltration of Palestinian and other terrorist groups into university campuses, like Sami al Arian?
How about a story on how the Iraqi guerillas seem more interested in killing Iraqis and destroying the country's infrastructure than fighting the so-called "occupation"?
How about a story on how there has been a grand total of ONE suicide bombing since Israel began to really crack down on terror and start working on real anti-terrorist measures?
How about a story on the continuing anti-Semitism accepted and promoted in the Muslim world?
How about a story on how things like the Kyoto agreement end up being crap because some countries with higher populations than America are allowed to pollute all they want because of some politically-correct guilt trip written into the agreement?
Naw. You'd never see stories like that in this leftist screed.
There are three parts of the US Government
Executive Branch
President and a whole bunch of other depts under him
Legislative Branch
Congress or Senate and House or Reps
Judicial Branch
Supreme Court and othe Federal Courts
All are "evenly matched" through "checks and balances".
If the Senate and House are evenly split, the power splits pretty evenly. When we're talking about passing laws and such, you need 51% to get anything done. In the Senate it's even worse, because you need a much higher percentage to defeat a filibuster (such as the Democrats have done recently to Bush Judicial nominees).
For more info about the left-leaning US Media read Bias by Bernard Goldberg.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Left-Right_politi cs
If you've not read the book, or (for the impatient) seen the film of Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" - his analysis of how the media works in modern democracies - then you would do well to seek it out.
Lots of people here are talking about the media and whether it's "left" or "right." Chomsky's analysis makes some interesting points about media coverage of a number of issues over the past 30 years or so, and how the media's function in a democracy is to dictate the terms of reference, boundaries and, ultimately, what is left and right in most contexts. It says some other stuff as well of course. The film in particular is very good.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
The military has a spcified force level that they cannot go above. Mandated by Congress. They do not take everyone who shows up.
2) There weren't a lot of casualties in the armed forces those days either though.
Clinton made the military a 'not nice' place to be. Failed campains (Somalia) enforced this.
4) I'm not saying Bush wants to bring back the draft, but the fact is he may have little choice if he keeps sending people off to overthow regiemes around the world.
Again...the President cannot simply say "I need another 100,00 troops. That authorization must go through Congress.
Pew Research: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/
v ey_prc4.asp
I CLE_ID=39754
I CLE_ID=39754
I CLE_ID=39754
First, you are wrong: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_sur
For the National Press:
34% liberal, 54% moderate, 7% conservative
Average American:
20% liberal, 41% moderate, 33% conservative
Spin from both sides:
NPR Spin about said report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
More spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
More spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
The arguments about how DU has supposedly caused Gulf War Syndrome, etc, are not borne out by any legitimate medical studies. In fact, those studies that have been done have concluded that the use of DU ammunition does not pose a health risk.
For example, the European Union found this: (PDF link)
The World Health Organization had this to say:
They also report this in their findings on DU exposure: (PDF link)
Studies of DU exposuring during the NATO action in Kosovo found that DU does not remain in the bloodstream long enough to cause any significant health risks.
DU does emit alpha radiation, which decreases in power exponentially with distance. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that connects depleted uranium to "Gulf War syndrome" or any other health problems. The World Health Organization and the European Union are far more credible sources than an organization that is clearly biased in favor of the contention that DU poses a health risk in spite of the clear evidence against such a contention.
Of course, not even counting the residual side effects of having this stuff sitting around getting into the groundwater and such (8,000 pounds of this stuff dumped on Iraq a year since the early 90's..)
It is almost too perfect for warfare..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Chalabi told Bush that he had lots of detailed records of the transactions of which you speak, but couldn't come up with them after months. He played Bush like a fiddle.
Beacuse I had an itchy paste finger.
l umnId=2781901&wfId=1919999
R J8OVF&b=85317
I CLE_ID=39754
NPR spin: http://www.npr.org/features/columns/column.php?co
Spin: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJ
Spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
That is what it was supposed to look like. Whoops. Like I said, Preview button... preview...
Chalabi claimed to have the (only existing) evidence for this and refused to allow anyone else to look at it.
4 .p hp
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/00290
Given the source of this info, perhaps it was merely economic interest and not outright bribery that caused these nations to behave as they did.
here's your bitch slap: All of Kerry's medals and reccomendations are documented. And, if you had any sense, you'd go to Kerry's website and read it before you spouted off your lies. All of Kerry's supporters were THERE, especially the one K pulled from the water in a hail of enemy fire. The SBLiars, were NOT THERE. They also have not one shred of documentation to support a single one of their lies. They have been caught swearing false affidavits. They have no eye witnesses. In fact, their allegations are entirely fabricated, and have been proven to be so. They even contradict themselves. So, tool, get a brain and use it. Or shut up.
I could say the same thing about Fahrenheit 9/11... yeah, sure some of it is quacky, some of it is brutally relevant. Trying to generalize it to dismiss it will leave you bent over like an ostrich.
As far as the Oil Supplies Dwindling vs Nuke Plants Corrupt... what do you want? Nuke plants in our cars? You're talking about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie Time, baby! Apples and Oranges. And even if they weren't, asserting that Nuke plants are run corruptly doesn't contradict that Oil production has peaked. More close to the center of the target is that news reporters are supposed to report fact, and the facts regarding Saudi Oil are scarce. The actual capacity/production numbers ghawar oil field are very intentionally the closest guarded secrets in the Middle East. There's no external auditing, HA! Anyway, it's very interesting.
Two bills proposing a draft _were_ in Congress for a while. They didn't pass, of course; they were just posturing.
(1) Every branch of the military is meeting or exceeding recruitment and re-enlistment goals (unlike in the 1990s).
Do you have any reference for that? Because I can find plenty saying the opposite. And in fact detailing the "stop-loss" orders being used to keep current troops in past their obligations.
Even Mother Jones has asked that Project Censored be put out of our misery.
Clear, Dark Skies
I've got a question:
...it's probably also not a good and representative audience to ask ;-)
How biased (if at all) is the coverage of US- and world-affairs in the USA ?
I must admit that I don't watch TV anymore here in Germany because the quality has deteriorated to a point where it's only marginally funny anymore.
But the news and reports about foreign affairs (Western- and Eastern Europe, All of America, Asia, Africa and Australia) is still quite good and balanced. At least, in the state-owned channels.
Anyway...
I'll take the DU (Depleted Uranium) story as an example. This has been known (or, lacking an offical acknowledgemend, "suspected") here for several years. It has been reported repeatedly and, after Gulf War 1, led to a significant public outcry when it became obvious that these weapons had been deposited also on the territory of our beloved Federal Republic.
On the other hand, the ministery of defense here is playing every dirty trick in the book to keep a scandal of its own under the hood:
in the 60s and 70s a lot of radar-technicans got really high doses of radiation from military radar-gear, because it had to be repaired without appropriate protection. The "problem" is that these people (those few that are still alive are sometimes real living cancer-labs) want a compensation for their sufferings and the ministery is trying everything to delay the law-suits, hoping secretly for a "biological solution" of the cases...not totally unlike the DU-scandal...
This is publicly known, has been briefly covered but doesn't raise public outcry or turmoil, nor is any politician threatend in his job.
Also, when viewing the US from here, there may be still some Anti-American sentiments here, that are partly founded in history (remember, the Eastern part of this country has been Socialist and Anti-Capitalist until 15, 16 years ago?) and partly because of big differences in mentality (patriotism is almost a cuss here).
So, whenever Mr Bush Jun. says something funny or makes a funny face, it's a sure giveaway that it can be seen here on TV. The same when he alienates yet another (then former) ally.
When editors, journalists etc. "make the news" how big is the pressure (if any) to not mention certain facts at all, so that some stories seemingly never hit the headlines in the country where it would matter most ?
Or is it just a "McCarthy-esk"-climate, where everybody just fears that he might be "on a list" ?
Michael Moore mentions, in the foreword to the British edition of his "Stupid White Men"-"novel" that his publisher tried everything to keep the book out of the stores, because it didn't seem "appropriate" at the time.
Is this still representative of the climate for publishing books and information in the US ?
I'm afraid I don't have an unbiased view of the US myself, because I read this Topic (YRO) way to often
cheers,
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Seems that Fox editors wanted some reporters to include some statements from the "Monsanto Corporation" in a story that was negative towards them. The reporters refused and were fired. The statements may or may not have been false, but isn't that for the people watching the story to decide? Isn't not including them censorship?
Did you read the article? Let me refresh your memory:
she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story" about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows.
Catch that part about "in the jury's words"? Note the use of quotation marks? Do you still think the statements "may or may not have been false"? Still not convinced? Here's another refresher from the story:
Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre?s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
This story is so far under the radar, it's invisible. London's Financial Times ran a front-page story about the United States having a secret relationship with one of the world's most notrious arms smugglers - do a Google search on this guy and you'll see he's into *everything* and called the "Merchant of Death" - well, the US has been protecting him and his interests:
.t error/index.html
Source:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename= FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1083180541131&p=10142 32938216
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/03/italy
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/europe/Central_ Eu rope/belgium/2002.02.27-Russian%20Daily%20on%20All eged%20Arms%20Dealer%20Victor%20Bout.html
Background on Victor Bout - trafficker now being protected by the US:
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/vbout2.htm
http://w ww.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/23/smn.02.html
http://www.namebase.org/xbor/Victor-Bout.html
US seeks to protect weapons trafficker
By Mark Turner at the United Nations, and Mark Huband and Andrew Parker in London
Published: May 16 2004 21:56 | Last Updated: May 16 2004 21:56
The US is pressing for a notorious arms trafficker allegedly involved in supplying coalition forces in Iraq to be omitted from planned United Nations sanctions, in defiance of French demands.
Washington has UK support in resisting French efforts to freeze the assets of Victor Bout, once described by a UK minister as a "merchant of death" for his role as a leading arms supplier to rebel and government forces in several African conflicts, including Liberia.
The UN is considering who should be on a list of individuals whose assets will be frozen because of their involvement with the ousted regime of Charles Taylor, the Liberian leader overthrown last year.
Western diplomats say they have been told of reports that an air freight company associated with Mr Bout, who is subject to a UN travel ban because of his activities in Liberia, may be involved in supplying US forces in Iraq and that the US may be "recycling" his extensive cargo network.
In 2000, Peter Hain, then British foreign office minister responsible for Africa, described Mr Bout as "the chief sanctions-buster and . . . a merchant of death who owns air companies that ferry in arms" for rebels in Angola and Sierra Leone.
A former UN official familiar with the sanctions process said he had also heard of Mr Bout's Iraq connection. The ex-official said he had been told by a reliable source about a month ago that "the American defence forces are using Victor's planes for their logistics".
A senior western diplomat close to the UN negotiations said: "We are disgusted that Bout won't be on the list, even though he is the principal arms dealer in the region. If we want peace in that region [of West Africa], it seems evident that he should be on that list."
Another senior diplomat close to the UN discussions said on Sunday that the UK had originally included Mr Bout's name on its preliminary list of individuals to be targeted. The diplomat said US officials then told their British counterparts they did not want Mr Bout included because he was "being used in Iraq".
Mr Bout's name then did not appear on a subsequent UK list.
The US claims Mr Bout's activities should be dealt with in separate UN measures addressing the role of arms dealers. However, a former UN investigator on Sunday doubted that Mr Bout was playing a significant role in Iraq.
US and British officials at the UN deny any knowledge of Mr Bout's alleged activities in Iraq. A UK official said: "We have supported in the past and continue to support international efforts to end Mr Bout's illegal activities," noting that he was subject to a travel ban and an international arrest warrant.
A UN Security Council resolution in March said the assets of Mr Taylor, his immedia
Perhaps Goldberg's most striking claim is that conservatives are more often labelled "conservatives" than are liberals, which he says has a marginalizing effect on conservative viewpoints, making them seem outside the norm. Nunberg did his own test, and found that the opposite was actually true.
In fact, I did find a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives, but not in the direction that Goldberg claims. On the contrary: the average liberal legislator has a thirty percent greater likelyhood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does. The press describes Barney Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes Dick Armey as a conservative. It gives Barbara Boxer a partisan label almost twice as often as it gives one to Trent Lott. And while it isn't surprising that the press applies the label conservative to Jesse Helms more often than to any other Republican in the group, it describes Paul Wellstone as a liberal twenty percent more frequently than that.
There's more in Nunberg's article, if you care to read it.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Sure. Here is a CNN article on the shortfalls in the 1990s. Here are some articles on recruiting for 2002, 2003 and 2004.
The concerns about recruiting and reenlistment have all been based on opinion polls that predicted that shortfalls would arise. So far there is no sign of those shortfalls actually arising. I guess the polls are not reliable predictors of what people will actually do.
As for the stop-loss orders, this is reasonably informative. The orders only apply to units that are deployed, so they make no difference to the task of meeting yearly recruitment and reenlistment goals.
Many of Chomsky's books, articles, speech mp3's can be found here at chomsky.info
Chomsky really sets up a historical and motivational framework for how government, corporations and the media work together to control the political agenda. Whether that collaboration is a conspiracy or even consciously deliberate, is another matter. But I think anyone who makes a deliberate, openminded study of his evidence will come to the same conclusion--eventually. And developments in politics and war over the last few years have shown me just how right Chomsky really is.....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Nope. Those are just the ones people are most pissed about. From Merriam-Webster:
Censoring is not inherently bad. For instance, when parents don't let their children watch certain shows or movies they are censoring. What annoys people most is when adults are censored from things that they have a right to hear or see, which generally can only be done by government or large corporations. Making something unavailable or unobtainable is effectively equivalent to the removal of the right to obtain it. The flip-side to censorship is a boycott where people refuse to obtain something that is available because of some offense to the product or company.
If nobody buys your crappy book about aliens killing Kennedy, it's not being censored, just unappreciated.
That's different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Radio stations stopped playing their material because of their beliefs, not because they didn't like the music.
The following excerpts are from "Medical Effects of Internal Contamination with Uranium," in the March 1999 (Volume 40, Number 1) Croation Medical Journal, by Asaf Durakoviæ, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington D.C., USA:
It's too bad they don't mention John Kerry, and the DNCs, attempt to censor the Swift Boat Veterans using these letters.
The Swift Boat Veterans have been outed as a bunch of lying sacks of shit.
Every single one of their statements have been proven untrue.
Please start paying attention in the future.
The only reason they are still in the news is that the media is so far to the right that truth takes a back seat to pushing the treasonous Bush agenda.
Pull your head out of your ass and quit spreading lies.
Just picking a random example off the list, Cheney's handling of the "national" energy policy is extremely important, but has received very little coverage. Even if you regard his behavior as reasonable, the degree of corporate influence is an important public concern.
However, I think that his "arguments" are fatally flawed. Cheney is supposed to be serving the public, and any "advice" that can only be provided if it's source is concealed from the public is surely NOT in the public interest. If it WAS in the public interest, the source would not be afraid of exposure in the first place.
In the extreme case, Cheney seems to be arguing that America is no longer a democratic republic or republican democracy, but a kind of sanctioned-by-50%-of-the-voters corporate-owned dictatorship. I'd wager you haven't seen much consideration of THAT story on Fox "News".
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The energy from the sun works out to about 1.4kW per square meter out where we are in the solar system. That's a respectable amount of energy, even considering the average American home probably averages about 1kW of continous power use. Now, the earth's radius is roughly 6370km. That means we have 3.141*(6370000m)^2 = 1.27E14 square meters facing the sun at all times (barring the occasional lunar eclipse). Which works out for a total of ~1.8E17 Watts, or 180,000 trillion Watts if you prefer.
That's a lot of power. To put this into perspective, consider the typical nuclear power plant puts out about 200mW. Dividing this out, the math says the sun is bombarding us with the output of 900 billion nuclear power plants continoutsly.
So the sun provides with more than plenty of energy. The key is to gather it, store, and distribute it. So far, we've relied mostly on mother nature to gather and store it for us (fossil fuels), but those are running out. However, if we can't effectively utilize a 180,000 trillion Watt fusion power source in the sky, maybe we should die out.
"UN nations opposing overthrow of Saddam found to have taken bribes from same".
Are you referring to the UN Oil-for-Food scandals? I seem to remember that the only source for that scandal (Ahmed Chalabi) is currently very much out-of-favor with the U.S. and the Iraqi government. Yes, that's the same Chalabi currently under investigation for passing sensitive American information to the Iranian mullahs. As far as I've heard, he's the only source, and he's been known to . . . shall we say, stretch the truth a bit.
I always get the shakes before a drop.
Are you saying that the European social democracies/Germany/France, etc have large budget deficits that America? If so, not by much....
I would say that budgetarily, they are in BETTER shape than America. And of course when it comes to quality of life for most of their citizenry, they do much better than America does for most of its citizens.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
If you consider ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN to be right wing, then you must be . . .
Not an American.
ABC (Disney), NBC (GE), CBS (Westinghouse), CNN (AOL-TW) are all owned by mega-corporations, and 3 of the 4 are among the top 25 donors to the Republican campaign.
American media, compared with most stuff outside the US, is very right wing.
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
I know the controversy you're talking about. I live in north Orange County.
You have the concept of the sabot round correct, but the payload is a little off. Some sabot rounds are tungsten, but those are used mostly by other countries that have abandoned DU for mostly political reasons. They're not as effective, though; the density of DU is about 70% higher than that of lead, and 15% higher than that of tungsten. Furthermore, tungsten has a higher tendency to mushroom, whereas the self-sharpening properties of DU make for a more deeply-penetrating round. The US is by far the largest use of such rounds, and uses an alloy of DU and titanium. Addition of the latter provides some additional strength to the round.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Sandy Bergler Pilfers Terror Memos for Clinton ...is not on the list, so we have a real good idea of the political persuasion of the compilers of the list.
1) That was all over the news for a solid week. It lead all the major broadcast network's 6pm news shows for two days staight, and made it on the cover of both the NYT and the Washington Post, who both did in depth stories on this. How is that ignored, hmm?
2) Berger was completely exonerated of those charges, but that exoneration lead exactly zero 6pm news broadcasts, nor did it his exoneration make it at ALL into the pages of the previously mentioned papers.
3) If you have to resort to lies and spin to make your point stick then you are weak and wicked, and will eventually fall.
However, it doesn't take much to stumble upon well researched information concerning the Swift Boat Veterans themselves, nor the actual photocopies of the citations for John Kerry. I present the following URLs for you to make up your own mind, and I welcome any other URLs:
FactCheck.org
... there are so many more I can't even count, just Google for yourself.
Disinformation.org
Washington Post
Swift Boats Eriposte"
I must admit, I find it amazing that people continue to attack Kerry's role in Vietnam, while seemingly at the same time perfectly able to ignore the ample facts that George W. Bush didn't make it anywhere near Vietnam, and Vice President Dick Cheney managed to skirt the war entirely. Those are indisuputable facts.
This is patently false. The *only* weapons that contain depleted uranium are some (but not all) anti-tank weapons. These included the 40 mm shells fired by the cannon on the A-10... No bullets contain depleted Uranium.
Uhh... Okay, the A10 fires "40 mm shells". Most everyone else in the world (including the army) call them bullets. Those bullets contain uranium. They fired over 300,000 of these bullets in Iraq. The normal combat mix for these 30-mm rounds is five DU bullets to 1 - a mix that would have left about 75 tons of DU in Iraq.
The only thing "patently false" in this discussion is your post. How do you manage to fit your foot in your mouth with your head so far up your ass?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Come on, we all know the government contracted Slashdot to, well, slashdot the site in order to censor the site's censored stories.
Anyway, kidding aside, this is a pretty weak offering for the most censored news stories. The spinning world of media encompasses far more than the Grand Right Wing Conspiracy, and Evil Imperial US Government isn't the only entity guilty of selective reporting and coverage. Besides, it's as another poster already noted-- Most have sources cited that were obviously followed up on. Once it's been thrown out there for public scrutiny, you can hardly yell "CENSORED!" by any stretch of the imagination.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
My foul mouthed and uninformed friend, corporate personhood was granted in 1896, not saying it is right or wrong, but that's where it stands today.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
I mean it's really not that complicated.
"The dominant media is firmly imbedded in the market system. They are profit-seeking businesses, owned by very wealthy people (or other companies); and they are funded largely by advertisers who are also profit-seeking entities, and who want their ads to appear in a supportive selling environment."
I mean your assumption of a "liberal" media would state that corporations are desperately trying to fail at their only purpose for being which is making money.... Does that make any sense at all?
My only guess is that you define "liberal" as bashing Bush for driving drunk or "conservative" as sensational stories of character such as swift boat for truth or what not... but your missing the point they are showing whatever is supportive of their selling environment.
I would consider a "liberal" media as one that critiques the use of imperialism as an unjust undemocratic mechanism for social or economic change domestically and abroad.
We have hundreds of people on this board saying the media is liberal because it prefers Kerry...
I would really grow tired of people proclaiming the media is "liberal" without engaging in well founded critical work that states otherwise.
In other words... if you're going to say the media is liberal where is your rebuttal to the propaganda model?
I think you might want to look a little closer at that.
regardless of what ELSE I know that I can't say anything about out of fear, the word has gone out to have all selective service boards fully staffed by January of 2005.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Comment removed based on user account deletion