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"."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Go **** ******* you *******.
This content added to avoid "lameness."
******* *** *******! That's just shocking! Really, really shocking!
This site does appear to be a bit to the left, though. So take what they chose with a grain of salt, or a few tablespoons.
Stupid junk filter ruins my joke. So I have to keep typing more and more stuff. It's really rather annoying. I mean, really really annoying. How much more do I need to type? I keep going and going and going yet it keeps telling me to use fewer junk characters.
And thanks to slashdot, they are still censored.
...how all of these 'censored' stories reflect a left-leaning viewpoint.
#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
Are we doomed?
I'm an avid progressive, and I identify with many of the issues presented in this list ... but all of these articles should be taken with a grain of salt. ... these are all good sources of information, but you've got to keep a close eye on what you're reading, and sift through the editorializing to get to the facts.
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags. BuzzFlash, for example, is hyperliberal, and the editorials are often kind of tin-foil hat. Oneworld.net, "Organic Consumer"
Just my 3.14...
-- m.Operandi
Holy shit Batman!
I am sure during the Clinton years it would be: Baby Killer Lobbying Groups Influence Judicial Appointments!
Well, probably not, since these lists are pretty left in their bias.
Everyone once in awhile, the list does have very interesting info. But this is just like reading something from MoveOn.org.
Anyone who follows the news beyond CNN, would know this and wouldnt be too alarmed by these "censored" stories.
The problem I have is more that "censored" implies that the government went through with a pair of scissors and yanked out the offending stories. Not being widely covered is not really the same thing as being censored.
Also, the site seems to be heavily Democratic in orientation. This could be a result of the more left-leaning college students who compile it, I suppose. But I wouldn't take the whole thing as a simple, unbiased academic exercise. Their commentary on the draft, for instance, reeks of a rather lop-sided view of the issue.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
While I don't think it is going to happen, I thought this was a really interesting article on the draft issue...and it came out of the Family Circle of all places. If my wife hadn't had it laying around, I would have probably never even heard about this. -- Usurper_ii
Could your child be drafted?
by Jan Goodwin
High-school seniors have a lot on their minds these days--applying to
college, getting accepted, finding the funds to pay for it, then worrying
about whether they can get a job once they graduate. One thing they hadn't
counted on, however, was being drafted into the military when they turn 18.
There hasn't been a draft in the United States since 1973, but indications
are strong that next year that may change. And for the first time, young
women as well as men can expect to be called.
Why a return to the draft? Because our troops (stationed in two-thirds of
the world's countries) are spread so thinly, and because high casualty rates
in Iraq and Afghanistan have dramatically reduced recruitment and
reenlist-ment levels. A poll taken last year by Stars and Stripes, a
Pentagon-funded newspaper for service personnel, found that 49 percent of
respondents were not planning to reenlist.
According to retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hackworth, a military analyst
and one of the most decorated officers in the army, the U.S. military is now
so shorthanded that a whopping 40 percent of the 135,000 troops being
rotated into Iraq are National Guard members and reservists. Adds
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY); '"We haven't called up this level of
reservists since the Korean War."
What's more, if House and Senate bills HR163 and S89 pass, the loophole 'of
college, used by many to avoid serving in Vietnam, will be closed next time
around. All men and women ages 18 to 26 would be eligible for induction once
they have completed high school. Further, the Smart Border Declaration,
signed by Canadian and U.S. officials in December 2001, should keep would-be
draft dodgers in this country.
Congressman Rangel, author of the House bill, which is now before the Armed
Services Committee (Ernest Hollings [D-SC] authored the Senate version),
explains that the Administration's commitment to a prolonged presence in the
Middle East, the prospect of additional military interventions, and the fact
that "half of Guards and reservists say they have no intention to stay in"
are strong indicators that "ultimately we will run out of bodies."
"We shouldn't need a draft," says Rangel, "but now that we've been involved
in a war, the patriotic thing is shared sacrifice. Currently, the rich get a
tax cut, and the poor get a chance to make the ultimate sacrifice."
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), addressing the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in April, concurred. "Why shouldn't we ask all our citizens to
bear some responsibility and pay some price?'" he said.
Feeling a Draft?
The Administration denies that a draft is in the works. Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld has stated: "We're not going to reimplement a draft. There
is no need for it. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the
armed forces the men and women needed are notable."
But, says Ron Paul, M.D., an eight-term Republican congressman from Texas
and a former Air Force surgeon, '"You don't listen to what they say, you
watch what they do. The Administration says no, but what we've gotten from
the Pentagon and elsewhere is yes."
One sign of that, says Rick Jahnkow, program coordinator of the nonprofit
Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities, was that last fall
"[Presidential adviser] Karl Rove polled Republican members of Congress on
how they felt about the draft. They said they'd support the President."
"This is not surprising," comments Dr. Paul, who sits on the International
Relations Committee and was one of only six Republican congressmen who vote
Ron Paul
Finally the economics to make ubiquitous nuclear power a reality.
"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.
A more appropriate title for this list would have been the 25 most ignored or underreported new stories. I agree that most of the stories mentioned were underreported in the media, they were not censored. Proof being the various references and links shown in each article.
I love how we censor the very things that could swing the election.
You wrote:
"Not being widely covered is not really the same thing as being censored."
I disagree. It is a FORM of censorship. And certainly it tells us what many CorpGovMedia figures do not want us to know. And so this is important....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here
An interesting idea, actually - how to you make sure that a URL published (or one that is going to be published) on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC is denied to the general TV public who might actually check it out? Submit it as a story to a site such as Slashdot, with some urgent, immediate, or "impending doom" headline... Not that this particular story had any immediacy, or that the effect would last very long, but it's an interesting tactic nonetheless...
how about summer pulse '04 only being officially recognized AFTER the exposure of naval movements on various internet alternative news sites like rense.com. or that most of these ships are now in southeast asian waters and don't seem to be going anywhere, anytime soon.
Apparently the definition of "censored" for this site are "stories that match our left-leaning biases".
Now, I personally think the media is liberal, and I've done the studies to prove it (a few nights with Lexis-Nexis is enough), but this kind of thing represents a fringe view of the world. Did the authors of this list ever consider that maybe the reasons these "stories" didn't get reported are because they have no basis in fact?
Take reinstating the draft for example. Did the authors of that list ever consider the facts that the Army has met and exceeding its recruiting goals, that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want a draft and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said the same thing repeatedly? Did they ever consider that the bill to reintroduce the draft came from a group of anti-war congressman as a way of scaring people and was swiftly killed in committee and had no chance of ever passing?
Look, this kind of stuff irks the hell out of me. Telling us that a story that doesn't even pass the smell test has somehow been "censored" is an insult to our critical thinking skills. It's the same old crap as they people who say that the government is keeping aliens on ice at Area 51 right next to the engine that runs on water and the Ark of the Covenant.
Given that Slashdot's audience is supposed to be people with critical thinking skills, I would hope that tripe like this would be seen for what it is. "Censored" my ass!
Just curious how these articles could be "censored." They are fucking listed right on the page. Did the government actually prevent them from being published? No. The stories just lack so much credibility that even the left-leaning media sources didn't give them much airtime.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
On the contrary, take #4 for example, High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians, which is ssupported by several publications in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
Why would anyone be so quick to call it propoganda? 10,000 Gulf War vets have already died of diseases with symptoms identical to uranium dust inhalation. Why deny it?
Here are the pertinent excerpts, if you don't believe them then tell me exactly what you don't believe:
A few appear to be missing, notably, "UN nations opposing overthrow of Saddam found to have taken bribes from same".
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Although the list has a few good points, the site is essentially a statement of liberal ideas (not flamebait), this isn't bad in itself, except that the site appears to promote a neutral image. The site also contains a link to www.globalissues.com which has profound theories beyond belief and out of this world statements like "profit is a motive for genetic engineering" (flamebait?).
All your Sybase are belong to us.
The only U.S. politicians that I've seen advocating reinstating the draft are Democrats, who then turn around and claim that Bush must be defeated to avoid to the draft. The mainstream media usually ignores the bills the Dems sponsor to reinstate the draft, but gives front-page coverage to their claims that Bush wants the draft. Is that double-standard in coverage what you mean by "censorship"?
...is not on the list, so we have a real good idea of the political persuasion of the compilers of the list.
The compilers of the list should consider the possibility that, instead of censorship, the press and the public are just not that interested in the stories and issues that the list makers think are important. Activists often suffer from the delusion that the public would support their cause if they only knew the facts.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Should read - "The Top 25 Propaganda Leftist Stories". Go ahead, mod me down, it's the truth.
This post has been removed in the interests of national security. We thank you for your cooperation.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
Wonder if this story will get covered by the American press. The factual basis seems much more sound than the Swift Boat Liars.
If they are so "censored" how come we can read them??!
How come when I read them there are half-a-dozen links for "additional reading"?
I think someone is unclear on the meaning of censorship.
Someone said we should judge a newspaper by the quality of their stories on some subject we know well.
These are US stories, but one of them touches my own homecountry, Brazil. The story is so ridiculously, childishly, radically leftist - to the point of gross partidarism and distortion of reality, including the promotion of a radical, violent group like MST who wants to overthrow a constitutional, democratically-elected government and estabilish a marxist dictatorship - that it readily discredits the whole list as hate-promoting trash.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Wow, this is has to be one of the most biased flamebait articles I have ever seen posted on Slashdot. These so-called "Censored" stories are no better than one organization's personal opinion pieces of what they believe is wrong in the world with little or no evidence of censoring by the media or even evidence of their opinions.
Take "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy". It is filled with zero-sum fallacies and very little hard evidence to back up their facts. Blaming Africa's troubles on other's countries successes makes about as much sense as your mother telling you to eat your veggies because people are starving in China. No mention is made of such factors as the continual warfare that plagues much of the African continent. In addition statements such as "As rich countries, strip poorer countries of their natural resources in an attempt to re-stabilize their own, the people of poor countries become increasingly desperate." are presented with absolutely no supporting evidence.
Going to some others: "#7: Conservative Organization Drives Judicial Appointments" Hmm, as if the ACLU, NOW, and NARAL have no affect on the Democrat's choice of Judicial Appointments.
"The Media Can Legally Lie" This one seems most hypocritical. 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?
We also have the conflicting "Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies" and "New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers Support, Industry Profits". So if oil supplies are dwindling don't we want the government to encourage new forms of energy? Seems like pretty luddite thinking to me.
Oh well, what can you do.
Brian
PS Glad I got some karma to burn cause I'm probably going to get killed for this post. I would prefer people actually respond rather than mod down, but I know they won't
Well, anyway, one thing that this presidential campaign has shown me is that one of the fundamental difference between Bush supporters and those who oppose him is conformity. With regard to those who accuse others of tinfoilhattism, are they pragmatic spotters of nonsensical troublemakers, or are they conformist sheeple, willing to goosestep for whatever cause the hierarchy tells them to?
Just so we're clear, I had no idea whether you were talking about reps or dems until I read it for the third time. In my opinion anyone who votes for either of the two major GovCorp parties is a "conformist sheeple".
Vote Independent!!!
I am always confused by viewpoints being described as "left" or "right". What do these mean? What exactly are these left or right of? Is there some sort of mapping of viewpoints that puts one to the left of, or to the right of, another on a scale? Please enlighten me.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
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.
On the right, FAIR's counterpart is Accuracy In Media, which is currently running as their top story, "The Big Bad FBI -- The New York Times destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case." As far as I can tell, AIM is willing to apologize for the justice department, but doesn't even bother to put out any study at all claiming left-wing media bias. Don't you think they would at least try to put out a counter study?
When AIM first started out, they used to do one every month, but then FAIR started posting counterpoints and some AP writer would pick the two up and put the highlights from each on the wires. Those highlights always seemed to favor FAIR's viewpoint, and the AP stories started saying so.
So now AIM doesn't even make any general claims about a pervasive bias. Think about it.
I could care less about all this stuff. How does any of this really affect me? I'd be more concerned about the very real and quite insidious censorship applied by the so-called "editors" of this website.
People think that the media is liberal...or at least the journalist are....Most of the television stations are owned by corpartions or people or are notoriusly coneservative. if the the news was liberal they would be asking real questions rather then ones that really don't matter....
There's a difference between censored and ignored. Twenty-five stories is a lot to read, and I'm not well informed about most of them, but one thing I do know is that battlefield depleted uranium is not a radiological hazard. It is *A* hazard, because uranium, like all heavy metals, is exeedingly toxic. This point is invariably lost in the hyperbole that stories recieve in the act of entering the press. -- Toby
Hey! If Rush says it's not true, then it's not true! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Now watch this drive.
Oh my god they've been censored already!!
Slashdot effect...
the evil hand suppressing free speech since sometime back in the 90s.
Direct away from face when opening.
Not reporting something because you don't think it's worth reporting, or you don't think people will care, or even because you're biased and don't want to report it is one thing. Not reporting it because you'll go to jail is another thing. The US government doesn't even "kind of" censor the media like in Russia. This is about media self-censorship. It is a serious problem, yes, but the problem is not tyranny.
English is easier said than done.
Half the stories were around long years ago. The rest just use new names.
oh, yes...
P L E A S E
V I E W
W I T H
A L A R M
The story on the draft is hiding lots of details. See this story. This leads me to believe that some of the other censored stories might be a little far-fetched too. If reinstatement of the draft was looming, the media would be all over it. Same with the rest of these stories IMHO
The people who actually decide what goes on the air and in print over are overwhelmingly conservative. This has been shown in many studies yet somehow people dredge up that tired old arguement about liberal journalists. Yea journalists tend to be more liberal then not, let's not forget who is really in charge.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Ummm, I saw a list of editorials there, not news stories (with one or two exceptions). And for the record, I've seen all of these subjects editorialized in prominent newspapers.
I guess the definitions of censorship and journalism has once again been broadened to include anything the writer wants it to mean.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Um, that was all over the news.
From the Standard Response List:
#1. So, you'd rather we didn't invade at all? Is that it? You'd like it if Osama took over the US!
#2. Gay agenda/Gay marriage.
#3. "Here with the story is a radical left-wing nutcase who is easily discredited."
#4. Terrorism/Terrorists/9-11
#5. We propose to investigate initiating a Congressional panel to look into the possibility of researching this matter. After the election.
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?"
"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."
--Hermann Goering
I'm reading through these, and they list the sources where the stories ran..and they did run...in various magazines, journals and newspapers.
So how is this considered censored?
censor
n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence
or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything
considered obscene or politically unacceptable.
v 1: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)
[syn: ban]
2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This
magazine is censored by the government"
Now, if it were listed as "Important News Stories That Are Not Being Followed Through On"...then we got ourselves a list my friend.
But the title alone makes it seem like the US government is pulling these stories and saying they can't be run at all...which isn't the case.
From the Project Censored website their mission statement contains:
From these, Project Censored compiles 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.
Overlooked...you betcha. Under-reported...yes, I agree with that. Self-censored? I don't see that any of them were pulled here in the US...but perhaps they were in other countries? Reading through their list (the ones I could get to before it was Slashdotted) I couldn't find where the censorship fell other than just no mainstream media picking up on the stories.
Interesting read though...after the Slashdot crowd leaves I'll be back reading it.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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.
Alarmist? I don't think they were trying to be. The point of the project is to get people to pay attention, if even for a minute, and recognize that there are some big stories they likely haven't heard about. Project Censored uses a bit of marketing. Gotta admit it's certainly more catchy than Project Underreported, eh? Same thing with the top 25. People take to top lists (just look at Letterman) as well. Once again it's a bit of marketing. Project Censored is volunteer too. They don't have a large staff and have to keep things manageable.
Disclaimer: I went to SSU and almost worked for Project Censored (sadly lacking the time)
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
For most of the lunatic fringe and even many moderates, there's a prejudice against the right to automatically assume the worst, and to never, EVER listen to someone telling you different. They're just part of the conspiracy, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
I treat crap like this with a grain of salt.
And just so's ya know, I think most of you hippies could do with a couple years' stint in the armed forces.
I dont see Kobe Bryant or Laci Peterson on that list. Oh wait...
1. Bush lied about the danger of Iraq to the U.S. Probably because his family and top administration officials had a falling out with Saddam. Pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam embracing turn up. Reagan officials allowed chemicals to be sold to Iraq knowing they would be used for weapons of mass destruction.
2. Bush argues in the Supreme Court that he has the right to grab anyone, anywhere in the world (including U.S. citizens on U.S. soil), label them as an enemy of the state and lock them up indefinitely without access to anyone.
For the above Bush should be thrown out.
Just to show I am thoroughly mixed up politically I'll keep going.
3. Globalization (including outsourcing) really does increase the world's prosperity and lessen the chance of conflict.
4. High paying but low work union jobs in the U.S. rob workers worldwide of jobs needed to feed themselves.
There, that ought give everyone plenty to attack me on. Whew! - I feel better.
Whould be "top 25 stories nobody give a shit about". These stories are patently NOT censored. This implies there is some conspiracy that is keeping them from being published. Lat I looked this was infomation available to anyone. Maybe it has to do with the content not being totally reliable? Honestly, I am getting sick and tired of the shrill conspiracy rhetoric.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
According to many of the observers it was the Spetznaz who were sneaked in the ambulance that went to pick up the dead bodies that caused the shooting spree.
Also how come that the Russian media reported only 345 hostages taken when the real number turned out to be close to 1500? That's quite a bit of an error in estimating... given that all municipalities have very scrupulous records of who's registered for what school it should have been very easy to figure out the actual numbers.
Finally, Kremlin is reporting 340 dead but another 200 are (quietly) reported as "missing"... what in the holy fuck does that mean? Like they ran away from the besieged building and went on a drinking binge? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that those "missing" are almost certainly dead save for a handful few that might have survived and somehow still aren't reunited with their relatives. So why not tell the truth and state that the number of casualties is over 500?
Kremlin is lying again and Russian media is complicit and fully controlled by them, just like they were in the Soviet times. Polish press reported that more than 1000 were held captive on Thursday morning. Friday night, they reported that death toll would exceed 500. Meanwhile Moscow is still in denial and trying to mellow the story as much as they can.
Putin made no mention of Chechnya in his address ot the nation despite everyone knowing full well that the attack was prepared by terrorists under the command of the notorious Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev. Meanwhile Putin is telling us about "international terrorism" as if Beslan had nothing to do with the complete fiasco of his policies in Chechnya.
Their most independent journalist Babicki of Svoboda was seized from an airport as he was about to fly to Beslan on Wednesday and was arrested for five days on charges of "disorderly conduct".
The main editor of Izviestia was forced to quit after he had published an article stating that it was Spetznaz and Osetian police together with some civilian relatives who started the mayhem by shooting at hostage takers.
In short the US media is badly censored but not nearly as controlled as the Russian media and press at the moment.
NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) both seem to be overlooked in nearly every debate over the media. (My personal opinion is that they deliver a superior source of news information, giving more information per story, a greater variety of stories, and a greater quantity of stories.)
~UP
Eat the Path.
How sad a day that the word 'liberal' is derogatory. The wording of an article may be an issue of interpretation, one could say either 'wholesale giveaway of natural resources' or 'bush boosts timber industry with innovative pricing' to make it sound better, but the content is based on the same bills which were really passed and not covered by the media. The media is the people's portal into the happenings of our government, but they're operating more like an entertainment industry. But if you consider the viewership these articles would bring, it's not like these articles wouldn't be covered because they're boring. Must be because they've got interest in not reporting these things. With a left or right leaning headline.
Sorry, but there's still a leftist slant in the general media. Not all of the big media, but most.
...
Here's the list, if you can't RTFA
#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
While they are predominantly "liberal" issues, there's items in there that would disturb anyone.
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.
Well I agree that some of these stories probably went unreported for inappropriate reasons (the media can lie) others seem to quite reasonably not be relevant to report. Basically, it seems this 'project censored' group is reading their own political views into this list and blasting the mainstream media when they ignore things this group thinks are important.
As a prime example look at story #10 about the new nuclear power plants. Essentially this is nothing but a US government program to encourage investment in an alternative non-polluting (any pollution is not released into the atmosphere) energy source. I find it hard to believe project censored would be crying crow if congress had implemented tax incentives to individuals using solar power, or buisnesses located in poor areas employing minorities or even a similar credit for wind turbines (I think california already has one and no one has made one peep).
I think this is quite unfortunate. Instead of focusing on instances of true media abuse (government pressure not to report...like the secret arguments it is now trying to make in their case the the EFF) they simply pick out stories they think are important but not reported frequently. This, however, is always a political value judgement. If you aren't ignorantly frightened of nuclear things this bill is no more exceptional to you than tax credits for alternative power or fuel efficent cars (which exist and haven't gotten much coverage).
Even if you object that the populous at large would be quite concerned about this issue you still don't establish your point. The roll of the media is to raise issues of *actuall* concern not of *popular* concern. I have no doubt that project censored would castigate the media for ignoring an important issue just because the public isn't particularly interested (don't understand the true import for instance). The media must use it's judgement and expertise to seperate *truly* important or worrisome events from emotionally grabbing trash. In other words if you retreat to saying the news media has an obligation to report anything which would particular concern the public then you are forced by consistancy to prefer wild emotionally manipulative but content minimal presentations to a balanced reasoned viewpoint. If it is what would *actually* concern the people that is important to report our papers should be filled with scaretactic articles like "1000 items in your house which will give your children cancer."
In other words any reasonable view of the media will attest that it is NOT their job to present viewers/readers with misleading scare tactic articles. It is a common effect that people overestimate very small probabilities, so an article detailing the horrid things that can happen to you going out to the city (being raped and tortured etc..) would grab a lot of unwarranted concern and interest. Instead, as people prefer, upstanding media endeavors to select only *actually* concerning material to present to their readers instead of rilling them up using every misconception and misunderstanding their readers likely share. People's attitudes on nuclear power are similarly irrational as their tendency to overestimate small probabilities. Media therefore arguable has a *responsibility* not to overplay this article.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Of course all this criticism of Bush is shortsighted, as the Aliens for Bush web site makes clear.
Cheers,
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
I can't believe you guys are still yammering about it now.
It really DOESN'T MATTER. You guys are just sounding like the peeps who'd go "I'll vote for XXX because he is a democrat! I believe in the democrat party policy!"
End of the day, when party got elected, you think there will be a difference?
No, they will all sell you out to the big corps all the same.
NO WINGS FOR ME! GIVE ME THE DRUMSTICKS!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd draw your attention to The Media can Leagally Lie
I've followed a bit of this already; I've even seen interviews with the people involved with the case.
In summary:
The milk in the US contains a chemical additive that is cancer causing. That chemical is produced by Monsanto. The FDA tested a few rats and rubber stamped to drug. It causes distress and health problems in many cows. There is hard evidence that Monsanto knew there was problems with the drug before they even sent it for testing at the FDA. FOX suppressed the story (presumably on behalf of Monsanto) using various different sleazy tactics. The investigative reporters in question refused to sign a NDA, and were later fired after about 80 rewrites of the story. The story was rewritten with lawyers present, not scientists. The pretence was that the story should be balanced. The Monsanto lawyers objected to terms like "carcinogenic", preferring more balanced terms such as "may cause health problems".
The reporters won their court case, to find it over turned at appeal. The reason was that lying isn't a crime, and the whistle blower act only protects employees from business asking them to commit a crime. FOX immediately said that they were 'vindicated', but left out the part about lying.
The milk is being drunk all over the US, and is being served to children at schools.
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags
And just about every major player in the media market will sell you any news so long as it doesn't hurt the corporate agenda.
It's likely that we'll never require samizdat in this country, but we all require tin-foil hats
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I went to projectcensored.org looking for their definition of "censored" and the criteria they use to determine "most censored". I found neither.
In my book, you aren't being censored when an editor turns down your story. You aren't being censored when your story is cut from the final edition to make room for the piece about an explosion in a local church.
If the Ministry of Information orders you not to write that story, that's censorshp. Ditto if the orders come from your corporate headquarters.
Projectcensored says it tracks the news from "independent" sources (not that these sources are listed on their site), but neglects to tell us about the political agendas of any of those sources. (Of course, the word "independent" is usually, and incorrectly, construed to mean "impartial".) An organization might be "independent" of outside financing, but it will lack credibility as an "independent" source if its purpose is to foster a political agenda. In any case, with a personality like Noam Chomsky helping them spot "censorship", claims of "independence" evaporate.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Now I do agree that there is some worry that media might have wildly incorrect beliefs about what is important. This has the danger of giving people a incorrectly skewed view of what is going on.
If you think this is occuring your option is to start a competing media format. This is particularly easy these days with the web. Accusing some of censorship just because you disagree with them is not appropriate. Project Censored doesn't seem to bother to collect evidence of inappropriate attention or influence and is thus simply disagreeing with mainstream media's notion of importance. This 'cry of wolf' is quite disturbing because it lessens the resistance when *real* censorship occurs. (This project censored sounds like a bunch of librarians who want to get worked up about the censorship that is happening today!)
People choose their media sources based on their estimation of how often they pick the important stories. If the mainstream media consistantly pick stories that don't turn out to be the most important ones for most people they will change their media preferences. If you don't like the fact that Nuclear subsidies don't get attention go start your own web media. I just object to project censored using the word 'censored'. Underreported is really what they mean.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
js7a, you use statistics like a drunk uses lamposts. For support rather than illumination.
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.
That's got to be the best-kept secret at the moment, surely?
I'm actually all for abandoning the use of DU shells, but claims like this:
"the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs"
effectively undermine any chance of credibility or acceptance. It sounds like nonsense, and for good reason, because it is nonsense. They're comparing raw mass of the uranium used at Nagasaki (given that atomic bombs actually use tiny amounts of uranium) against the collective mass of all DU shells used, completely ignoring the fact that they're of enormously different chemical character.
If you say something like "Politician X rapes babies!" or "NAFTA has caused more deaths than all wars in the twentieth century combined!, you forfeit all consideration of other statements. I realize this is not your claim, only one you're repeating, but it's not helpful. In fact it's extremely harmful, because mindless statements like those only serve to undermine legitimate objection.
If it weren't, then will you volunteer to inhale some to prove your point?
This site appears to be worthless.
Clear, Dark Skies
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a reason that most libertarians generally side more with republicans than democrats, and that's because Republicans are more strongly anti-paternalist than Democrats.
In other words, it's the Republicans who don't want to rely on the Great Leader to do the thinking. Why is it that the democrats are more socialist than the Republicans? Why is it that Republicans are for a more free economy where people have more choice? (Forgive the pseudo-Socratic method here.)
On a general note about the how every single article in there is anti-right, there's a simple reason. The people who publish that list determine what's important enough to make the list and what's not. Think about it. The list is entirely subjective, and the liberal bias is blatantly obvious.
Oddly enough, it becomes dangerous when you use it to kill people. I wouldn't ram a carrot into my eye either.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
It's sucessful and it does business legally what's not to hate?
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Of course, we in the UK still have a military censor although these days it's now 'voluntary', and one hopes it is now doing what it was set-up for, i.e., "careless talk costs lives" stuff, rather than covering up any embarrassing mistakes...
I can't believe the reinstating draft story got listed. The military is meeting its recruiting goal so this is purely for political points of some sort. The only people calling for reinstating the draft are people who oppose the war in Iraq and the military in general. They see the mandatory military service to create chaos in the military with thousands of people who do not want to there in the first place.
--
I'm not conservative on everything just on killing terrorists - Dennis Miller
want a gmail account just email me thezeppo@@@gmail.fuck.this.shit.com
If it looks like a true statement is undermining credibility, that almost always means that something is seriously wrong and needs to be corrected.
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
I actually just slapped my own forehead when I read your response. I didn't just have the urge, I actually did it. Thanks to your unbelievable response I have a red welt on my forehead and will not be able to go out in public for another thirty seconds or so.
*sigh* How can I explain this to someone who didn't already get what should have been a blindingly obvious point?
Comparing the mass was not only misleading but stupid because of their enormously different chemical character. Seriously, just use whatever brain you have. Why does a single DU shell have ever so much more mass than the uranium in just one bomb designed to cause massive destruction? Because they operate in different fashions. The former is relatively stable from a chemical stand-point and does not cause molecular destabilization or the release of catastrophic energies upon detonation, while the latter is extremely unstable and does produce off-the-charts energies when detonated. That's the whole frigging point, that mass has nothing at all to do with the equation because they're of completely different physical character, and therefore mass is irrelevant, and therefore bringing it up not only makes the arguer look less credible but deceitful.
For the record, tack on the handicaps of stupidity to my earlier cautions about misleading statements and irrationality. If you're just plain stupid then obviously people are never going to have a productive discussion with you whether you're attempting honest self-reflection or not. I'm not saying you are stupid, but your response certainly was. If you can't understand how mass is irrelevant and misleading to the issue then you don't have the capacity to add anything positive to the discussion.
Do they charge your card or something? Whats the catch?
In #4, for example, the Pentagon has convinced the NIH to deny funding to any researcher proposing to test the hypothesis that Gulf War Syndrome results from uranium inhalation.
And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky Canadians.
According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:
The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)
As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?
How likely is a draft?
Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.
The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.
It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.
In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.
It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.
Text of the article is below:
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM
The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!
Reinstatement of the draft
Dear Friends and Family,
I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."
Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
that talks about conflicting eye witness testimony and how many of the men there that day dispute Kerry's account?
Clear, Dark Skies
When, where?
Not in USA anytime recent.
MORE NUKES LESS KOOKS!
These stories require a severe lean to the left.
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
Are these censored, or were they simply not picked up the outlets which the writers had wanted so desperately to appear in?
There is a huge difference. I read several of the aforementioned articles during their original runs. No laws were passed banning them, and the US government never made any attempt to stop their runs. Therefore, no censorship.
True censorship exists in this world. It seems to me, however, that this list is nothing more than a couple of authors whining about their stories not running as widely as they had wanted.
Don't signed affadavits count for anything anymore?
Basically, you've got Kerry with 13 guys who agree with him versus every other man in his unit, including his entire chain of command - about 250 men total. Democrats, Republicans, but all men who absolutely despise Kerry for the way he behaved in Viet Nam.
Sorry, but I can't believe Rove bought off 250 men - especially when they have forced Kerry to admit that he lied about one incident and forced him to quietly retract several items from his website - items like taking credit for other commanders' combat missions.
Clear, Dark Skies
<thwack!> "After the flood, no raindrop will admit responsibility."
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
France to defy the UN sanctions against Iraq by paying off UN officials and helping a murderous dictator, but removing that murderous dictator from power is a bad thing?
Clear, Dark Skies
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...
I would very much like to put this quote up on my wall, but before I do so I would like to verify that it isn't made up. Can you cite a written source I can look up?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
...except that from the rest of the world's point of view, the attitude is this. If you consider ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN to be left wing, then you must be...
Um, never mind. I think I just figured it out.
ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN are relatively left wing, in the same way that Darth Vader proves himself to be slightly to the left of Emperor Palpatine in the end.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Sometimes the rating/filtering mechanism makes it hard to follow the conversation.
Clear, Dark Skies
It looked more like the top liberal wacko conspiracy theorist stories that people further left than John Kerry wish would take hold. I'm not impressed.
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
The title says it all. Censorship means the story was actively suppressed by an authority. That doesn't happen in America. The reality is that the media is market driven, and the major media outlets didn't believe there was enough interest in these issues. That is not censorship. It is also a falsity to assume that these stories didn't get into the public. By this standard, every story which appears on slashdot was censored, because rarely will you find a /. story on the front page of the major media organizations (although the NY Times and Washington Post pops up more often than one would think).
It's also worth noting that the subject matter of this top 25 list is nothing more than hot button issues for 'progressives'. The linked stories are from indie journalists self-posessed of the notion that these issues are important and worthy of being publicized. Really, it's nothing more than a google-bombing circle jerk of activist issues. What I didn't find on this list would include how John Kerry lied on his application for purple hearts, or how John Kerry voted to increases taxes on the middle class and elderly nearly 50 times in his senate career. But then, that would be no different than what is going on here.
"Site Design by Left Coast Web Design"
I click on the link, and there is no site. Anyone smell a rat here?
If the media were slanted to the left...
Someone would be working harder to investigate why no-bid contracts were let to the Vice-President's former company. IMHO, the "Only Haliburten is big enough to do that kind of stuff," excuse doesn't really wash.
Nobody saw 9/11 coming... Nobody in the government was even looking that direction! No wonder nobody put the pieces together, the pieces weren't on the table. After Inauguration day in 2001, the focus of the US left the Middle East and moved to Missle Defense and the ABM treaty. It was as palpable as seeing the focus of the Eye of Sauron move at the end of Return of the King.
Faulty intelligence - oops. The year before the War in Iraq, it there was reporting that the Administration was shopping for Intelligence that would support it's desire for War. At the time, it was also well-reported that CIA evidence didn't support invasion. Stunning that the CIA ended up taking the fall.
President Bush's National Guard records have 'disappeared', as well as any opportunity to establish whether he really was or was not AWOL that year of Alabama service prior to early discharge.
The Vice President held closed-door sessions to establish a National Energy Policy, with no public records. "Candid opinions" aside, this is part of national policy, it affects all of us, and we have NO visibility into the process, or even the players.
Speaking of the Cloak of Secrecy, when you spread that Cloak around the government, it goes all the way to the bottom. It's not enough to trust the Man at the Top, you have to trust EVERYONE under him - right down to the guards at Abu Graib. The Constitution attempted to create a government where you could trust the process, so that if the people were not trustworthy, there would be checks and balances.
Finally, if it were a "liberal media"....
It wouldn't have hounded Al Gore into oblivion, while giving a giving G.W. Bush a pass on his very limited qualifications. Bush was a 1.5 term governor - less than 6 years on public service.
It wouldn't have hounded Bill Clinton for 7.5 years of his presidency, and said nothing as a 7.5 year "fishing expedition" began over a measly $200,000 real estate *loss*. Lewinsky was inexcusable, but it hadn't even happened when the fishing expedition began, or went through it's first several morphs.
It wouldn't now be giving Kerry short-shrift on getting his message out, while forgiving above Bush administration issues. The ONLY time I've heard Kerry sound interesting or impressive was the acceptance speech on C-SPAN - the one time I've heard more than two sentences out of his own mouth without some form of extraction or editorializing.
And if you don't believe that, look on Slashdot! Others of the European pursuasion have stated that even the American Left is to the Right of Europe's center. We can't see or evaluate slant, because we're all so slanted, ourselves.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
ob. family guy reference...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I don't see anything alarming in that list. Every item is either a half truth, a misrepresentation, or a non-story to most people. These people are just mad that their top propaganda items aren't getting wall-to-wall coverage except on their extremist kook web sites.
Is not the obvious liberal bias of most of the mainstream media (yeah, yeah, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, blah blah), but why they are doing such a lousy job.
If you've ever read a newspaper story where you knew the events first hand, you'll know that the papers get just about everything wrong (including directly attributed quotes). And TV news tends to be even worse; not only do they get the facts wrong, but they have to compress the whole story down to about 30 seconds (unless it involves baby pandas).
Part of this is bias, but only part. Equally significant is the reporting of speculation as fact; the treatment of editorials as reportage; and the lamentable trend to just not care about the details.
These days I work on the assumption that any news report will have all the major facts wrong in some way.
Read Michael Crichton's speech on the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect for an insight into this problem.
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
The use of DU and its effects on military and civilian populations is clearly a problem, however, pure quackery is another thing.
The "UMRC" is one person, "Dr." Durakovic in Zagreb; if there was anyone else, this article's assertions might have a shred of believeability, but every article and publication listed begins with his name.
That the VA and the Pentagon are massive bureaucracies with little capacity or will to respond to new threats ranging from Gulf War illnessed to terrorism is obvious; look at the 9/11 commission report. We're not going to get anywhere, however, by throwing more bull on top of the pile.
The quotation you use is full of pure non-fact: it claims 240,000 (1 out of 2) Gulf War vets is "on permanent medical disability" and that the amount of DU used in Afrghanistan and Iraq is the "radiological equivalent" of 333,000 of the (approx. 30 kiloton) bombs used at Nagasaki. (For comparison, the MinuteMan and MinuteMan 2 ICBMs featured 20-30 kiloton wareheads; at the peak of the armament, the world's arsenal was under 60,000 warheads. So briefly this guys is saying that the US released more radiation that 5 or so global thermonuclear wars... right).
Dealing with reality means dealing with facts, something this guy is obviously unwilling to do.
yes, the media is clearly SOCIALLY liberal. What I mean is that they favor the officially "approved" liberal agenda issues, such as abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, etc.
But the media is NOT ECONOMICALLY liberal. By that I mean that they do NOT favor a progressive taxation structure, such as America had in the past, and as most of Europe STILL has, which is why Europeans have universal healthcare, years of unemployment benefits, welfare for poor single people, and the whole social safety net.
The media also favors free trade. If you are really liberal, economically liberal, you do not favor free trade. That is a conservative thing.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
26: "Slashdot Effect" censors ProjectCensored's reporting of top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2004...
I believe the issue is that the media has its own agenda and if a story conflicts with that agenda, it's not likely to be given attention. It's arguable as to whether or not you could call this censorship.
In the realm of this area, there are tons of stories that have a snowball's chance in hell of getting much media attention, because they open up big cans of worms that upset very powerful corporations:
* Mad cow disease has been discovered in the US but isn't acknowledged -- that would upset the beef lobby - very powerful
* In the US there's virtually no dialogue about the concerns of genetically-modified food. Another issue of not pissing off the advertisers.
* The DU armament issue is another hot potato that the American media doesn't want to touch.
* There's a plethora of amazing stories about bills that have been mischaracterized or inaccurately reported on, from the Medicare bill to the various legislation involving the Iraqi invasion that has been bastardized in 30sec soundbytes as a perversion of the truth.
* Lots of stories about dangers of pharmaceuticals that would hurt big pharma.
* The SEC investigations and sanctions against almost every major financial corporation in America for illegal/unethical activity - which are also heavy advertisers and thus, won't be mentioned by name even if a story on the issue is reported.
* Shell's fraud in reporting oil reserves.
* Without a doubt, the administration's outing of a CIA agent, and how docile the media became is another prime example. Had a democrat/liberal done what Novak did, he'd be hanging from a tree.
You can't really say these stories have been "censored" - they've been "selectively dismissed" as a result of being in conflict with the media's agenda.
It's a foolish, idealistic notion these days, that any of the major media really have that much of a "responsibility" to their audience, at least in contrast to their responsibility to their management, shareholders and advertisers.
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:
So anyone can write hysterical nonsense now and if it isn't published they can claim censorship, even if their assertions were completely baseless?
The owners of publications have always hade the ability to edit content, that does not equate to censorship, it is their own filter to eliminate hysterical crap. It's how they work without moderators slashdot.
Nice FUD. Let's pick a source. Let's see... BBC.
n /
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2970503.stm
When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in a burning cloud of vapour. This settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.
Now from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large.
Let's see what WHO has to say http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/e
Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.
Let's stitch these things together. A tank fires, hits a tank. Dust goes into the air, eventually settles. Multiply this by a thousand over the course of several days. It rains. People drink it. Pregnant mothers drink it.
Look this isn't a complicated concept. It's not something you can simply toss out. The real question (which you don't seem to care about) is whether the dosage is high enough to do harm. A full grown adult should not ingest over 0.5 ug per kg per year. I can't find how much depleted uranium is in one round, but you can rest assured that if just a fraction of that amount after a firefight got into the drinking water (which remember can be as small as a puddle), things are not going to be good.
Exactly how is reporting without question that Iraq had WMDs being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is reporting without question that Saddam's troops pulled babies out of incubators prior to Gulf War 1 being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is ignoring the number of civilian casualties in Iraq being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is under-reporting the number of Palestinian civilian casualties, while never failing to mention a single Palestinian terrorist attack, being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is ignoring the Red Cross's reports about Abu Ghraib, a YEAR before the story finally broke loose, being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is giving Michael Moore less airtime than Ann Coulter, when they were both promoting their books a couple of years ago, being a left-wing outlet?
In fact, how is it that you can look at that list of under-reported stories, a large number of which are left-wing issues, and say that the media is biased to the left?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Title: Top 25 Censored Site Pushes Frontier
Author: Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Date: Sep 2004
Publication: Slashdot.org
Form of Censorship: Not being passed to mainstream media
The Top 25 Censored Stories Site(T2CSS), of Sonoma University, continues to push the frontier in logic , sense and demagogery. The Web Site, sponsored by Sonoma University in California, has wowed readers by pointing out such stories that should have made mainstream such as: how Wal-Mart, in buying existing stores in foreign countries, creates sprawl in those countries despite an on the face (prima facae) violation of the logic of that statement. That such a(n) (il)logical statement should not make the major media outlets, yet does fulfill the fancy of Sonoma University Acadademe, demonstrates the great lengths that Sonoma University faculty have taken in pushing our American concept of logic.
Our reporter in the field spoke with Professor 'Ivan A. Nicefrosh' of Sonoma University, reclining after a toke:
'[You] know, you should come to some of our parties man. We get low, swig back some Irish Rose and man, Ernie brings some smooth stuff. [Snort] Anyway, yah we are taking on the man. Look at these stories man, they're gold! I just got one about Haliburton- I think we'll make it seven.'
Following the interview with the Professor, we asked some students about the program. Sarah S. said 'I love the parties! And we really get to stick it to the man, you know? I think Ivan likes me. What do you think?'
The Web Site currently enjoys thirty staff and periodic visits from hundreds of party-goers around the world.
It boils down to class, and class warfare. It always has and always will. Marx was wrong about prescriptions, but his analysis was spot on 150 years ago, and it's still dead accurate.
Some things are different: events are certainly moving on a deeper and larger scale than the capitalists could possibly muster in 1870, but the structure has remained the same: there are a very few people on top and a lot of people on the bottom. The globalisation of wealth has made entire nations part of the "top" and entire continents part of the "bottom" - and you know who's getting fucked.
"Conservatives" (especially those of the more recent "neocon" variety, who are little more than penny ante fascists) are people who have internalised the false consciousness machine of contemporary capitalist culture to such a degree that they cheerfully support the plutocrats who enslave them. In fact, their culturally instilled cranio-rectal inversion is so complete, they don't see themselves as being willing participants in their own self enslavement - they see themselves as supporters of "freedom and liberty".
Meanwhile, the powers that be are re-aligning the economies into Orwellian superstates. The Europeans are doing it through an opt-in confederacy (EU), the Americans are doing it with their typically murderously belligerent policy of co-option, destruction and subordination (from Wounded Knee to Baghdad) and forming Oceania by way of NAFTA. East Asia is forming more slowly, as is typical of the Chinese Empire.
The great battle will be between a collapsing Oceania and a rising EastAsia. Eurasia will sit on the sidelines and watch the two destroy each other, and then move in to scoop up what's left.
This isn't tinfoil hat theory. this is stuff that has been documented over and over and over.
here
Here
and HERE.
Now, if you have any sense: ORGANISE A COHERENT RESISTANCE AND GET A PLACE AT THE TABLE OF OCEANIA. Prevent the disaster. If the neocon agenda goes on by its own logic, there will be an eventual war between EastAsia and Oceania. It will be fought through terror proxies first, then localised wars and rebeliions at the periphery. The results will be millions dead so the rich bastards running the American State can stay rich and the powerful shitbags running the Chinese Gov stay in power.
WAKE UP PEOPLE. Or don't: just pretend it isn't happening and surrender your children to be cannon fodder in some far off oil rich country for the sake of Exxon, Halliburton, and Walmart.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
False, there are eight other physicians listed as authors of the publications I linked to. Why would you lie about that?
The UMRC is based in Toronto, I think.
Over what censorship means. Near as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the government did not tell media outlets they could not publish any of these stories. It appears as though the mainstream media simply decided these were not worth publishing, for whatever reason. That's not censorship, that's free speech. Part of free speech is that private citizens, newspapers, etc have the right NOT to speak. Much as the government can't tell you you can't say something, they can't tell you must say something either, because that would be just as opressive.
People often throw around censorship to try and draw other in by making them think they are getting access to information forbidden by the government. That's generally not the case and it's just so much BS. Like a number of groups were propping up "The Day After Tomorrow" as the one movie the government doesn't want you to see. Hardly, the government couldn't give two shits if you saw it, it is fiction, and not very believable at that. Plus it was in every theatre across the US. Did a pretty shitty job "censoring" it if that was their goal.
So yes people, check your sources and check when people start screaming censorship. Most of the time the reason a given story never appears in mainstream media is because it's simply not "news", meaning that it doesn't meet the criterion most outlets use to decide what to publish (they can only publish a small fraction of what happens in a day). Often the criterion it fails to meet is truth or provability. There are plenty of tin-foil hat news rags out there, doesn't mean what they are saying is true.
It's like the right-wing end-of-the-world nuts such as Hal Lindsey. They scream all the time about how the book of revelations predects that the end is near and so on, yet you never see it in mainstream news. Why? Because they are full of shit extremist nutbags and that's just not the kind of thing CNN reports on.
I see you have chosen to put your inaccurate statements in boldface type. Does that make you a boldfaced liar?
We are talking about renal failure, not cancer.
Uranium dust inhalation is not deadly because uranium is radioactive, it is deadly because it is a heavy metal
that's amusing, since YOU (js7a) put THIS in boldface:
the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs....
So you're saying that DU is dangerous because of radioactivity until someone calls "bullshit"?
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
The pod people are coming.
No, I boldfaced a truthful statement that has a heavy emotional impact, not an outright falsehood.
the orbiting nuclear zionist battlestation is controlling the us gubmint.
>>anyone who insists you base your opinion on only a fragment of the story is NOT someone you should be listening to.
You mean like those anti-war individuals who selectively ignore the quality of life under Saddam Hussein and sanctions in their evaluation of the effects on the Iraqi people?
To clarify a point that should have been obvious, I'm not saying that you base your opinion of the entire war on one part of the results, I'm saying that it's just as important to acknowledge that positive things did result from the war as acknowledging the negative ones. The question wasn't whether or not the war was the right thing to do, that question is far too complex and emotionally charged for a flippant post on a message board like this. I was talking about the recognition of positives regarding individuals and their actions.
Let me clarify further with an example: I don't like John Kerry and don't want him elected. While I don't like the fact that Kerry attacks Cheney for receiving deferments when Kerry himself received several during schooling and applied for additional ones, I can simultaneously acknowledge the positives of Kerry's service in Vietnam.
By acknowledging a positive I am not endorsing the person or the situation, I'm just building a more healthy and justifiable perception by attempting to see the positives as well as the negatives. In the same way one could look at Iraq and while still objecting to the war, acknowledging that significantly good things did result from it. Whether or not those good things outweight the bad things is a separate issue and not one that I asked.
Out here in the real world, dwindling oil supplies and projections of increasing gaps between production and demand are the only goddamn things on the news.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I read through a couple of them before deciding this website is as bogus as a micheal moore movie. There is nothing but conjecturing and misinterpretation of superficial evidence to determine our government is evil, the current administration is oppressive, we are all being lied to. This is the kind of story I would expect to see come from micheal not cmdrtaco.
Sorry, on your last point, you were saying that as "economic liberals", Europeans favour protectionist trade policies. You are correct that this is the case, but I must say that this as bizarre a use of the term "liberal" as any I have seen.
Actually you are semantically/historically correct: neoliberalism is what we are talking about, which is economically conservative (in American lingo). But neoliberalism is "economically liberal". Bit of a semantic jungle, there....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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
Bush Geopolitics, And The Control Of Oil
Saudi Arabia had a problem, a big problem. The
greatest threat to the House of Saud was the secular dictatorship to their north. Saddam Hussein had been provided with enough biological and chemical weapons technology, and battlefield intelligence, covertly by George W.H. Bush's CIA to counter any threat that Iran's population
(more than twice that of Iraq's) posed in
their war against the heretical fundamentalist Shi'ite regime. The Iran-Iraq war was a war by proxy between the USA and Shi'ite Iran, and encouraged by the Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.
The overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the resultant
overrunning of the US embassy there (and the taking of embassy staff hostage), and the training and support given to Hezbollah in Lebanon (resulting in the death of 241 US Marines there) required a strong and unequivocal response from the USA. But that war had been fought to a standstill, and Saddam Hussein was looking for compensation for his loses from the Wahhabist instigators in Saudi Arabia. Unanswered, he invaded Kuwait for his due, and with his military
poised on Saudi Arabia's border, demanded more.
Saudi Arabia invoked their defense treaty with the
USA, and it was the familiar George H.W. Bush that
came to their rescue. But Saddam Hussein was not
overthrown by USA or Coalition Forces in Gulf War I. Both the Kurdish and the Shi'ite post-war uprisings had been crushed. The UN sanctions did not provoke enough unrest in Iraq to overcome the brutal tactics of the Iraqi secret police. Saddam Hussein was dug into the Iraqi people like a tick on a hound. His secular regime, and his willingness to resort to military force, would forever threaten the House of Saud and their quest for Wahhabist hegemony in the Middle East. Something had to be done to compel the USA, the one remaining superpower, into over-throwing Saddam. The American Democratic Party,
controlled by Bill Clinton, had proven unwilling to oust this dictator by military force. The Saudis helped to bankroll a scion of the George H.W. Bush family in his rise to political power in the GOP.
George W. Bush's rise to the Presidency of the USA
was both close and contested. The lack of a politically decisive win did nothing to provide a mandate for the USA's military action the Saudi's demanded. The Bush oil people were in place, but the military action was stalled by politics. Fortunately, the Saudis already had contingency plans in place, in the form of their very own Wahhabist OSS, the al-Queda. The Bush/Cheney
administration initiated a new State Department policy to help facilitate the import of enough Saudi operatives, and the VISA Express Program
was born. The USA political bribes and the operational details chewed up a lot of cash,
which the Saudi Arabian embassy handled in their
usual way -- cold cash routed through Riggs Bank.
The horrific terrorist events of 9/11/2001 provided the political cover for the Bush administration to proceed with their plans for
the invasion of Iraq. The forth plane did not accomplish its mission, however, which was the destruction of Congress. Coercion of a reluctant Congress was handled by FBI blackmail (first
used extensively and successfully by Herbert Hoover to remain in power). Those politicians
not susceptible to blackmail were sent anthrax laced letters, courtesy of the same CIA operatives embedded in Fort Dettrick that provided technical assistance to Saddam Hussein a decade earlier. These elements of the NYC national press most
likely to cause problems for the Bush/Saudi agenda were also sent these deadly letters. The National Inquirer got special consideration, in retaliation for their ongoing investigation into Florida's 2000 election fraud debacle. The message was received, loud and clear. The FBI's failure to capture those involved has assured the continued malleability of the press. The remaining Saudi Arabian support network for the 9/11/2001 operation were rolled up, a
Now now. Yes, there are a few secondary authors on a few of the publications (ones which make less sweeing claims). Pane Doktore Durakovic is the lead author on all of them and the only author on most. Clearly the organization would not exist without him.
I do not disagree with their aims, I do not disagree that there is a problem with DU, I do disagree with the level of sloppyness mixed with an attempt to appear "scientific."
Are you saying that the European social democracies/Germany/France, etc have large budget deficits that America? If so, not by much....
Germany and France are running very substantial budget deficits, well beyond the limits set by the EU.
I would say that budgetarily, they are in BETTER shape than America.
Not so. And on matters other than budget deficits, they fare even worse.
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.
Which is why, just to pick an example out of the air, tens of thousands of elderly Americans die from lack of air conditioning when there's a brief heat wave, and such a thing could never happen in, for example, France.
Quality of life is a complex thing. I like the quality of life here in Australia, for example, even though our per capita GDP is less than that of the U.S.
But if you stop for a moment ducking economic issues with fuzzy terms like "quality of life":
GDP Per Capita
US: $37,800 (real growth rate: 3.1%)
Germany: $27,600 (real growth rate: -0.1%)
France: $27,500 (real growth rate: 0.1%)
And for comparison
UK: $27,700 (real growth rate: 2.1%)
Australia: $28,900 (real growth rate: 2.8%)
Moderate budgetary deficits aren't really an issue if your economy is growing. France's economy isn't. France:
The tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe (43.8% of GDP in 2003). The current economic slowdown and inflexible budget items have pushed the 2003 deficit to 4% of GDP, above the EU's 3% debt limit.
I'll just note in passing that Australia has good public education and health care, a higher per-capita GDP than these three major European economies, and economic growth close to that of the U.S. (And we didn't have a recession either.) And we're very much pro free trade, and very much not economic "neoliberals" (socialists).
Data from CIA World Fact Book, but you're free to cite your own sources.
Using solar powersats eliminates the storage and most of the distribution problems (did you know you can run jetliners on beamed power? true story), reduces the cost of power and also reduces the enviro footprint from obvious and opaque solar arrays to more flexible and translucent rectenna arrays.
Each piece of serious space infrastructure you build (ISS isn't anything like serious) makes it easier to build other systems. For example, powersat construction provides a market for a space elevator and drives down the materials costs for everything but the ribbon - and transport up via the elevator drops the cost of a powersat considerably. Building a Moon-mine would also lower the cost of both powersats and elevator from a materials and technology, and of course the mine would be cheaper to start with prefab parts coming up an elevator and cheaper to build with powersats having already proven a lot of the technology.
We just need someone to bite the bullet and spend 0.1 Iraq Wars or Desert Storms to produce one piece, and the other pieces will happen. At the moment, the USA faces a dichotomy between a "liberal weiner" and a "right-wing nut-job", neither of whom will seriously back any such project.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Has got to be the UN Oil-for-Food scam.
$110 billion worth of oil in. $15 billion worth of food and medicine sent to Iraq - according to the UN's own accounting. No external audits. No accountability. As much as $10 billion may have gone straight back to Saddam Hussein. No-one knows except the U.N. - and they're not talking.
Google for Claudia Rosett, just about the only journalist who has been following this story.
The "Top Censored" stuff would not be listed, as its well censored.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Leave to an election year for every discussion to digress into a Bush-vs-Kerry thread or a War on Terror critique.
To me, this post is yet another example of the depths of mediocrity to which Slashdot has sunk. Like all vigilant citizens we love to read up on stories of real censorship, and this topic is "Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004" and we get the little face with a black bar over it, so I clicked on the article expectantly.
But neither the original post nor the linked article ever say a word about censorship. Instead we get an assorted and random diatribe of 25 leftist topics. Where's even a discussion of any involvement of censorship? Where's even the attempt to describe how this is censorship? Sure, we all know that generally censorship refers to government prohibitions, but where's at least a lame insinuation about big evil media corporations spiking these stories? The article gives us nothing.
CmdrTaco might as well have posted this as a link to pictures of barenaked ladies, it would be about as relevant.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
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.
>>of course we had to go to war to end the sanctions!!!
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Slashdot isn't the best place for me to be debating public policy. It seems that the average poster here is either very young or has very specific interests, of which international issues don't seem to be included.
No, technically you're right, we definitely could have ended sanctions against Iraq. In fact, Russia, China, France, and Germany wanted to do just that for the last several years prior to the invasion, no doubt influenced by the fact that they had been conducted illegal business and had massive contracts to do much more business if only sanctions could be removed. But removing sanctions would mean: #1) Hussein could go back to producing WMD and everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that while we didn't find actual WMD we did find that he'd built new dual-use factories specifically for the creation of WMD, presumably once the heat was off. #2) No means of punishing regimes.
Now personally, I'm not a fan of sanctions. I think it's a means of doing dirty work from afar and conveniently forgetting about the problem. That's one of the reasons I did and still do support taking Hussein out once and for all. I don't think sanctions are particularly effective, and we know that they usually end up hurting the average citizen far, far more than the leader who committed the actionable crimes in the first place. But you have to recognize that just doing away with sanctions altogether is not an effective or acceptable solution. You have to propose an alternative, and in this case I think military intervention was a better solution. Obviously you have a different idea, but I haven't heard what your preferred solution was. If we shouldn't have invaded and should have ended sanctions, you would do what exactly? If I had to guess I'd put my money on "nothing."
>>mugged by the criminals that didn't exist under Saddam
Actually, chief, Saddam's men were the criminals back then. His men did the raping, robbing, and killing. But in a general sense, yes fascist states are the systems of government with the lowest rates of crime. Somehow I don't think that quite makes them a legitimate option.
>>for a lot of people it is just the standard "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
For a lot of people it is exchanging one set of difficulties for another, but I think most of us take our freedoms so much for granted that we can't even begin to conceive of how valuable they are. We read about "Give me liberty or give me death!" in books, but I don't think many of us have any conception of that mentality. Heck, look at the uprising in '91 that we cowardly and stupidly failed to support. They were willing to fight and give up their lives for a chance at freedom, and they probably would have succeeded back then and saved quite a bit of heartache if we had just given them some support.
>>your examples are terrible
I'm willing to consider that possibility, but you need to actually explain why my examples are terrible instead of just insisting that they are because you don't like them. That isn't a particularly convincing argument on your part, although I understand that I'm fighting an up-hill battle since conservative viewpoints don't receive a particularly warm reception among the young who fancy themselves tech-savvy.
The first stirrings of this I heard, were from a black democrat, forget his name, NY representative I believe. This is before the invasion, it was his ill-concieved "game of chicken" to shame Dubya into backing down, even if he described it differently.
So I won't deny that there are democrats in on this.
But I get the impression that both parties are paving the way for it. In some ways, I'm glad I just turned 30.
No, like a government official or governmental office or department or by law.
An editor makes and editorial change or an edit.
If I'm running a paper or a webpage and someone writes something the paper or whatnot doesn't agree with or violates a standard or is incorrect and it's changed, it's not censorship, it's editing or standards.
There is a difference.
Charlie.. is that you? :)
-Steve
How do we know these "under reported" stories aren't less than their cracked up to be? They appeal to the conspiracy theorist in all of us but how do we know if that is an accurate description of the situation?
Their claims are at odds with official Naval records, eye-witness accounts of those actually present and what they themselves have claimed in the past.
From the doctor who claims he treated John Kerry(even though medical records state otherwise) to Thurlow who received a Bronze Star undir fire for the exact same incident(and doesn't seem to be in any rush to return his 'fraudulent' medal) to the admiral who defended Kerry just 8 years ago, there hasn't been a single claim of SBL that's held up under scrutiny.
Six months before 9-11, an episode of the Lone Gunmen featured the following; "The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen (X-Files spin off) airs their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicts a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to crash a Boeing 727 into the WTC via remote control and blame it on foreign terrorists in the hopes of generating a bigger military budget."
A lot of the X-Files was channeled stuff through Carter's noodle, it is thought, and I tend to agree. A lot was also poop, but that's how it goes. .
Anyway, my other current fave was this neat little flash movie which looks into the Pentagon Crash, suggesting that it was a drone aircraft and not a passenger jet which hit the government complex.
-FL
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Wal-Mart...to many it is a pariah, a sadist, something to be scorned and looked down upon. For others, it quite simply the place where they buy everything because its cheap. Let's look at the article's points
Wal-Mart opposition overseas has been from unions (over low pay)
Wal-Mart has always been anti-union. There has only been one successful union organization I believe (butchers in one of the stores) and Wal-Mart turned around, fired them all, and started buying beef from a distributor. Wal-Mart doesn't apologize for it and most other grocery stores if they had their druthers would probably do the same. Wal-Mart just ensured that this didn't happen early on and it is not at point in its promience and power that no union can organize it.
Local regulators (over predatory pricing)
Wal-Mart basically puts the clamp on you when your a supplier because they are the toughest customer in the world. In fact, there are many businesses that will not deal with Wal-Mart because they do not want to go through the pain of readying themselves to meet Wal-Mart's demands and becoming beholden to what will become their largest customer if successful in a region trial. You do not have to choose to do so, but people see the number of SKUs you can sell to them and go for it. Wal-Mart, in turn, will demand 180 day payment, return of all unsold items, only pay for those items that have actually been sold to a customer, a set delivery time and quantity (if you miss either one of these your basically thrown out as a supplier, no chance ever again to redeem yourself), and a 5% reduction in cost to Wal-Mart each year. Wal-Mart in turn passes this back to the consumer. When someone would ask Sam Walton to do a coupon or a special offer, he would tell them take the amount we would spend on it and drop the price by that much. In the end its the difference between a consumer spending $120 - $130 versus spending $100 at Wal-Mart.
and small businesses that face financial ruin....In the U.K, Wal-Mart's takeover of Asda has had a devastating effect. Award-wining food journalist Joanna Blythman's new book called "Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets" published May 2004 outlines how: "I learned that UK supermarkets now jump to the tune of our second largest chain, Asda. Since 1999 when it was taken over by the biggest retailer in the world, the U.S. chain Wal-Mart, Asda's strategy of 'Every Day Low Pricing', has triggered a supermarket price war in which chains without buying muscle are disadvantaged...Every week in the UK, 50 specialist shops like butchers and bakers are closing and one farmer or farm worker commits suicide. We enter a race to the bottom where everyone loses, especially the consumer.
Wal-Mart never put any small Mom and Pop out-of-business, you and I did. Those butchers and bakers aren't closing because they have customers, they're closing because you and I and the rest of the people you know find the same staples of their lives at Wal-Mart for far cheaper.
Final thought, seven cents of every dollar spent in America is spent at Wal-Mart. Think about that for a moment, scary isn't it. However, when you goto Wal-Mart do you think about the fact your going to a store that makes more money then probably half the nations on the planet. No, you think about cheap prices. Sam Walton found it was more profitable to serve 95% of the population well then to only serve 5% and the in the process made just about every company in America and abroad that deals with Wal-Mart better in the process. While Wal-Mart does put the squeeze on its producers and ends up squeezing the inefficiences out of the supply chain below it because every year you and I will expect prices to fall on a product at Wal-Mart.
Some people have said *300*. Except, of course, it appears that at least three of those signatures are from vets who were contacted, asked to sign the affadavit, said they didn't want to be involved, but then had their signatures added anyway.
Many of the rest of them don't even know Kerry except by reputation.
Tweet, tweet.
If the uranium was ignited with an explosive, then a plethora of nitrogen compounds will result. Not just oxides.
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
yeah, not until december, I mean geez..
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Personally I determine accuracy by, yes, reading the stories. Since I'm sure you did this before posting, you must have noticed that they reference sources. First, they list the media stories through which the Project Censored committee heard about the stories. Then they list supporting info. For example: #24, Reinstating the Draft. They list Salon.com and buzzflash.com as being news sources. This would not be enough for me to lend credibility to the news item, but they are only places where their committee learned about the item. They substance comes in other, verifyable references. The body of the story, and the aftercomments, list several Primary sources. For example: Congressional motions (S 89 and HR 163) If you wish to you can look at congressional web sites and read the full text of those. They also list links to the web site of the Selective Service Agency. Look them up. This is how you can know if they are accurate.
/me grumbles
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
It's funny, even on this page it's totally ignored. Everyone's too busy with their ideological cockfighting. The truth vs. the media. Liberals vs. Conservatives. Dogs vs. Cats. Blah blah blah blah blah. Noise, all of it.
Your cares and plans- all rendered meaningless without renewable energy.
Did you know that selling cocaine is a form of free-market capitalism? And that some people, especially addicts, will buy that cocaine, ignoring all logic and reason and the things they really wanted out of life, until they are dead from it?
How is oil currently any different for our country?
Ahhh yes, when the citizens of France and Germany overwhelmingly supported giving the weapons inspectors the time they had actually asked for instead of jumping straight to war (81% in Germany), the corrupt goverment leaders were infact bribed by Saddam to ignore the overwhelming anti-war sentiment of their citizens, and instead not go to war.
Only in [the minds of conservative] America.
Anyone for using bunkerbusters on a tank or two?
I for one would like to see the aftereffects of DU or TA CIWS rounds raking the hull of a "combatant" ship. Not that it needs to be manned and personnel wounded or killed, but I'd like the see the HULL and what happens to it from various ranges (I can't recall reading any such stuff in Clancy's or others' novells, but mine will include such things, of course, as the result of desperation under fire...).
What would a pair of CIWS guns raking from stem and stern to amidships do to a DD-963 or DDG-51 or other navy's similar hulls if raked at the waterline? Would they sag, heave, and gasp like Clint Eastwoods bus (or the shack the police shot the hell out of) he and Bullock were holed up in?
I'm also curious as to what a bunker buster dropped onto a ship would look like. Not the sort of stuff ANY navy wants to feel except on decommissioned hulls, but we in the public don't get to see much of that, like we don't see the A-6 Intruder/S-3 Viking ("people-eaters") footage of half-chewed deck personnel...
Again, I'm not interested in seeing personnel hurt, I just want to visualize the effects of DU on 1/2 or 3/4 in steel. (Note: I realize anyone hard up to attack a gas turbine is better off holing the hell out of the uptakes and intakes, since that is not much different from holing a carburator or even ripping out a fuel injector, but...).
(Yep, I'm the kind of guy who mastered dropping wing tanks on my wing men and escort bombers in Falcon 2.0 and other sims, and I mastered strafing tents and foot soldiers, landing my Longbow Apache on tents, strafing the control tower, etc... Not the kind of stuff anyone really wants to DO, but probably don't mind IMAGINING...)
TAO(Tactical Action Officer)/David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
One source for his observation was what happened in the US during WW1 - the US was never directly attacked by Germany, yet declared war on Germany in 1917. To protect the war effort, the US Government had set up a group of 100,000 domestic spies whose job was to report any negative comments about the war - and many ended up in jail because of that. One of the stories that got quashed was about a flu going around in 1918 - until things got so out of hand that it couldn't be ignored anymore - since the flu was first reported by the uncensored Spanish press, it got the name "Spanish Flu" even though most evidence points to the source as being in the US.
One other thing about the US during WW1. Every public gathering had to have a few minutes turned over to one of George Creel's "Minutemen" who gave a quick talk extollin the war effort. Part of the process was spreading blatant lies about what the Germans were doing in Europe. In the 1920's, the extent of the lying became known to the American public, which became very opposed to any further military involvement in Europe (which lasted past Pearl Harbor, the US only declared war on Germany because FDR goaded Hitler into declaring war on the US first). Another consequence was that Goering and his Nazi cohorts committed the atrocities that the Germans were accused of in WW1.
Interestingly enough, one rarely hears much about the atrocities committed by the Japanese (e.g. Nanking).
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
and the journalist ripped the other guy to shreds
Ah, yes, this answers the question by providing an example of how the Swifties are lying. If the "journalist" ripped the guy to shreds then the Swift Boat Veterans must be lying.
he also exposed that the swift boat guy has had an agenda against Kerry for over 20 years (It's actually over 30 years)
So I suppose that George Bush has been secretly behind John O'Neill for over 30 years just so O'Neill could come out against Kerry now, right? Personally I might be upset at Kerry too if he had lied about me and then used his lies for his own personal gain over the last 30 years. Oh, and if you want to see someone "ripping the other guy to shreds," you might want to watch the John O'Neill vs. John Kerry debate of June 30, 1971.
Oh, and just so I can prove my point about providing specific examples, here are a couple from the Swift Boat Veterans:
1) John Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia - This is something that even John Kerry's campaign has been forced to acknowledge.
2) John Kerry lied about soldiers committing war crimes, himself included. Though it is true some small number of soldiers committed war crimes, it was not at all common to engage in these acts as Kerry describes it, nor was it fair to condemn the entire military based on the acts of a few. Also, this is an interesting point, either Kerry was truthful about committing war crimes and he, himself is a war criminal (far worse a criminal than those involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal I might add), or John Kerry is again lying. Which would you rather have, a pathological liar or a war criminal?
Lastly, for those who will whine and moan about why are we still talking about Vietnam, I'll tell you why. Because John Kerry can't stop talking about it! Kerry can't seem to complete a sentance without mentioning that he served in Vietnam. If Kerry wants us to look at his Vietnam record above his Senate record for the past 20 years then we're going to do it. And we won't back down.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
That is, every scrap launched by rockets from Earth. "Viable" means delivering power at better rates than solar does now.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Um.... 'Ride-alongs' with police officers on patrol is a very common thing in the US. Most cities allow it as part of the whole 'good pr' thing. Civilians get to see how a typical cop goes about his/her duties. It can be eye opening. Go ask your local PD about this if you're interested. Of course, if you look like a long-greasy haired moron with a pierced head and a big pot leaf shirt on, then no, you will not get to ride along. Well, maybe in the back of the car.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Note: I'm not an American. But I do follow both sides of this overblown, politically-motivated "controversy".
all I've seen is attacks on this group of veterans. I've hardly seen ANY attempt at all to discredit even a single claim of theirs.
Then I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post. And actually read, rather than filtering input according to your own biases. I'll start you off with a quote, from the LA Times: "These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least there is no good evidence that they are true."
So far almost every attack on the Swift Boat Veterans has been a personal, ad hominem attack on these veterans' character, not on their claims.
False. Here are the facts:
Thurlow and others in the same five-boat Swift flotilla as Kerry on the night in question (when Kerry recued Rassman) also came under fire. Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire. This is the same Thurlow who has claimed that there was no enemy fire that night. In other words, if what Thurlow says now is correct, he should have refused the Bronze Star citation, or returned it once he started making his claims. He has not done either.
Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia?
There's a difference between "lying" and "being mistaken." For example:
- After 9/11, President Bush claimed repeatedly that he had seen the second plane fly into the WTC live on television. This is obviously incorrect - he was sitting glassy-eyed in a classroom of children leafing through "My Pet Goat" at the time.
- At the RNC convention, Govenor Schwarzenegger claimed that growing up in Austria he had seen Soviet tanks parked in the streets. This is patently flase - the Soviets had retreated from Austria years before he was born.
In other words, people often confuse their own histories. Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia. Was it neccessasarily in Christmas? No - and that;s probably where Kerry's recollection is getting mixed up. That doesn't mean that Kerry is lying, any more than Bush or the Govenator are. Memory of emotional situations is simply extremely poor.
Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry...
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war". Few of the SBVT's "served" with Kerry (i.e. on the same boat, or the same unit). And they're saying what they're claiming because of Kerry's Congressional testimony, which they felt "slandered" vets. They feel that Kerry lied over that, but can't contradict it (that whole messy My Lai incident, amoung others, kinda gets in the way) - so they feel justified in lying about his record.
Really? Like the officer who had his name added to the SBVT's claims without being asked? Or the officers who claimed, up to two years ago, that Kerry was a fine and outstanding officer? Or the officers who have since recanted adding thier names to the SBVT's list?
When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
You've had answers. Every single piece of Naval documentation, every crewmember on Kerry's boat (with the exception of that one gunner - who has changed his story several times) and several naval personell who were never part of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" or the SBVT's but who have now voluntarily come forward, have reinforced and confirmed Kerry's record.
Really? Almost everything I've heard has been about how the Swift Boat Veteran's claims contradict the official records & the few eye witnesses who are still living.
I suppose you could consider it an attack on their character when people talk about how these veterans insist that _they_ are right, and the records & the eye-witnesses are wrong (or lying), even though many of these guys weren't directly involved in the incidents they are criticising. And when people point out that many of the same people made similar criticisms about McCain (with about as much credibility).
If these guys were talking about they had heard that the fish that some competitor caught wasn't really all that big (even though the fish had been weighed & recorded by the official fishing organization), then most of the audience would probably call them liars - especially if they were caught being paid lots of money by another fisherman after saying such things, and if they had also said such things about another competitor at the _last_ fishing competition. Since this is politics though, anybody supporting Kerry calls them liars, and anyone supporting Bush says anybody contradicting them is lying.
Since the CIWS uses the M61 gun system, I don't believe there are any rounds available for it that use DU. The API rounds I'm aware of that are available for the gun system (and which I believe are not used in the CIWS) have steel bodies and use powdered aluminum for incendiary effects.
I question your use of the S-3. My understanding is that the S-3 operates solely in the anti-ship/anti-sub role utilizing torpedoes or Harpoons, not as a bomber. I could be wrong on this point, but I don't recall seeing a Viking ever loaded up with anything other than such powered, guided weapons.
As for the impact holes, you won't see much. DU penetration points tend to be small, not much larger than the penetrator, owing to the very nature of what makes them useful. It's what they do once inside that's important (like spontaneously igniting and flying around the inside of the target, igniting ammo and fuel).
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The TV problem has more to do with what looks good on TV. Which is why we have actors in politics.
If military service is a primary measure of whether or not a candidate has the 'right stuff' to be President, then Bush also fails - miserably.
All you've done is prove that by your own standards BOTH candidates are unfit for office.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
#19: Global Food Cartel Fast Becoming hte World's Supermarket
one reason for censorship, is if credibility is highly suspect for something that could cause mass panic or affect serious political process unduely.
how credibly can a source be that mispells "the" on their web page?
maybe if they spelled it "teh" i could understand.
-judging another only defines yourself
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
Wal-Mart never put any small Mom and Pop out-of-business, you and I did.
Maybe you did.
I didn't.
I don't shop there. Won't.
Just a drop against the tide, I know, but I keep hoping enough drops will get together and we can turn it back.
Maybe it's because I think long-term.
Maybe it's because I've seen what a Wal-mart can do to a small town. It moves in, gives the teen-agers and otherwise less employable jobs at cut-rate wages. Seems good so far.
It then uses it's huge economies of scale to undercut everything around, again, seems good for the consumer, right?
The problem is, it doesn't actually give a rats ass for the people around it and gives as little as legally possible back to the community. "Fair and sustainable" are not words in the Wal-Mart corporate prospectus.
Smaller shops, unable to compete, close up. Sooner or later the only employer in the area is Wal-Mart. When that happens then that particular store's profit goes down (because everybody's getting the crap wages so can't afford to buy anything) at which point the Wal-Mart closes up and lets the rest of the town just blow away.
The store is a parasite. It lives off the work of those who came before it until they can't afford to stick around.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
DU != nuclear bomb material. So in no way does 800 tons of DU equal any amount of nagasaki bombs (which were very small in the way of nukes anyway-but maybe not if you were *in* nagasaki at the time).
I am not saying though that DU isnt bad for you (especially if its moving at high velocity). 800 tons is a *a lot* of heavy metal to be exposed to, but i have to wonder if they had just dropped 800 tons of lead would that be ok? or is the use of 'unleaded' bombs in fact better.
And given that DU is so much more effective than a lump-of-lead(tm), how much more lead/tungsten etc not to mention all the propellents/fuel/explosives/men (all of which are highly toxic) needed to deliver them, would need to be used to be achieve the same results...
i can see the headlines now: Ban on DU causes Gov't to conscript men because of inneffecient weapons.
hey how about "World war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones... due to government restrictions."
Yes war is bad. Being hit by a high speed piece of metal will kill you weather it is DU or 24K gold. And remember that Googling is not research
do not click!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Because of Slashholes. They can't bear to see that others are right.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
This to my understanding has nothing to do with radiation, but the dust left behind after impact with a target.
e mic_.html
6 685c.html
... I'm just pointing out what I've read before.
Depleted Uranium is a heavy metal and the human body does not react to well when exposed to heavy metals.
Lead exposure, especially to lead dust, can cause various forms of health conditions. Here's an EPA example of lead used in older paints:
http://www.epa.gov/lead/leadinfo.htm
Now, here's an article which seems to discuss the DU dust that I've read about in the past.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cancer_epid
and another:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-15
How true any of these articles are, I don't know
Plus, Master of Transhuman pointed out another interesting fact in case his post gets missed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Indeed, If I rememember correctly this bribe issue originates to US govt's ex-bedfellow Ahmed Chalabi who splurted it out at one point during runup for a war.
It's not factual and has been discredited but it always comes up when some fool is defending the war on public forums. I bet Fox news and CNN made huge headlines out of it.
If you must know, the claims of the "swift boat veterans for pulling stuff out of their asses" claims have been challenged. And guess what? They're about as accurate as bush's grammar. Check out Spinsanity.org and read a little. You'll see the ties between the Republican party and the "Swift" veterans are more than coincidental. Legal aid, financial aid, you name it. As for their claims, most of them were in Vietnam at the same time, not on the same boat.
Anyway, it's all moot, as while Kerry was getting shot at, Bush was in the US doing cocaine, boasting of his drinking and pissing on cars and abusing police officers. Of course, I wait for your response outlining how those are actions befitting the future President of the USA.
Kerry actually went to Vietnam. Bush chickened out, and behaved like a complete ass. Now, Republicans are trying to diminish his achievements (and the achievements of every individual who's ever earned a purple heart - not very Military-Friendly, is it?). Even McCain said the tactic was ridiculously underhanded. It's funny, seeing as Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al haven't served a day in combat, yet they'll quickly pour all their collective efforts into trying to refute or somehow diminish Kerry's record. It's pathetic.
Here's an idea - why doesn't the Bush campaign focus on actual issues? The War on Terror? Oh, wait - it's fucked. America is more at danger now than on 9/10, has many fewer friends, and lots more enemies. How about the economy? Shit. That nice pre-Bush surplus turned into a massive, humongous defecit, which us and our kids (and most likely their kids) will be bailing out for years to come. Jobs? Nope. Millions upon millions of jobs have been lost under Bush.
This is what it boils down to - Bush has screwed up the US, and a good part of the world, and the only way he can get public support is to attack Kerry's war record, as it's an emotive subject and (even though completely devoid of politics) is something Bush can use to leverage support from military-friendly Americans. If you think that's how a political party should act, you really should read a book or two.
If you get modded down, it's more due to you spouting bullshit than having a controversial view ;)
You know, where a word gets re-defined to mean something 'more general' than it used to...
... "The Media Can Legally Lie". No better example of the virtues of "newspeak" could be found ...
To the Average Joe Sixpack, 'censored' just means that someone didn't want you to know something, and thus you don't know about it. That can happen in a number of ways, both overtly and covertly... 'under-reporting' in the media, etc.
Check out Story #11
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
versus every other man in his unit
Every man on his boat *except one* backs up his story. And then there's the fact that naval records back up Kerry's verison of events 100%. And then there's the fact that you need someone else to recommend you for a medal, so you're calling more vets than just Kerry a liar.
but all men who absolutely despise Kerry for the way he behaved in Viet Nam
More bullshit. Aside from the medals, the personal testimonials of those who actually served with Kerry, there's his stellar performance reviews. And the fact that the SBVT guys keep changing their stories and fuding the facts, like one of them claiming that he hadn't been active in politics for 30 years but had received thousands of dollars from Republicans to "assist" him attack Kerry.
Go back under your bridge, troll.
Which begs the question: how come Slashdot is never Slashdotted? Hm....
/.'ed itself many, many, many times over.
/. servers are tech-savvy enough to know how to handle a /.'ing by now, believe me ... the /. server setup is designed to survive.
/.'ing of another server starts with a hit to ... yes, you might guess: the slashdot.org server itself. Thats why its called a slashdot'ing ...)
Your use of 'never' reveals your naivete. Slashdot has
The reason you are unable to perceive this is probably because you haven't been around long and don't know much about these things. The guys that run the
(Here's a hint for you, in case you feel compelled to argue: Every single
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The whole point is that the media (in the US) is neither publicly owned nor publicly accountable. It literally has no obligation to tell the truth. Lying is not illegal, and neither is ommiting, or downplaying the truth.
You asked how these stories could be "censored" by the government. You are asking the wrong question. The real question is "how can these stories be censored by corporations?"
Any TV or radio network in the US is owned, at least in part, by one of 5 large media corporations.
The stories just lack so much credibility that even the left-leaning media sources didn't give them much airtime
Oh dear! not very clever are you? Read closer, look for the sources. Please try to understand.
Hope this helps
When do we start?
Clear, Dark Skies
I notice you don't address the fact that the Kerry campaign has been forced to remove items from their "service record" and that Kerry has been forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about being in Cambodia
Also, I notice that you don't mention that the Navy has opened an investigation into the way Kerry's Bronze Star was reissued 3 times with 3 different citations and that he claimed his Silver Star had a "combat V" when such thing does not exist.
That pretty much nails down who was telling the truth and who the Navy records agree with, doesn't it?
Clear, Dark Skies
What do you mean by this:
i beralism==Liberalism
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags. BuzzFlash, for example, is hyperliberal, and the editorials are often kind of tin-foil hat (emphasis mine)
You really must be trolling. When did left-wing politics and/or liberalism became symbol of bad journalism?
Are you implying that there can't be right-wing bad journalism?
Think about this next time you post crap like that:
Repeat after me:
Left-wing==Left-wing
Right-wing==Right-wing
L
Good journalism==Good journalism
Bad journalism==Bad journalism
Bad journalism!=liberalism
Is that so hard?
You are just trying to mix apples and iron.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
The point of the page is to show articles that were kept from public attention. If you want a site that bitches endlessly about censorship then there are plenty of places on the web for this. If you want conspiracy theories then just type something into google.
A lot of people here seem pretty disturbed and distraught over the fact that a site listing censored articles doesn't also do things that have nothing to do with listing censored articles.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Gyahaha. It's just like when the hippies all knew how often the government lied, and the other morons were like "No! Government never lies! Government feeds the needy and heals the injured! Government turned our water into wine!" Then the Watergate Scandal went up and they were like "OMG OMG nobody in the world saw it coming!!" and all the non-conformists just gave a big collective sigh. It'd be nice if that was it and these people had finally gotten it through their heads, but then the conformists were all like "It was isolated! Government will never do anything like that again!" But by that time they were too busy attending funerals of kids who were drafted and killed in Vietnam.
But now this is much different. Billions of dollars are being sent to Selective Services, their policies are becoming less discriminate (girls will probably be drafted given the opportunity; gotta give women equal rights, after all), the government has already proven that it can do whatever it wants and wouldn't hesitate much to drop you in the middle of a battlefield. The very fact that you're threatened with six months in jail to sign a paper wherein you volunteer to die for the government should have been the most obvious clue in the world. But I'm afraid there are some people who could be shot with an AK-47 by the President himself and still think the government is there to make you happy.
Why do these people still exist? It seems like natural selection should have taken care of them after they looked down the barrel of their shotguns to find the M&M that fell in.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
i agree with the other comments you made, but Schwarzenegger's claim is pretty believable.
Two facts: Schwarzenegger was born in 1947.
The last Soviets left Austria in 1955 - a fact that is celebrated every year in Austria, on the National celebration day. Arnold was 8 years old at the time.
These are irrefutable facts - Google for them yourself.
It's been debated in Austria as to whether he could have seen tanks because there were no tanks in his home province of Styria. He said he was driving in his uncle's VW bug to vienna and saw them there.
You may believe that last one or not, but what's for sure is that during his childhood - and the childhood of my parents, as well - fear of the Soviet union was wide-spread. Austria narrowly avoided becoming part of the east block...
Point taken - except I have trouble understanding how it's self-destructive.
Clear, Dark Skies
Well if you want to get more specific, Journalists tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Time makes more converts than reason
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I went to Sonoma State in the mid-eighties.
The project was originated by Dr. Carl Jensen. Dr. Jensen says he used to do sensationalist journalism, but has since reformed. I say, "project censored" is evidence that Dr. Jensen hasn't reformed a bit.
Dr. Jensen is fond of saying that censorship is suppression of information for *any* reason. So if I don't tell you my bathroom patterns, I'm censoring that information.
What the project usually labels as "censorship" is news stories that are elected as "under reported." So why isn't it called: "Project Under Reported News Stories." Does that titel not have enough of a sensationalist ring?
>>FOX suppressed the story (presumably on behalf of Monsanto) using various different sleazy tactics.
How can one news agency suppress such a major story? There are other news agencies, are there not?
The people that put the garbage about Bush censoring science should be shot. That accusation was made by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" which is NOT a scientific organization. It is an extremely left-wing POLITICAL organization. If you don't believe me, go check out their website. They admit it.
These guys have been debunked so many times for their outright lies the media should know better than to give them any credibility.
... more than half the stories have almost NO BASIS IN FACT!? The remainder are embarrassing to the current establishment and/or have no reasonable level of information or "light" to merit theri inclusion in major papers / media outlets.
R
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; The population is growing.
The FDA did a small test on les than 100 rats and found "no-problems" and okayed the drug. That is, the FDA didn't do its job.
Cancer wasn't found in 1 rat, I'm not sure of the scientific details myself... but this page has some info. Here's another arcticle
Here's a quote from an expert:
My concern is that increases in such minute levels could readily enter the blood stream of individuals drinking milk from BST treated cows. As an individual ages, indolent tumor cells do appear in various organs (breast, ovary, prostate, etc..) which grow slowly with the result that clinical cancer is not manifested until old age, or, in many cases, after the individual would have died of other causes. Stimulation of these cells by elevated levels of IGF-1 would result in clinical cancer in a decade or two or even less. Furthermore, these levels of IGF-1 could stimulate the progression and aggressiveness of childhood leukemias to a point that chemotherapy could not be effective, much less curative.
The researcher went on to say that the FDA/Monsanto research was extremely slopping, or even fraudulent.
Monsanto has tried to push this drug on Canada, and I saw an interview with a guy from the Canadian equivalent of the FDA, and he said that he was pressured to okay the drug. Talk about integration with the government. Now, Canada, and most of the rest of the developed world refuse to touch rBGH, the main concern being IGF-1.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Download the 3-part documentary "The Corporation", it has a lot of info about Monsanto, the FDA and FOX. You can here 1st hand from the people whose voice was squashed, and it will make perfect sense how such a big story was squashed.
Also, check out this webpage.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Censoring is not inherently bad.
This is tricky, though.
I know a lot of people of all kinds of different political persuasion that self-censor the material and sources to which they expose themselves.
We live in a complicated world and not one full of people who unchangingly always wear the same white and black hats.
But people don't like the stress of considering good guys that act bad, or bad guys that act good.
So they deliberately avoid seeing the whole truth so they can comfortably fall back into a pre-built world view.
And these people constitute the majority of the democratic electorate that helps elect my government.
A government, I might add, that refects those same values of not listening to all sides or considering that your enemy might have a point.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post.
Ah, yes. Salon is a great source of unbiased news. The others aren't nearly as biased as Salon, but they aren't exactly fair and impartial either. Incidentally, I've read most of the articles in the Washington Post and New York Times and their "debunking" of the Swift Boat Veterans claims isn't exactly convincing.
Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire.
Why don't you go to the source on this one and check out Thurlow's response. In all likelihood the language from his citation came directly from John Kerry's after action report since Kerry seems to be the only one that filed a report describing the incident.
Also, Kerry's citation claims that they were under constant small arms and automatic weapons fire for 5000 meters while they fled the scene. I'm sorry, but if that were true they would probably all be dead. Also, how did they rescue and repair the damaged PCF-3 boat if they were under constant fire?
-- Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Um, no he hasn't. Look for "Standard Form 180" and "FOIA"; the Washington Post only received six of about 100 pages. And "review papers" seem to be pretty important if we're trying to figure out if this guy deserves to be President.
Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia.
It was actually John O'Neill, not Thurlow, that was recorded speaking to Nixon. Also, O'Neill, unlike Kerry, does a pretty good job of clarifying the recording. Keep in mind that we don't get to hear the entire conversation from the recording.
Also, the statements you provided are both 1) nothing like what Kerry has said about Cambodia, and 2) don't address Kerry's lies about Cambodia. This isn't just a small, little claim. This is something that Kerry says was "seared -- seared -- in [him]." He has repeated this story many times for over 15 years at least, and now that it has been proven to be a total fabrication, he has been forced to change it.
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war".
No, I mean served WITH him. Like on his boat, next to his boat during combat, and as his commanding officers. While not all of the Swift Boat Veterans served as closely with Kerry, I'm addressing and talking about those that did. These guys (the vocal ones of the SBVT) were eye witnesses to Kerry and their accounts should be heard.
Kerry's campaign has been forced to backtrack on his fraudulent Christmas in Cambodia story and they have now been forced to backtrack on his first Purple Heart, admitting that his wound may have been self-inflicted. From what I've seen the Swift Boat Vets have been solid in their claims and have forced Kerry to backtrack. This goes to show that there is at least some tr
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I honestly am opposed to the SBVT adds and there actions. But on the other hand I find very little value in the majority of medals that are awarded in the military and the paper work that is made to support the award. I can't speak for the process that existed then but I know that a great deal of it is utter BS today. A man I worked with earned an award for fixing a massive database problem. What wasn't mentioned at all was that he made a truelly idiotic mistake to that created the problem in the first place. In a similiar vain my father earned a medal, I think a bronze star, in Vietnam when all he had done was fixed the AC for a commanding officers tent. He tries to through it out every couple of years and my mother digs it outa the trash and hides it again.
Bwahahaha!
Funny how Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and their media-ignored campaign didn't make the list. They had to buy a national TV ad to even make the papers, but the book's author has been after Kerry for 20 years, since Kerry first ran for the senate in fact. He might be full of shit, or not, but the media were dead set on us not knowing about it at all.
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php
Funny how the uproar over The Sceptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg being censured by the Danish government and later de-censured didn't make the list. Didn't make the major media either, just like his book didn't. He's still buried.
Funny how they didn't mention the amazing under-reporting on the holes in Farenheit 9/11 and Moore's other "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.
Could it be... self censorship?
Or could they be a George Sorros funded partisan propaganda mill? Hmmmn?
Or possibly they are just a bunch of non-affiliated Bush hating squeebs busy making shit up. That'd be my vote.
You wanna see some REAL media hijinks, check out MRC. http://www.mrc.org/ It'll curl yer hair.
Two thoughts:
1) being critical of a right-wing office holder is "leftist" in the same sense that being critical of a black man is "whitist". That is, "if you choose to see it that way" but not necessarily "that way" in the intent of the speaker or in fact.
It is a mistake to view "the current office holder" as the "center" of a continum. So you have "7 of the stories criticize activities by the US government, linking republicans to the activity" as if that linkage is somehow biased. With a republican controlled White House and a repbulican controlled Senate, it is not unreasonable to link most policy-level activities of the US government today to the republican party.
The fact is that Bush *is* as *self-admitted* idalogue (OK, he doesn't wear it on a t-shirt to the best of my knowledge, but he *has* made the position quite clear) who is, as each of his predecessors have for a very long time, stacking "compatable" judicial apointees. It is the way the game is played. It is just going a bit far with the strong-arming (IMHO).
Which leads us to the second point:
2) It is impossible to report an "unbiased story" if the facts themselves are biased.
It is the *JOB* of a reporter, and the media on general, to ask questions. That's how they make their money 8-). When you question a conservative you apear liberal, when you question a liberal you apear conservative, or at least incompatablly liberal 8-). See, it is the nature of the beast. When you ask the question "are you doing enough" or "have you done too much" you *apear* "liberal" because you are almost always asking the former about the interests of people or things that cannot affect the policy themselves, and the latter about those who can.
That is, "have you done too litte for the poor?" and "have you done too much for the rich?" are "interesting" (e.g. paying) stories. The obverse stories "have you done too little for the rich?" and "have you done too much for the poor?" won't sell; or when they do, they "naturally" play out as "attacks."
For instance, no media person ever would ask "are you doing enough to help the wealthy?", and if they *did* that question would apear to be a liberal attack because the "nope, they need more help, they are suffering" line would, even if it were true, would *sound* *sarcastic* even if it were written with a straight face.
The human monkey is wired up to hear laments for the plight of the empowered as wit. That is, it doesn't ring true. Same as the "let them eat cake" we do too much for the downtroden.
So the question "are you doing enough to X the Y?" *MUST* be "provide for, poor" "protect, environment" etc. It's the very nature of asking the question. We, the consumers of infotainment, would not have it any other way.
The "exceptional class" of questions are "punish crime" and "defeat (terrorists|comunists|whatever)". In these cases, since that is a "presumed mission" of the establishment, the answer is always "we could do more with more money/manpower but we are doing our best." And that just isn't news. Cops need more money to run department! As a headline it would inspire a chorus of "no duh" in every single reader.
At some point however, "the conservatives" have invented this mythical "liberal media bias" and then fallen for their own spin hook, line, and sinker.
It just isn't an news story to back conservativism. This is *EXACTLY* the same failing of "good news" (human intrest) reporting. The public doesn't want to hear it because it isn't interesting. "Crime down 3%!" Woohoo, but then the story is over. The "how'd you do it Chief Wiggum?" story won't hold two inches of interest on page 10. There is no dirt being dug. So it is a slow news day or no print at all kind of thing.
The entertainment value of reporting is "naturally liberal" because, for whatever reason, the spinsters have created a public mental equivalance between "the hard, insteresting questions that make policy makers uncomfortable
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Can you prove me wrong
Sure I can prove you wrong, but you should search the net as well. The top 5 media corps in the US came to the defence of FOX when the whistle blowers had collected enough evidence to go to court. I guess a favourable decision would enable all of them to lie with impunity, so it was in their best interest.
The story has been covered by many small media outlets, but unfortunately they get branded as "liberal crap", so people don't listen. Not all small media outlets are liberal crap, but there are enough for the effect to work. I guess you could characterise it as a type of social engineering, but I think it's just a bunch of smart marketers and image makers manipulating widely held social opinions... that's how they have gotten away with it for so long!
Have a good look around www.foxbghsuit.com, and you will a lot of information on the conspiracy, including how supermarkets have sidelined the problem, regulators have sided with Monsanto, and the consumer/public interest is not even considered. For example, a university study found that 80% of people were concerned as to unknown long-term health problems of using growth hormones in milk. Monsanto's response was to make it illegal for farmers/super-markets to label milk products as containing rBGH.
Monsanto offered 2 million to Canada Health to rubber stamp the product (rBGH) without further testing. The people in the room characterized the act as a bribe, however, Monsanto went on the record that it was for research. Makes you wonder exactly why the FDA only tested 100 or so rats, and only in a limited way... perhaps a research grant was invovled.
So the FDA doesn't want this talked about because it would be very embarrassing to have an inquiry into why they aren't doing their job. Monsanto is making $$$ of this product, which is really a mass trial of genetic engineering on the US public. (rBGH is a genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone)
Health concern over IGF-1 aside (that's the particular compound (hormone I think) which is know to be carcinogenic), Monsanto has fought to make sure that consumers don't know if the milk they buy contains this genetically engineered compound. Consumer may want to know what they are... consuming... but instead of regulators forcing producers to label milk as containing a genetically engineered hormone the exact opposite happened. It is illegal for producers to say that their product doesn't contain rBGH. Two farms were served law suits because of this, and warning letters were sent to other farms. I guess the farmers (serfs) saw the writing on the wall and backed down. Why did regulators allow/do this? You have to ask them yourself, but that's what happened. If we are known by are actions (and I believe we are), then the regulators do not have the consumers interests ahead of Monsantos.
Now most US farmers are using rBGH, to stay competitive. Various retailers (remember that a few corps own all the retailers, and central office sets the policies) have rBGH policies, but they are carefully worded so as to be ambiguous. The reality is that milk from producers is usually mixed, so that pretty much all milk contains rBGH.
So the retailers don't want it talked about.
Now the press is responsible for informing the public right?? Well the scary part is that there are 6 (I think) major US media crops that pretty much control most of it... they all sided with FOX in suppressing this story. The reasons why they'd do this is sketchy, but the proof is there. None of them picked up the story, and they all came to the aid of FOX in the court case _and_ the appeal. Legally, by precedent, they can lie, and have limited the whistle blowers act, which is good for business. Maybe Monsanto paid them off, or maybe the major corps have a 'club'... who knows. We can only guess at that particular motive. But the facts are there for those who care to find them... and the implications are... that major co
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
--My big issue, though, was the fact that there was no passenger jet wreckage outside the Pentagon!
I was convinced of the official story as well in the beginning; I even argued in its defense; I said, "Look at the pictures! You can see where the wings struck the building; there are impact marks on the concrete walls where the wings and engines hit!"
But, interestingly, while I thought my observation was air-tight, I somehow managed to ignore the fact that if there were impact marks instead of holes, it would suggest that there should also be a pair of destroyed wings and jet engines which made those impact marks, and that they would be on the outside of the building.
There weren't. There was nothing on the outside of the building. Zip. Just blast marks, and one hole which was not big enough to fit the fuselage of a Boeing passenger jet.
There are actually a great many problems with the official Pentagon story. --And frankly, given the track record of governments, (this one in particular), I think it is far more realistic to assume that there was some deviousness going on than not. The fact that the numerous cameras, (also detailed in that little video), which photographed the event, had their film and data collected by FBI shortly after the crash and have not been released or ever discussed strikes me as suspicious.
-FL
Maybe you can point out some of this "debunking" that you refer to? I'm sure it's very credible.
[javac] 100 errors
If the news is available from sources people aren't reading, listening to, or watching, then it isn't being censored. If most people (not just the American pople, but people everywhere) choose to be entertained than spend hours gathering news from alternative site, that isn't at all comparable to censorship. It is an expression of popular choice,
TV station owners want to make money. They aren't engaged in some conspiracy to dumd down the American population. If ratings for for hours and hours of detailed news productions were higher than, says, "Survivor", they'd drop Survivor in a heartbeat.
Finally, every society, throughout history, has always had a "very small percentage of the American population has more wealth than a very large percentage of Americans combined". That's the essence of being rich: Having more money than most other people. There's nothing, in itself, wrong about that. And there's nothing wrong about TV not harping on it. We all know it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As long as you got Rutan or his ilk to fly the bits up there and assemble them instead of one of the traditional agencies. Anything you get rolling is going to help the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place. And once you build one, other people will start saying "why can't we..." and the gold-rush will be on for young and old.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
has been forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about being in Cambodia
"Lied" my ass. Given the rivers that they were on, you couldn't tell if you were in Vietnam or in Cambodia, so he could easily have thought he was there when in fact he was still in Vietnam. And given the fact he did do missions in Cambodia, under fire, and apparantly did do missions on Christmas, he could have gotten confused there as well. If you've ever read or watched anything about police investigations, you'll probably remember that eyewitness memory is one of the least reliable tools you can use, especially as time goes by. So why the fuck are the accusations of some of the members of SBVFT sooo much more reliable 30 years after the fact, when 30 years ago they were praising Kerry? Maybe a little GOP money perhaps?
Also, I notice that you don't mention that the Navy has opened an investigation
So they have, because somebody screwed up. But it's proven that there were some shenanigans involved on Kerry's behalf, and not some clerical error, the point is irrelevant.
a "combat V" when such thing does not exist.
Of course they exist. They just aren't awarded with stars because it would be redunant to add an award for valor to one for courage. Do you have the barest clue of what you are talking about?
That pretty much nails down who was telling the truth and who the Navy records agree with, doesn't it?
With the exception of the (irrelevant) question of wether Kerry was in Cambodia on December 21st or December 24th, yes they do. When he was under fire, when and how he was wounded, doctor's reports, performance reviews...yes they back up Kerry and not SBVFT. Bitch.
Let me see.
1. If you can't tell if you're in Vietnam or Cambodia how does that lead to claiming that your memory is "seared" with the knowledge that you were illegally in Cambodia?
2. Every single one of Kerry's officers have denied that Kerry was *ever* in Cambodia. If you have some sort of proof that his was, you should bring it out.
3. Which SBVFT guys were cheering Kerry 30 years ago? John O'Neill has been attacking Kerry for thing he said about Viet Nam since the Dick Cavett show in 1971.
4. You are in denial over that Silver Star and the combat V. Silver Stars are *not* issued with "combat V's". Period. Ever. Not Once. So why is the Kerry campaign claiming that Kerry has one?
5. The Kerry campaign has publicly retracted the "Christmas in Cambodia" story and was also force, by Navy records, to stop claiming that he was commanding his Swift Boat on days when, in fact, someone else was.
Wake the hell up.
Clear, Dark Skies
For many people, "The News" is simply a reality show that has little value other than entertainment. There a are probably quite a few people who don't understand the editorial biases of their favorite news sources. But, it probably doesn't matter since these are the sort of people who mostly listen to people they already agree with. So Fox and its ilk are more likely to provide debate ammunition to people who already know what they want to think rather than fuel for serious discussion between open minded people.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Wow I'm amazed the parent can be modded interesting but in a way it is. Not because of its content but because people actually believe stuff like this, just like they believe Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, or for that matter Rush Limbaug (he and Michael Moore are two of a kind imo).
Whether or not the parent author actually believes any of it or is just trolling is beyond me. If he believes it (and wants others to take him seriously) here's a few suggestions: ;)
1. Caps Lock off, shouting doesn't enforce anything you say, quite the opposite.
2. Don't assume your internal interpretations and jumps in "logic/rationality" are available for all to see - it's a common mistake if you've spent too much time thinking about something but you need to spell it out; each and every step of reasoning (that seem logical, at least to you) - and especially when your opinion differs a lot from regular ones. Otherwise most people will just see it as a lot of "noise".
3. Your links aren't exactly self-explanatory.
4. Try to avoid blatant namecalling.
5. Try to avoid calling just about everyone but yourself stupid as it makes just about everyone else think you're stupid - unless they really are stupid of course; if so they'll agree with you unconditionally
6. "cranio-rectal inversion" is a nice colorful expression but if you want to seem like you have an objective truth and aren't just propagandizing then it's a good idea to aim for more neutral language.
I seriously don't mind if you disregard these suggestions, but don't think you'll have any real impact if you do (some say shit floats but over time it always sinks to the bottom) :)
If you actually believe anything you wrote you probably don't like me/this reply much so here's some stuff about me to put your mind at rest and disregard me as just another "penny ante cranio-rectal inversed facist": I'm pro-republican, pro-neocon, pro-American, not a US or EU citizen, pro equal rights for all i.e. pro-individualist, support the current wars the US is involved in (and just about any they've been in ever), anti-socialist/communist/facist, pro-solidarity, pro-democracy & just about any form of freedom as long as it doesn't hurt others (including stupidity, I'm fairly liberalistic that way lol) & pro-OSS (of course) ... I'm convinced this should be more than enough for you to disregard me :)
Oh and on the topic of censorship:
1. Who needs it? Let people say what they want, the ludicrous ones are best controlled by giving them ample opportunity to voice themselves.
2. If real censorship existed you yourself would be hunted down, jailed or killed (amazing how many have no clue how it was to live in Soviet Russia/Warsawa Pact countries, or how it is to have independent thoughts today in countries like China or North Korea).
And for all concerned about DU (depleted uranium) and the hype about how awful it is (it is not at all strange to me that said hype constantly reeemerges from the same kind of groups time and time again) these webpages and documents from the World Health Organisation of the United Nations should kill your hysteria:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/ehttp://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/ (links to more WHO DU documents inlcuding the following link)
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en
For the lazy the WHO/UN conclusion is that DU isn't that much of an issue, but I expect to see the DU fearmongering (DU FUD) to continue unabated...
If you find yourself realizing you're wearing a tinfoil hat just take it offthis comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]