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."
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
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
"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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The SF Bay Guardian runs this list every year, and it's consistently left leaning. However, there are always a few stories on the list that are centrist, irrefutable and frightening. Like these two from the current list:
4) High uranium levels found in troops and civilians
10) New nuke plants: taxpayers support, industry profits
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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:
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.
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!!!
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.
Hey! If Rush says it's not true, then it's not true! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Now watch this drive.
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
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.
I dont see Kobe Bryant or Laci Peterson on that list. Oh wait...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
I'll give you that this list is a list made by a liberal group and does display a leaning. But do they "have no basis in fact?" No. That's not why they were under reported.
As a person who used to work in a daily newspaper in a very conservative market (that I grew up in), I can tell you that large media corporations will skew the news to avoid upsetting the readers' world view so that they can make the guys in marketing happy. They want a good image with the public, and if you are in the center and the public is to the right, then you look like you're to the left. So then you move your paper to the right and suddenly everything is OK.
I saw the editor of our paper tell the entire staff that his goal was that he wanted his phone to stop ringing. He didn't want to have to deal with calls about our liberal rag, which wasn't liberal. Now, for critical thinking, you should RFA on all these stories so you know what you're talking about.
I'm glad the Army met it's 2003 recruiting goals, but that doesn't mean it has all the troops it needs - the goals were not moved to anticipate our current needs; Rumsfeld has lied before; and the instances of the Joint Chiefs of Staff changing its mind about what it wants.
But Congress did put forth two bills to reinstate the draft -- one a protest bill by Democrats.
And more troubling is why the White House increased the Selective Service budget by millions this year.
Regardless, I haven't read the article on the list (and neither have you) so there's nothing to argue about. But nothing you link to here displays any critical thinking, just lapping up the words of conservative mouthpieces.
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"
i'm not so sure that bush's plan of ending our dependence on foreign oil by blowing up all countries that supply it is all that great.
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.
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.
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
You'd have to snort a shell in order to inhale enough depleted uranium to cause significant kidney damage. 96% of DU is passed through the body within 24 hours. In order to cause any significant health risks you'd have to inhale literally grams of the substance, and there are plenty of other heavy metals on the battlefield that would kill you before the DU would.
As The American College of Emergency Physicians says this about DU exposure:
For instance, Soviet tanks have significant amount of radium, asbestos, and dioxins in their construction. In fact, I'd wager that most of the toxicity and radioactivity comes from the Soviet-era military hardware that was blown up rather than the weapons used in their destruction.
There is absolutely no credible epidemological evidence which supports the contention of significant health risks from DU exposure. Even if one accepts that there have been increases in birth defects near sites where DU has been used correlation does not equal causation. Until someone can show that the symptoms being reported are A:) not skewed and B:) directly related to DU rather than other environmental factors, there is no credible scientific evidence that indicates such a connection.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
I think the perception that the list of stories is "left leaning" has as much to do with the lean of the stories themselves as the subject matter.
Ignoring whether the stories have any bias or agenda, however, let's look at the list:
There are many phrases in the list identified with a leftist agenda: "Bush Administration Censors...", "Threatens Intellectual Freedom...", "...Represses Labor Unions...".
The stories are pretty much ALL inflammatory, and obviously slanted. Like in story #7: "Bush has the capability to turn the courts over to ultra right-wing ideologues." Hmmm... possibly left leaning.
You may or may not agree that some of these issues deserve more discussion in the mainstream media. I had heard most of these stories before I saw the list, so I don't think any in way they were censored, so much as they were uninteresting and/or overblown.
Still, let's call a spade a spade. Left-leaning? Well, yea.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
I can understand editing out a dull story, or a news item containing offensive content. But when a liberal paper decides to not publish reports of some democratic senators questionable activities, or a conservative news channel decides to not mention how a republican president is trashing Science, your saying this is just an "editorial cut" and not politicaly motivated censorship?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion