Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Reveals News Correction Unit
Jonas Wisser writes "BBC is reporting that a newly created Pentagon unit has a mandate to fight 'inaccurate' news stories. From the article: 'The Pentagon has set up a new unit to focus on promoting its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet. [...] A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to "correct the record". A spokesman said the unit would monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.'"
1984 called... It wants it's news story back.
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
Well, obviously this is a blatant attempt to . Anyone can see that!
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Clearly, the US military now officially has its spending priorities correct. Who gives a damn about winning the bloody war, or setting Iraq's forces straight so that they don't get knocked up like cheap hookers every time they set foot outside their barracks?
No-- this is more important by far. The Pentagon really does need to be fighting a press war with hairy-assed, unemployed bloggers operating out of their mothers' basements. They also need more lobbyists and politicians on their payroll, because if they don't win the war for the US, nothing else can.
Astonishing. Just astonishing.
The Ministry of Truth, perhaps?
Next target will be all those inaccurate history books in the libraries.
Either you're someone who already believes what's on the news or you're someone who already distrusts the media.
So if you're the first type, this is no big change. Your disinformation now comes directly from the source.
If you're the second type, you won't be able to believe anything on the DailyKos and other "contra-news" sources since you will believe that they have been infiltrated as well.
Any attempts to route around damage will lead you to either the BBC (but how long can you trust Bush's lapdogs?) or totally foreign sources like Al Jazeera (CIA counter-intelligence operation).
Naturally, this is not really that big of news. This has been going on since Eisenhower and bringing it into the open is just another way to manipulate the populace.
so what's to be done? We always knew this would happen. What can we do about it?
President Bush has said recently that terror groups were trying to influence public opinion in the US, describing their efforts as the "war of ideas"
What, are we afraid of ideas? Is a war of guns and bombs better? If the people of the world are trying to influence our thinking, should we ignore them or should we listen? Who knows better about the problems of their part of the world than them? Do the Generals in the Pentagon know whats better for people across the world than their own leaders?
I, for one, have been plagued by crimethink. Historically I have been unable to bellyfeel the blackwhite of this administration. No longer! May this glorious new program free us *all* from the perils of oldthink!
You mean that they keep track of what people know and seal the leaks?
Well, it would be very good to have inaccuracies and falsehoods reported in the media corrected. In the end, we all benefit from good information.
However, the conflict of interest (the agency is run by the state, and will have to correct messages about the state) leads me to doubt that this will lead to actually correct news.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Correct the misunderstanding that Iraq did not have WMD
Correct the misunderstanding that the Iraq war did not actually end when GB said it did
Correct the misunderstanding that Iraq is not a nice place to be now
Correct the misunderstanding that several US interrogation techniques are actually torture
Corrent the misunderstanding that there are not hordes of rabid terrorists queueing up to kill each and every last one of us
And we used to laugh at the attempts of TAS to 'enlighten us'
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
This rapid walk away from democracy in the name of democracy is frightning .
Has there been any instance in our nation's military history where we've won a war without a successful propaganda effort? From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War to WWII and Vietnam, we have won wars where propaganda was relatively successful and lost when it was not.
People who think that the military doing propaganda is wrong/evil/unprecedented have never taken an honest look at history.
Get over it people, this is not 1984, this is trying to do a much scaled back version of what we have always done in the past.
Does that mean editors for Fox News should put their lawyers on speeddial?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
FTFA:
``The Bush administration does not believe the true picture of events in Iraq has been made public, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says.''
Well, I don't believe so, either. If the true picture had been made public right from the beginning, popular support for the war would probably have been so low that the government wouldn't have dared to go to war in the first place.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
All I can say is this is Really, Really, Scary.... Even for Halloween.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
I'm all for this. As long as they don't demand that newspapers publish their stories and only their stories (or more likely that the major netwoprks get lazy and just go to them to get their stories) or make it illegal to believe anything else, this is democracy and freedom in action.
Knowing what the military want you to think is fascinating, providied its balanced by the free press. Having the news delivered by different agendas is what makes watching modern history unfold so exciting and makes it easier to get down to the facts and through the bullshit.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
We will only be completely protected from terrorists when the corrections are mandatory to be published with at least as much impact as the original terrorist version.
Better yet: Publishing news should only be allowed after screening from an anti-terrorist correction unit.
We have to protect our society from dangerous terrorists, who are attacking our way of life everyday and in every front.
Freedom of press is an hurdle that we can live without, it either that or the terrorists might succeed in attacking us! Fear the terrorists, Fear, Fear, Fear...
Do you think that those in power in democratic nations want to keep democracy? Possibly the only part of democracy they want to keep is the appearance that the populace have any influence in government.
These units, as pointed out elsewhere, have always existed. The revealance of this unit is probably intended as a sop to the sheeple - if we public admit that we have a propaganda corps, then we can't have anything to hide on that front, right? They're on "our side", right?
Governments involved in military operations organise to produce media in support of said operations?! Holy shit, say it's not so! We should name this most recent phenomenon after a mid 1980s German electropop outfit!
That said, the Pentagon has more-or-less admitted "Yes, we are actively making... stuff named after a mid 1980s German electropop outfit" which in the eyes of many destroys all credibility of anything they produce (true or not). They may well have shot themselves in the foot.
In the meantime, I'll stick to Cryptome.
Firstly, the fact that terrorists and insurgents can make stuff up faster than we (and here I mean "we" as in the US or just, in general, non-terrorists and non-insurgents, for sake of argument) can counter with fact is probably a true statement. It's MUCH tougher to actually back things up with facts than just wild accusations and propoganda. That's for sure.
However, the idea that insurgents (note the lack of the word "terrorist" in D. Cheney's rhetoric, they've finally lost that argument) are using the internet to disrupt US this upcoming election is rather ballsy.
So what, Mr. Cheney, people voting for Democrats this time around are in league with insurgents and terrorists? These "new media" channels that influence insurgents so much are actually the mainstream media as well that are giving US citizens information?
I think it's a bit simpler in nature. I think that insurgents hate the US and they hate the US military and they HATE westerners in general because their economy is a quagmire of shit and it's easier to hate wealthy nations than it is to reform a poor government run by corrupt theologues. I think that the Bush Administration has simply put US citizens in the line of fire, for right or wrong, and US citizens don't like that.
Trying to correct fiction with fact is all good and well, but the "voting for Democrats is supporting terrorism" rhetoric is childish.
This has been a great eight years! I always wanted to know what it was like to live in China, and now we keep getting closer every day! :)
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
But who says you're becoming your enemies in order to fight them? Couldn't it just be a power grab for the sake of doing a power grab, with the whole "War on Terror" thing just being the excuse used to get away with it? If that's the case, there's a very good reason to make sure the "War on Terror" is never won, because that would take away the excuse for grabbing power.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Is that what it'll take for people to wake up?
It's getting pretty insanely ridiculous. Our government runs military detention camps in other totalitarian regimes, simply to skirt the law requiring trials in America. Congress has allowed our spy agencies to watch American citizens without probable cause. The Executive branch has condoned and practiced torture of untried suspects -- torture to any person with senses intact, which the perpetrators would never submit to themselves -- and half of the American public has gladly cheered them on.
Now we've suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and given the President the power to deploy troops domestically. Is it really any surprise there are agencies paid with our tax money to spread pro-government propaganda?
The only thing surprising is that so many Americans are still looking up with worshipful puppy eyes -- at the leaders who pretend to protect them while stealing their wealth, liberty, and lives.
The Americans are occupying Iraq. They are clearly not welcome there. What does every occupying power need to try to do to keep themselves there? They need to make people happy with them, and one way to do it is by propaganda.
Sure it's promulgating misleading and/or false information, but the intent is to counter the effects of videos that Al-Qaeda and groups like the Mujahideen Shura Council release (remember the one that got on CNN with the snipers?) If you think Pentagon stuff is going to be biased... well I guess you haven't seen the stuff that the Pentagon is trying to shout down. Even Al-Jazeera is pretty biased, and they have to try to put up some level of objectivity.
In short, the fact that the Pentagon wants a propaganda machine is not news. It's standard operating procedure when invading and occupying a country. What is news is the fact that right now they're sort of being shouted down by the terrorists.
Journalists are especially bad at reporting quotes accurately and "harden them up" by missing out important reservations. Journo: "Will this disaster happen?" Interviewee, "Well, yes, if nobody does anothing to fix things." As reported in the paper: 'Interviewee said, "Disaster will happen!"'.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
A number of corrections needed in this thread but can we put this on a fairly low priority for amendment ( readership is generally apathetic
and without influence ). Particular attention to claims this is a new department ( change to show its nothing new and has always been here ) also a number of incorrect statements about the glorious leadership require revision.
Thanks, update the log once the work is completed and flag for on-going sporadic monitoring and retroactive corrections.
Mr Smith.
Dept Of Truth
Sounds suspiciously like a rehash of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_I nfluence
The Ministry of Truthiness... but we'll let it slide this time =)
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
Result?
Rioting in a number of countries, at least 15 people killed, countless wounded, insurgent attacks increased and the American public goes haywire (again) not knowing who to believe (the news media which has lost most/all of its legitimacy or the government whom everyone considers to be in a 1984 state at the moment?).
The propaganda war is probably just as important as the "hot" war itself, so yes, the Pentagon probably really is getting its priorities right.
The terrorists' objective is to hold out as long as possible, and make things messy enough that the Americans lose their will to stick it out. It's happened before: Vietnam, Beiruit, Iraq the first time around, Somalia, etc.
They're doing everything they can to convince Americans to leave, and their willing accomplices in the media are glad to oblige, because they don't like George Bush.
Well we can't leave again. There's no choice but to make them blink first.
And this was a plot line, we'd all think 'What a bunch of crap, that would never happen here.'
Inch by inch, week by week, something very scary is happening and more worryingly, nowhere near enough people are noticing or even care.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
They already have a department. Its called PSYOPS.i ons_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operat
http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/
Some of thier articles are quite interesting.
The point is that the US military already spout/counter proproganda. The only reason I can think of that they are claiming they are creating a new office is to distract from the fact that PSYOPS are doing the same thing they claim to be fighting.
"We've always been at war with terror !"
- minitruth
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
that is starting to look like one of the many ministries
(as written about in the classic George Orwell book "1984").
the ministry in question: the Ministry of Truth (which actually
dealt with misinformation or propaganda). interesting, no?
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
Are there any American media stories about this or have they already been corrected?
a local branch office of foxnews. :)
They are not afraid to tell it like it is. That everything is alright.
Here's a sneak peek of the one of the new websites.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Seems like a convenient way to circumvent campaign funding laws. Now the GOP can tap the whole Defense budget to finance their ads. Great move Karl.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
All that matters is what everyone thinks (or is repeatedly told) is happening.
In fact, there would be a problem if the Defense Department (or any other government bureaucracy that disseminates news to the public) did not do something like this.
In the old days, respectable news outlets could be counted on to check their sources and accurately report the news coming out of the defense department. The number of organizations deliving news to the populace was few, so if inaccurate information was given to the public, all it took was a phone call from the defense department press liason to a news outlet to straighten out the facts so that the news outlet had the opportunity to report the defense department's official version of events.
Now with the internet and bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum from Matt Drudge to Arianna Huffington, the loudest and most obnoxious rumors based strictly on hearsay from "unnamed sources" often become "facts" in the minds of the populace at large, due to the fact that a lie told often enough, often becomes truth in the minds of the public.
And with respect to governments and other international organizations that are hostile to the interests of the United States, including terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, they have no moral or ethical qualms about feeding their politicized version of events to unprofessional amateur journalists that are desperate for attention and website hits, also known as "Bloggers".
Now, does that mean that the defense department does not actively put out propaganda of its own which is of dubious nature when it comes to its "truthiness"? Of course not, and how much "truth" you believe comes out of the defense department mostly comes down to how much you trust the defense department in the first place. If you are a hardcore liberal, then you probably are more likely to believe Osama Bin Laden's propaganda than anything Donald Rumseld says, and if you are of the neo-con flavor, then anything Donald Rumsfeld or George Bush or any of the generals say is gospel to you.
Nevertheless, it is ridiculous to get all worked up about whether or not the defense department is working to counter the propaganda of political interests both domestically and abroad who are willing to lie incessantly about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan because they feel that the worse America does in Iraq, the more political brownie points their favored party gets in the long run.
The sad thing is that the people on both ends of the political spectrum will pass second hand "facts" from dubious sources around so much between each other that eventually they begin to believe their own bullshit and then when the real facts and truth come to the surface, they are unwilling to accept them (sort of like how the 9/11 World Trade Center conspiracy theories have been debunked so many times, yet many people continue to believe they were controlled demolitions by the Israeli Mossad).
Get your news from multiple and diverse news outlets and any reasonably intelligent person can sort out the bullshit from the facts and get a general idea of what the real truth happens to be. Of course, that requires more effort than listening to just one news outlet or another that tends to report the news in a way that just reaffirms your existing world view, but at least you will be more likely to spot propaganda when you see it.
For me the red line has been crossed in 2003 when I read two report of the same news, one from France, saying "Kofi Anna has qualified the attack on Iraq as illegal" and the second, from MSNBC, saying "Kofi Anna has (wrongly) qualified the attack on Iraq as illegal"
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
This isn't a playground and it's not about who's got the biggest dick, XanC. This is a country that is not at war with the United States. Think about it. What was the last time you heard anybody mention Al Quaeda in Iraq? No, it's about Iraqis fighting over their own country.
We don't belong there and you will find that America will not tolerate losing many more young people just to prop up the ego of a President with a Daddy-Complex or dopes like you who think they're playing War.
"Make them blink first" indeed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
vVoilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for...
In short, I for one welcome our V named BTN beating guy-fawkes-mask-wearing overlords...
err wait...
FTFA: Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this year the US was losing the propaganda war to its enemies
It still remains to see how wide the definition of "propaganda" and "enemies" will be. After visiting an Oil rig, with mostly americans onboard, a few years ago (during the IRAK war), I suddenly realised that the US definition of enemies was already pretty wide reaching. Story ends with me being threatened and almost thrown overboard, because my company had a French sounding name^^, and me failing to respond "correctly" to the simple question of: are you for or against. Truth is I left the Rig two days later and have not returned to the US since.
So by my experience (really hope it doesn't represent the way the US ppl treat foreigners) I would guess most news sources, not 100% in favour the current government, will be subject to "news corrections" Hope this isn't the case, but to be on the safe side ill do all my interaction with your country from the other side of the Atlantic (until my connection is also subject to "washing"). Cheers.
Slow down there, skippy. The article does not say they will censor and rewrite the news. They will "fight" news by releasing their own version of it. The press is still free to report anything they want (within current legal limits).
Besides, with as much propaganda as already exists from the both the left and right, I fail to see how much difference this will make in the grand scheme of things. As it has always has been, if you want to find the truth you'll have to take in all of the available info and find the middle ground somewhere in between.
"In the old days, respectable news outlets could be counted on to check their sources and accurately report the news coming out of the defense department."
Alas I think you're a misguided romantic. Can I ask what experience you have of 'news outlets' in 'the old days'?
I am afraid I am deeply suspicious of anybody who tries to tell me they have solid facts after they start with "in the old days".
In the UK this is a bit close to Tory MPs telling us about warm beer and cricket on sunny Sunday afternoons while coppers cycled past and clipped kids round the ear for scrumping apples from Farmer Giles' orchard. I guess in the USA these 'old days' were when kids ate blueberry pie and fished in the hollow and were called Huckleberry Finn or something.
Define "in the old days" please. 1980? 1950? 1785? (last being first publication date of the Times)
Most people did quite well out of facism.
OK, if you were jewish, communist, an academic, homesexual or some otehr minority, you probably got a raw deal out of a facist state. But for most people, life in a facist state was actually quite pleasant. All those parades and rallies were certainly entertaining, and the money being made from quasi-to-full slave labour kept most people in relative luxury. 1930's germany was way ahead of most other countries economically. They had TV on par with 1950s america!
The sad fact is, most people can put a price on their freedom; $0.00. As such , they are more than happy to trade it off for material or secuity benefits. Facism doesn't happen by accident. It happens because people vote for it to happen.
May the Maths Be with you!
You have food. Enough food. Cheap food. From burgers and fries to "TV-Dinners", from Pizza Hut to Taco Bell.
You have entertainment. From TV to movies, malls and Sunday Night Football.
It worked 2000 years ago. Why do you think anything changed? That's what most people are simply content with. They want to be fed and they want to be entertained. They don't want to deal with complicated problems. The leaders don't want to deal with the problems at hand but distract the population by war and spectacles.
The similarities between the US of today and the Rome at the change from republic to empire are stunning.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What we essentially have here is the government admitting in public that they're out to subvert "new media" sites with government hired trolls.
Now let's see, what "new media" sites might they have in mind? How about slashdot?
A case in point: if you followed the discussion that went up the other day about the Sequoia/Venezeula story, you will note that there was a spate of commentators hammering away at the party line: "Hugo Chavez" = "South American dictator" (despite the fact that the guy is a popular, elected figure. Hm, this couldn't have something to do with Chavez insulting Bush at the UN could it? Or maybe with his scheme to raise taxes on foreign oil companies?)
This is not to say that there aren't real human beings hanging around slashdot who happen to be conservative: usually, though not always, I think you can tell the difference if you pay attention.
So some points:
1996 called and wants its rewriting of the news back.
Cogito, ergo sig.
All propaganda is based on deception and lies but also on truth. E.g. stating that Hitler was an insane person bent on subjugating all "minor races" is rather close to the truth and thus fighting him is a good thing, whereas stating that Saddam was sitting there with his Al Quaeda buddies just plotting an imminent attack using anthrax, sarin, mustard gas, a dirty bomb and/or a real nucilar bomb to kill US citizens is a bad form of propaganda especially when it leaves its perpetrators open for attack once it is discovered that the amount of truth was quite.. eh.. tiny.
In war the truth dies first (e.g. the bombing of AlJazeera HQ in Baghdad, described as a bastion of independent journalism in the Middle East before the war, then all of a sudden vilified as 'propaganda news network #1' - how ironic), so propaganda is one of the strongest weapons to strengthen the will of your own troops and to demoralize those of the enemy. However, the approach this administration took might have worked if the war had only taken a few weeks and they had been "greeted as liberators (tm)", but they had absolutely no idea what they were really up against. Unfortunately that was foreseeable, though not for this circle of people who had been drinking the Koolaid for too long and never learned to see things from other people's perspectives (or at least listen to their advice).
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Get a copy now before it's banned....
2 4934/sr=8-1/qid=1162295165/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-445943 2-6695308?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell/dp/04515
D
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
Parent post refs uncountry. Poster unbellyfeels war crimethinkwise. Doubleplusungood. Rectify.
Lemon curry???
Is this the same Pentagon that brought us the "Jessica Lynch" story..?
I guess the noble idea that the government shouldn't use taxpayers money to try to influence public opinion has been thrown out along with the Geneva convention. Go Bush!
see, this is where your wrong. Most americans have not lost wealth, the loss of liberty is not obvious, and the lost of lives are not american. The regime in power wont use any of these powers unless there is a threat. What real threat does the "bush" regime faces?
none
they have efectivly silenced most dangerous oposition in the United States, and they know that if they use their powers too often, all its going to happen is creating new enemies. They want power, but they also want stability. The only way they get stability is if the economy is good and the citizens are relatively happy.
while it's true that there is a segment of the population that knows of the potential for abuse and openly speak against it, its not a real threat for the regime. We herre writing angrily about the government are too confortable in our jobs to do anything real about it. Even if we wanted to do something about it, because they have had monitoring systems in place for so long, they probably will know exactly how to take you down.
To those not in the know, it doesnt matter who wins the next elections, they are still in power.
It's all about finding better ways
Much of that is just arrogance--we like to think that our gut-feeling assessment of climate change, international relations, biological evolution, or whatever, is spot-on, even if a flat-out expert contravenes our superficial assessment. Not knowing what the hell you're talking about, even if you consciously know that you don't know, just isn't seen as an impediment to not only having an opinion, but to having an opinion that we feel warrants respect--equal respect, no less, with that of the expert.
It's inevitable, starting from there, that we reach a point where there is just no such thing as truth. Even fact is optional, because which facts you point out is itself a process of selection. I'm not shocked so much by the fact that the Pentagon wants to control its message, because that's how they bolster support for military budgets, etc. But I am perpetually shocked and disgusted by people's lack of skepticism at what comes out of the Pentagon. Pat Tillman, anyone? Jessica Lynch? Manufactured story after manufactured story? Is anyone out there? I support the right of used car salesmen to say just about anything they want, but sometimes, yes, Virginia, you're an idiot for believing them. But I don't think it's because of stupidity, so much as an innate cultural bias that, facts aside, what they say is just as valid as what the other person says. How can you have a conversation when facts just don't matter? It makes for a rather surreal day-to-day existence.
what are you going to do about it?
Raving and ranting about 1984 is all good, but what are you going to DO about it?
Well?
PS: Don't blame me, I'm european.
I finally understand what it must have felt like to watch Germany from the outside during the 1930s. The point has long passed where I thought "this is the US, they're stupid idiots on a course to destruction, but what does that matter to me?".
It matters all, just like the growth of national socialism in Germany mattered to everyone in the end, or the growth of communism in Russia affected us all in the end. The growth of tyranny in the US today will certainly affect me in a few years, if it doesn't already (my government practically falls over itself implementing some of the worst US "inventions").
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The guy in a cowboy outfit is in a war of ideas. Oh, crap. We are so screwed.
But seriously, this is not like our president. Remember when we had privatized propaganda? Now that the government is producing it, it will be lower quality and more expensive. I suggest a propaganda voucher system. We should give every American a bullshit card. Then, that person can redeem it at their local store, church, or city hall.
Check my sig... I know it was a 1984 reference. To (probably) quote the President, I was merely 'contemporary-ifying' it, wrapping one joke within another (please, oh please say it is a joke and not prophetic...). W, so very obviously, has now clue what the 'truth' is so what good would a Ministry of Truth do him? Besides, reality has a well known liberal bias! And we all know the liberals are terreerists!
So, in summary: you are an idiot. BUT, least you could be President one day!
PS: That comment relating you to the current President was low, I sincerely apologize.
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
..if you try to resist... a letter with anthrax in it...
And so what happens to the so called free market?
Is this going to put microsoft out of business?
When did something like this from the government ever accomplish good?
First admendment???????
Ever since Soviet Union fell apart United States has been relatively free to assert its imperial agenda over the world and this is simply yet another example of US failing to exert control over the world. So they try harder and harder measures to ensure control. At the same time losing what little influence they have left with their allies.
United States is really going the way of the Roman Empire if it keeps this up.
Food and entertainment only go so far...
If the entertainment is seen as a tool of oppression then it will loose its effectiveness as it did in Rome.
One of the factors of Roman demise was the rise of Christianity. Christians in the circus served only to alienate the growing population of the converted.
American entertainment industry is being used more and more for propaganda purposes. Just look at some of the recent Fox series.
"24" for example has been used as a tool to help Americans and others to accept torture.
I am just appalled at the lack of backlash from the international community to United States measures.
I am afraid that the delayed backlash will be stronger than and thus more disruptive than if it had been delivered in a timely fashion.
That disruption will also disrupt other nations. Exacerbating other problems like global warming, peak oil and the retirement of baby boomers.
Oh, don't worry, as long as you keep the people from getting ideas you don't have to worry about their guns.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes, it's frightening to think that when an anti-war comment gets modded down on Slashdot, it may well be a taxpayer funded goon that's doing it.
Right now at least.
But what happens if the media outlets publish too many stories that the men in power don't like? Will we see this unit given the power to force the media not to run stories the military doesnt like? Will we see the head of this unit turn into the american answer to Joseph Goebbels?
"I am just appalled at the lack of backlash from the international community to United States measures"
I agree to your statement, but then again, no one I know would volunteer to withhold bananas from a crazy gorilla dual-wielding +5 axes of destruction.
I think this new one we call the Ministry of Truth?
The other two appear to have already come to pass in the last couple years so I suppose this just rounds out the set.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I emailed them and said a television propoganda network is needed. If all the propoganda is truth and not lies, it will be an invaluable tool. The key is, will tempting lies be said. It all has to be truth or it won't work.
God spoke to me.
Oh, I see. So, if news comes from CNN, MSNBC, or other mass media outlet, it's the absolute truth and we have to believe every bit of it as being all-inclusive of what is going on with respect to the U.S. military with absolutely no bias. But if the military believes that they're being shafted by the media and decides to put out its own stream of information, here come all of the "Big Brother" and propaganda accusations with the tin foil hat brigade in full force.
I've heard the stories from a lot of soldiers (yes, "from", not "of") directly from their mouths and without a doubt the most common theme is their disgust for what they deem as ridiculously biased news accounts of what is going on in their particular part of the world. I've heard parents with both sorrow and pride in their voices that thier son or daughter went back to the Middle East voluntarily to continue their work attempting to rebuild that area. I've heard marines who have finished their tours of duty state that they want to go back because they want to help the people and continue to rebuild their schools, roads, and infrastructures, as well as stand next to their comrades-in-arms, not that you hear anything about construction going on through the major news outlets.
Personally, I'll take the word of one of our soldiers who actually was there in the thick of battle, putting their life on the line every day as opposed to some egotistical talking head on a newscast who gets to make judgement calls in their cushy office far away from the various bits of hell that are going on in the world today, regardless of why those bits of hell are there. If this gives the soldiers the ability to have their stories told instead of being highly filtered through the the mass media or being isolated to local radio stations who support the troops, then so be it. Whether or not this new stream of information gains my trust, however, is yet to be seen, but at least I'm open minded enough to give them a fair chance.
But, hey, this is Slashdot. Don't show support for the evil "war machine" or give any branch of the government any kind of benefit of the doubt, or else you're just a Fox News-loving, right-wing extremist and war monger, right?
Yeah, yeah, I actually support our men and women in uniform but I have no stomach for the mass media (Fox News included). So that means it's automatically flamebait or troll moderation territory for me. So be it. That doesn't make what I've said less true just because most of Slashdot won't agree with it.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Germany is the closest I can think of, but it still doesn't exactly count. The humiliation brought on by the treaty of Versailles played a huge part in the rise of Hitler, and there is no equivalent in the US.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Re the incubators, in the UK that was pretty much shot down in flames within a day or so of the initial report. Sure, we can still get suckered but it's much harder these days.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I thought the various Departments of Corrections were supposed to do that, "correct" and "rectify" False News and Dirty Lies Terrorism, now its the Pentagon and the military thats doing it. This is just another example of how this country is
being turned into military dictatorship. If we want to keep our police state and not end up in a military dictatorship we just
have to do something about this! I mean it! I wonder if George Bush even knows what theyre up to... This is evil. Donald Rumsfeld
just _has_ to do something about this!!
Bravo, whish I had points to give.
oh please, quit being so melodramatic. i encourage any organization to try to ensure the media (whether MSNBC, fox news, or a blogger) is putting out correct information and to state their viewpoint if they disagree. when google wants to run queries in real time to attest to the truth of a politician's statements, everyone is in favor of stopping the liars. when it is the government who wants to correct false claims in the media, suddenly they are evil. simply because the government disagrees with a story, it does not mean you must believe what they say. this just gives them a chance to find these stories before false information results in riots and killing. considering how easy it is for anyone (government or otherwise) to lie, it makes sense that they are trying to see who may be making things up so that they can publish their point of view.
another thing to consider is that the stories the mainstream media gives you are not the real stories from iraq. how often do you hear about military units building schools or local governments restoring infrastructure? it happens, but you don't hear about it. how often do you hear about the latest bombing in baghdad? every time - and the terrorists know that a lot of the media like to stay in their hotels and report from there. that's why bombs typically go off just in time to make the morning news on the east coast. i guess it's okay for terrorists to take advantage of the media, but not okay for the pentagon to try and correct false stories.
flame on, ACs.
They wouldn't have nearly so many "inaccuracies" if they simply answered the questions Americans asked of the government supposedly serving our interests. So much today depends on marketing "messages" instead of what the product really does - it's not surprising the Pentagon is more worried about the message the media is putting out rather than giving them facts to work with. Now I know some media sources (cough cough FOX) love to twist anything into a dramatic gossip fest, but others (like CNN) do a pretty good job of telling the facts without inserting their own opinion/bias.
Oh and in the meantime, I'm curious how creating another "let's control what people think" department solves for eliminating the national deficit.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
The freaks all come out for stories like this, don't they? I fail to see any encroachment of free speech from this. This is a propaganda arm of our military... nothing new, people. There's nothing wrong with propaganda in an environment of free speech. This is no different than the ridiculous "White House Press Conferences" or "Radio Address" that happens periodically. Just rancid crap that no one in their right mind will pay any attention to.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
....the wake up call went online on Oktober 31th...the US people begin to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time, November 12th. In a panic, the government try to pull the plug.....
If this development drops our Reporters Without Borders press freedom ranking another 20 points we might be equal to Republic of the Congo in next year's listing!
America seems to be steadily drifting towards Fascism, or a dictatorship at the very least.
I see. So, let's try a parallel example. Let's say that the Environmental Protection Agency has a body of regulations to factories from pumping CFCs into the atmosphere (ah! what a coincidence, they do). Now, let's say that some particularly rabid ring of bloggers, as echoed by lazy reporters who Google for informed-sounding sources, starts amplifying some meme that's directly contrary to reality. To the point where an upcoming election or pending policy decision seems strangely likely to hinge on the public's misperception of the facts because of idealogical spin and fiction from such third parties. Would you blame the EPA for engaging in some press activity to point out the actual facts of the matter?
When some more-than-usually-visible blogger starts ranting about the US military killing 600,000 Iraqis, it's worth the trouble to point out - through several avenues - that not only is that information poisonously incorrect, but that the person deliberately lying is grinding a political axe.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'll tell you the truth. As I sit here, at the , where I can see the flying over and huge pounding the across with force, which is equal to I can honestly say one thing and one thing only: There is no but if there was then to stop it here is what you'd do: lasers no sharks either . Now that is dangerous and all the nuclear wouldn't you rather see it to the and the ? It is most obvious that this administration has again and again, and it won't stop until the is over. And that is all that I have to say.
You can't handle the truth.
[Yes, I've brought this up before]
Pardon me for being incensed, but where were you people when the Reeves family was slaughtered on Ruby Ridge? Sure, a guy who was a white, racist bigot, living in the mountains -- away from everyone where a bigot should be -- who was having charges brought against him, unproven charges. The response of -- not the local or state law enforcement agencies, but of the federal government -- was to go in to his domain, para-military style. The apex of the event was when his wife, carrying their infant, had her head blown off. What about that family's rights? It took a very long time for any justice to remotely happen, and no one from the government served any time for those murders.
Yes, I'm conservative, but I'm independent in my politics, and the left simply was quiet, or jumped on the band-wagon, in the whole Ruby Ridge affair. There were either crickets from the left as the agencies under their control slaughtered this family and/or there was a basic, "well, he had it coming. He was a bigot after all."
Had it not been a white family, the left would have risen up in arms.
I appreciate the defense to freedom and human rights you offer, but I am appalled at the existence of an overt double-standard....
Freedom is freedom and human rights are human rights. When you valiantly defend the rights of your enemy as well as you would defend your own, then you have arrived.... (queue Voltaire).
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Nobody cared about any of this until gas prices shot up.
But whoever are they going to get to be the Information Minister?
A lot of people think that and it really isn't true. I've just finished the excellent "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze which, amongst other things, tackles this myth. Certainly a few well connected industrialists (especially those in steel, coal and synthetic chemistry) did all right (although not as well as some people believe - there were swingeing taxes on "excess" corporate profits made from government contracts) but the ordinary Germans did not see much benefit. They were certainly better off than they were in the twenties, but that's not saying much, and, the book argues, as the European economy picked up the Nazis ensured that all the growth in the German economy was concentrated on increased military production rather than consumer goods. This was exacerbated by Germany's balance of payments problems which led to the banning of all non-essential (i.e. non-military) goods. There was, therefore, very little for Germans to buy, even if they were (for example) working in the armaments industry and notionally had more money (to avoid another Inflation saving was strongly encouraged or mandated, these saving were used to buy German government bonds and that, ultimately, is how the Nazi state financed a huge increase in state spending without raising taxes).
Also I'd be interested to know where you got the information about Nazi TV as I've never heard that before. Obviously I'm familiar with Goebbels "Peoples Radio" project which was designed to provide Germans with cheap, mass produced radios in order to better enable them to listen to Nazi propaganda and, even then, the cost of these radios was still more than the average family's monthly disposable income. Given the average German family's inability to afford even a radio in the 30s I'd always assumed there were, essentially, no TVs.
Would you personally die for the whatever our cause du jour is in Iraq? Would you sacrifice your life for our cause, whatever it was, in Vietnam?
I call BS on this one. Many have lost wealth, or to be more precise, have even less to go around. And they are losing more for each day.
But it is not. The US economy is in very, very bad shape. Even republicans admit this.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
England prevails.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
Now we've suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and given the President the power to deploy troops domestically. Is it really any surprise there are agencies paid with our tax money to spread pro-government propaganda?
Actually, the changes to the Insurrection Act are fairly straightforward, and it's no power the President hasn't had since the act was penned in 1807. In order for troops to be deployed domestically, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2) to be met as the result of "insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy."
The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2) above, but those conditions can now be a result of "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition," and only if "domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."
Congress was granted the right to be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of federal authority under these conditions, which was not required under the original statute.
The old and new text are shown here, side by side.
So, given the above, why is this a big deal?
With regard to the Military Commisions Act,
The problem, fundamentally, is that there will be situations in which there won't be enough evidence in the context of the conventional criminal justice system to make an arrest and/or prosecute for a crime BEFORE a plot has been executed. For some, this is seen as just a part of the "cost of doing business" as a free nation, and perhaps a certain level of, e.g., possible terror attacks should be accepted. Some people, myself included, believe that we should do everything possible to stop these kinds of attacks BEFORE they happen, and not deal with them afterward, or in the criminal courts system. I do understand that making the determination of whether someone falls into this category depends on the judgment of some or many people. However, I consider the common sensical threshold for determining someone is actually legitimately planning to execute a terror plot against the United States to be fairly high, and I trust the skills of politicians and government appointees, for the most
This applies to just about everybody responding to this thread
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
You're quite right - taken of itself this isn't a huge deal outside of a third world dictatorship.
But coming in after the Patriot Acts One and Two, after suspension of right to trial, waltzing in after allowing for the extradition of people (including American citizens) to 'detention camps' in countries that happen to have lax laws when its comes to torture, coming in after Bush and his whole fucking government lied through their teeth about the reasons for the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, bouncing along after stolen elections, skipping along to the the tune of "warrentless wiretapping" and getting down to the beat of "corporate kickbacks for Bush's buddies" - ya just gotta sit back and wonder if maybe its symptomatic of a government gone horribly wrong.
So ... if everything is really so peachy in Iraq right now ... why are we still over there now, in 2006, in full force? And why are US servicemen and women still dying at a steady rate?
... well, whatever it is that you think you're explaining.
Are you telling me it's because of the mass media?
Huh?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Feel free to take a second pass at explaining
Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on..." Mark Twain
Given that 100 US soldiers have died in Iraq this month, and have manifestly failed miserably to save the lives of hundreds of civilians, maybe the news media are entirely correct to question what they're trying to achieve there.
And maybe the current US administration are scared of losing an election so they're trying to spin the media.
Does this mean that domestic newspapers, TV and radio stations, bloggers, etc. can expect to receive the full Al-Jazeera treatment from the US armed forces? It might be quite exciting, with cruise missiles, Hellfire rockets, and plain old iron bombs criss-crossing the urban landscapes of New York, LA, SF, etc. I suppose we in old Blighty will get the lion's share though, as we have a surplus of impudent journalists and virtually no air defence (and what little we did have has probably been sent off to Afghanistan).
Has anyone considered that the terrorists might exploit this bold move by sending squads of suicide journalists to scribble their poison from the heart of US civilisation?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
How DARE the military try to present their side of the story! Just because they feel misrepresented, what right do they have to state their case if it conflicts with what bloggers and corporate media are saying? Doesn't the DoD know that these people are beyond reproach?
Get my point yet? I'm sure if YOU felt somebody was publicly saying things about you that you felt weren't true, you'd want to tell your side of the story. That's the American way; it's freedom of speech. You people are going on about this as if the Pentagon were shutting down news outlets and blogs that don't conform with the administration's agenda. There's a BIG difference, and all the Big-Brother hyperbole in the world doesn't change that.
Besides, if you are so certain about the "truthiness" of your favorite news outlet, why are you so afraid of a challenge to it?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Very funny. For more humor about Bush, see the section on Bush comedy in this article I put together about the U.S.-Iraq war: The funniest Bush comedy videos. Blair says about Bush: "The lights are on, but no one is in the trailer home." A song about Bush, "American Idiot" was at the top of the charts in Canada and number 3 in Britain. The funniest comedian is American, however. He says, "When our president gets something right, he is the happiest man in the world".
(I'm not associated with any political group or party, just someone who loves the U.S. and wants things to go well.)
I welcome this, so long as they cite sources/evidence for me to double check.
Hmm, silencing the opposition. Why does that ring teriffying bells.
America, Home of the Brave.
you believe the current administration actively lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (more specifically nuclear weapons of mass destruction), or whether they made an honest mistake by trusting Iraqi defectors with an axe to grind for the vast majority of their intelligence.
Either way, in my mind whether it be malice or incompetence on the current administrations's part with regards to establishing the pretext for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, it doesn't really matter because if there was ever any good precedent for "pre-emptive war", well the current administration pretty much ruined it in the eyes of the rest of the world. The unfortunate political reality now is that if a real Hitleresque world leader were to arise sometime in the near future and only the United States could stand up to his regime before it is too late, the United States has unfortunately lost so much credibility with Iraq that it would be extremely difficult to ever engage in a pre-emptive war anytime in the foreseeable future.
The credibility of our government both domestically and internationally has been damaged so bad that George Bush or any of his other subordinates could tell the whole world that the earth revolves around the sun, and few people would actually believe him. After all, you can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening.
"Mr Rumsfeld said earlier this year that he was concerned by the success of US enemies in 'manipulating the media'.
'That's the thing that keeps me up at night,' Mr Rumsfeld said."
So like...not the deaths of 3,000 American soldiers, the deaths of over half a million Iraqis, the lack of any WMD, increasing tension in the middle east, or the exponential rise in terrorist recruitment as a direct result of our involvement in Iraq? Really? The thing that keeps you up at night, you worthless piece of shit, is the thought that al Jazeera might not tell the truth about the Pentagon?
Fuck you.
While this has nothing to do with the actual story, it reminded me of this:
Whenever some international news happened, you used to be able to see a summary of foreign news coverage at http://usinfo.state.gov/products/medreac.htm, under the name of "US Dept of State, International Information Programs : foreign commentary".
Unfortunately, you now get a 404 error page, mentioning that the page may have been moved. Does anybody know if it is still available somewhere else?
considering most of the inacurate news is coming out of the whitehouse, it would be funny as he** if they actually did the job right and corrected the presidential BS, of course that will never happen, for that you would need some sort of, whats that word? oh yes democracy, with an uncrapped on constitution, unlike the dictatorship/I mean wonderful governmental leadership we have now
Water-boarding for journalists who do not "Stay the Course"
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Sounds like the federal version of the Fox propraganda network.
The American flag just turned a shade of red.
Arise,
Ye who refuse to be slaves!
With our very flesh and blood,
Let us build our new Great Wall!
The peoples of China are in the most critical time,
Everybody must roar his defiance.
Arise!
Arise!
Arise!
Millions of hearts with one mind,
Brave the enemy's gunfire, March on!
Brave the enemy's gunfire, March on!
March on!
March on!
on!
You know who's paying for Iraq war? China, that's who.
Of course, some day we might need to pay them back.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
It's not as if every characterization of Ruby Ridge has focused on him being a quasi-militant racist who shot back at the feds, or that every characterization of Waco has focused on them being a "cult" armed to the teeth, led by a Jim-Jones-style personality.
... but...." That "but" is where you are failing. With freedom, there is no "but."
Thank you for proving my point. The left always points out how errored the parties were under attack in their ideology. You see, you cannot look at Ruby Ridge objectively. You simply, must, see it, first, as someone you disagree with. Oh, sure, you then go into a "I think that was wrong to
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
My understanding is that the apostrophe is always used to contract two words, and never to denote possession.
The apostrophe certainly can be used to indicate possession, when it follows a proper noun such as a name:
e.g. "I stole Dave's guitar."
In this case it is not being used to contract two words ('I stole Dave is guitar' is not correct); the apostrophe serves purely to indicate possession. This is separate from the use of the apostrophe as part of a contraction (for example "can not" to "can't" and "it is" to "it's").
What trips people up is that the possessive form of "it" is not a contraction, it is simply a possessive pronoun, like "his" or "hers", neither of which use apostrophes. So the usage of "it" in the possessive form ('its' -- no apostrophe) is consistent with other possessive pronouns, and the usage when part of a contraction ('it's' -- with an apostrophe) is consistent with the other contractions.
Wikipedia's reference section has a good discussion of its/it's and other conflicts, in modern U.S. English usage.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Lost limbs, no support from the reserves, their credit cards are maxed out paying for medical travel and injury related issues.
We take up donations at the reserve center to assist them to travel to Maryland for treatment.
Reserves still do not have funding for small arms training states side; no one gets to "fling lead" unless you are already in Iraq.
From Iraq; no body armor, no armored vehicles (they use pickup trucks to "blend in")
PS: A Navy Reservist is listed as "not reserve" due to being "mobilized" to full time Navy; this was Rumsfield's idea to reduce the number of reservists in Iraq.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
That was Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge, not someone named Reeves.
As far as I'm concerned, there's been almost nothing remotely resembling justice that's come out of all that. This whole thing started because a damn judge let stand an arrest warrant for Weaver's failure to appear in court on a bogus weapons charge after being informed the summons sent to Weaver had the wrong date on it.
The only positive thing to come out of that was that US Marshal William Degan paid with his life for his part in the murder of Sam Weaver, so at least that's one jack-booted thug that is no longer a danger to the American people.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
If the (big generalization here) media wasn't doing its best to report the bad things the US has done, or been accused of, or simply reporting hearsay with zero fact checking. There would be no need for the Pentagon to act this way. I won't say the media is on the side of the terrorists, but they defiantly are not allied with U.S. interest.
The media reminds me of one of my childhood neighbors. Lets call him Dick. Dick loved to start fights between my brother and me, he was very good at it. But if we ever turned against him he would squeal like a scared pig and claim impartial, neutral, innocence in the matter.
By the way...the U.S armed forces have their own media services (at least it worked well in WWII). War is dirty, ugly, nasty business...pick a side or get out of the fray Dick.
P226
You're missing the whole point. The government isn't supposed to own the ideas, nor be able to sell them to us! That's why news is independent. In a democracy, the government is supposed to be a reflection of what we want it to be, not the other way around.
The only way they get stability is if the economy is good and the citizens are relatively happy.
It's not and they aren't. Hence the reason for relaxing the prohibitions on martial law.
1) The U.S. economy has been lousy since Bush took over, the only growth sector over the last 6 years has been health care. And according to the Canadian economic forcasts, the health care sector may no longer be capable of keeping the rest of the U.S. economy afloat, we're expecting the a recession in the U.S. over the coming year. It's important to us, because when you guys do poorly, we have to find someone else to trade with.
2) The citizens are not relatively happy, in fact, it'd be more accurate to say the citizens are relatively unhappy, they just don't like the opposition much more than the current government. The election could have a huge impact on the States depending on what happens. But make no mistake support for the government is on a slow slide and there's little hope of reversing the trend without major policy changes.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Government propaganda is illegal in the US. Yet another reason to impeach Bush, or at least impeach Rumsfeld. A Congress acting in oversight of the Executive Branch compliance with laws would already have forced Bush to fire Rumsfeld, even if just because of his Iraqmire. But this Republican criminal gang is all in it together.
--
make install -not war
9/11?
(jesus, I'm sounding like a Republican here)
While the US holds the intent of the constitution dearly, the constitution itself is a shadow of it's former self. It is this erosion of the constitution that has led to this debate in the first place.
And 49% of America one will pay no attention to it, just like Fox News.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
It's not just at the federal level that we have political dynasties. Here in Missouri we have at least the Carnahan family and doubtless others, Chicago has the Daleys, and Louisiana politics is infamous beyond the state's borders. Cheney's pet chimp is grooming his daughters for a life in politics, and his opponent in 2000 was also from a political family.
Just because of this, I would at least like to try stochastic voting somewhere in the States. Essentially there is no voting for offices, rather people are chosen via lottery from the eligible pool and must serve[1] (like jury duty) and so holding office is a burden rather than a career. Yeah, you'd get some complete drooling fuckwit in an important role at some point [insert cheap shot here], but it seems worth it to me.
[1] But only one term and thereafter never eligible for at least that office.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Actually Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11, in that it was what caused the U.S. government, driven by its citizenry, to go on an Arab-hunting expedition. Let's cut the crap and stop deceiving ourselves: that was the main reason for going to Iraq -- after Taliban Afghanistan collapsed like a rotten piece of fruit, without a chance to really get any good video clips of our expensive military hardware blowing stuff up, we needed somewhere else to go. Iraq was a target of convenience and opportunity; the Hussein government was unsympathetic, almost cartoonishly so, and we had pretty good maps and ideas of their capabilities from the last time we visited there. Very few people who knew anything about what was going on actually believed the Iraq/terrorism connection; it was pretty clear from the beginning that it was just a justification for a war that had been decided on for other reasons. And why not -- it had 95% approval early on; people wanted a war, they wanted some sort of violent retribution against somebody, somewhere, for 9/11. The administration delivered.
It's only since the ground war has dragged on, and the images on CNN aren't as impressive and fun to watch anymore, that public support has flagged. When it was 24-hour 'watch us bomb the sand n***ers back into the Stone Age,' the politicians couldn't crawl over themselves fast enough to support it.
The Bush administration deserves blame for creating a partially misleading premise for war, but it's dishonest to say that it wasn't a war that a very large segment of America didn't want in the first place. As a country, we willingly stood by and let the wool be put over our eyes, because we wanted to vent our spleen on someone, and (Bin Laden being indisposed at the moment) Iraq was as good a place as any.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
In other news, Slashdot continues to post "stories" about the U.S. government "violating" its citizens first-amendment rights by "forcing" them to support the government's take on current events; users point out the obvious similarities to "totalitarian" regimes.
Gotta love the quotation marks.
I stand corrected on Weaver. Thanks.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Sorry, you are correct, I misspoke. I didn't mean to write that the only growth sector was health care, I meant the write that economy was entirely stagnant without the healthcare sector. Or in other words, the net growth of the economy over the last 6 years is directly attributable to the health care sector.
It should be obvious then, that with the end of the housing bubble, comes the likely hood of a major recession.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
From what I remember, another guy had been arrested for something unrelated to Weaver. In an attempt to deflect his own criminal problems, he claimed -- I believe it was never proven or even a lie -- that Weaver sold him an illegal sawed-off shotgun. The warrant was issued for Weaver's arrest as you stated, with a wrong date. Weaver had apparently made statements -- alleged -- not to mess with him. Fact is, just about everything they had on Weaver was alleged, charged, etc. Think about that. What's the difference in that and the people being held by the U.S. military now?
... it'll be wrong then too....
The feds show up at his place armed to the teeth. The murder his son and his wife -- carrying their infant and simply standing, looking out the back door of the house. The federal agent who pulled the trigger on the high-powered rifle, with scope, had to clearly see he was murdering a mother with infant.
The government vehemently defended their actions before congress. I saw some of the hearings. It took a fancy/shmancy trial attorney wearing suade leather to make the courts understand what had happened.
And, yes, I watched tv, the news, round-table discussions and, yes, the left was up-in-arms about how Weaver had it coming. No mention of civil rights, constitution, human rights, name it. Only the right seemed to be aware of those issues then.
Yes, it's wrong now and yes, it was wrong then and, guess what, whoever it may be tomorrow or next year or next decade -- no matter what belief or color or creed
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
If this were not the Bush administration, I would tend to accept this PR/News Spin unit as business as usual. In our political system voter opinion still does matter and all branches and levels of government labor hard to make the news come out their way. That may, of course, change when the right wing Republicans get better at stealing votes.
Since this is, alas, still the Bush administration, we can only consider this another bunch of liars who will lie without caring how many of our men and women die in Iraq and how heavy the debt will be for all.
First of all, modern media is bound by time constraints. Just as with newspapers in major metropolitan areas you need to be the first to run a story and beat the competition. The issue at hand now is that many don't verfiy the trustworthiness of their sources. If it's sensational, it's running. If it bleeds it leeds as the mantra states. Factor all of this in, and realize the last important facet is ownership of the news organizations themselves and you have a better idea of hidden agenda. Personally I love to read all the responses of those speaking og 1984, but then again... who's telling the news?
Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch...
Are they telling the truth, or are they providing you their slant? Look at who they dontate campaign contributions to. The fact of the matter is that today, there really is no unbiased news organization.
Being a former servicemember at Camp Fallujah, I will leave these parting words. As we invaded the City of Fallujah, Fox News was the only one to get the story even remotely correct. I'm not going to dime out the other news organizations who published blatantly wrong reports, but I'm sure it's not too hard to figure it out. What really gets me, is not what the News agencies decide to report, but rather what they don't report. Some within my unit had seen the torture chambers, the mass burial sites and the transportable chem labs possibly used for WMDs, but I never did see any news about their discoveries. Perhaps the Pentagon really does need to trump up some of their accomplishments as the regular news agencies remain speechless. After all, most need to see both sides of the story to make an informed decision for themselves.
So instead of sticking with just one news organization, read them all and try to find the truth that lies somewhere between them all.
The President already has a press secretary that does a very good job of getting the administration's point across. In fact, they are a little too good. Watch and listen, the same exact phrases get repeated on all the news outlets, over and over and over. In fact, no one else has nearly the kind of control that the executive already has over the news.
You make it seem as though the poor government just can't currently compete with all the big, mean, lying bloggers. Are you actually saying the propaganda of the Fed, and specifically the executive branch, can't compete with a bunch of bloggers? Now, the thing about bloggers is, they come from all sides. Why should the Fed counter the untruths? That's what we have a free press for.
Now, the larger question is, who will counter the untruths of this new department? If you think this department won't spread untruths, think of the horror you will feel when President Hillary (or someone equally as heinous to you) has control of this propaganda machine. Will you still be so blase, or do you really feel it's not an issue, as only 'the good guys' will be in power here from now on?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Unfortunately for the Pentagon, the patents taken out by Joseph Goebbels and Stalin on propaganda and press manipulation have not expired.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Radio Free Europe and its siblings were forbidden to broadcast in the US. Back then, even people in government knew that government attempts to influence opinion were too dangerous to be aimed at US citizens.
The U.S. has engaged in this kind of war before (Vietnam), and look at the results. Back then, the U.S. faced harsh criticism from other countries. Read up on the history of The Americans for more information on this. We regained our 'good' image then; we can (maybe we will, maybe we won't) regain that image again. For the foreseeable future, yes, preemptive war will have a bad image. At least, with hope, our veterans will not face the same abuse that Vietnam veterans faced.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
[eom]
My sources for this are all secondhand.
"Legwork" used to be the core of what journalists were taught in school and on the job. B5 creator JMS used to work news at a real newspaper, and couldn't believe that press releases are now being broadcast as news. Al Franken quotes older journalists saying that stories making the top of the "news" today would have been met with "Got a source for that? No? Thank you for coming in, sir. Next!" early in their careers.
Go back earlier, start of the 20th century, and you had clearly identified Republican and Democratic newspapers, and you had Hearst. That wasn't any better than today.
>when it is the government who wants to correct false claims in the media,
Why, exactly, do you think that's what they want to do?
We already have factcheck.org for that.
You leave out the possibility of all gun owners assembling, organizing and revolting, together....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
"Panem et circenses" was coined by Juvenal in Satire X. He was writing about the Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic. He was writing approximately 100 years after the change from republic to empire. I'll leave it to you to decide if USA is undergoing a subtle change to empire, in the same way it is difficult to define when exactly Rome became an empire and was no longer a republic...
source
You can also look at how they took a Rumsfield quote completely out of context to have him yelling at war critics.
Heaven forbid a company or a government should be concerned with accurate portrayals in the news.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
From TFA:
President Bush has said recently that terror groups were trying to influence public opinion in the US, describing their efforts as the "war of ideas".
Obviously, if Bush and Rummie need to create a counter-idea department in the DOD, then they are losing the "war of ideas".
Here's an idea: Be a better army and work with one side or another in the Iraqi civil war instead of letting both sides slaughter your troops!
Ben
During the heyday of the 50's much of America was really run by the head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover employed "special agents" that spied on everyone who had "political involvement" this included people like the president. He used those files as part of blackmail campaigns or to track the ones who were "disloyal" I can't help but feel that this is one more step on the way to that again.
I wonder if Rumsfeld is also a transvestite?
The Pentagon already has spokespeople, and well-paid ones at that. They already have "aligned" groups such as the VFW who can always be counted on to preach 'their' message. This is a step over the line from serving and protecting the American people, to ordering them around.
This is, bar none, the most childish and sensitive administration that we've ever had, and it bodes ill for us. From the start I opposed this war. From the start I also noticed that the Administration was desperate, desperate to get "their" side out. This wasn't just in the run-up to war this was afterwords.
Towards the end of the Vietnam war, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the Nixon administration then, the Pentagon took to engaging in the "5'Oclock Follies" a daily press-conference during which they announced hills taken, napalm dropped, anything, anything that was a 'victory' no matter how small. They did this because the public was already agains the war, a war which the pentagon wasn't winning, and they were desperate to change that. This administration started the war that way. From day 1 they focused on announcing the toppling of statues and the reopening of hospitals (even though said hospitals were swimming in raw sewage) and of doggedly insisting that "things were getting better" even before Iraq was looted burned and pillaged.
It's not clear whether they intended this to prepare for the future losses by sterting the follies early or that they believed Americans had grown so short-sighted that we wouldn't pay attention for any longer than one news cycle. Without our daily sweetner of victory we would lose faith fast. They may be right.
From the start they also spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on negative press. Any criticism from anyone no matter how small was reacted too negatively, vigorously so. Not even Nixon at his darkest days seemed so sensitive to any criticism. During World War II FDR subscribed to Newspapers that did nothing but criticise him, and Eisenhower complained bitterly both about press reports claiming that they were losing, and
The German citizens of Berlin did quite well under the fascist state.
That is - until their power-hungry dictator overextended their military in a foolish "take over the world" scheme, and got his ass kicked by the Soviets, who rolled into downtown Berlin with tanks and reduced the city to rubble.
My grandmother-in-law was a wealthy business owner in Berlin at that time, had several homes, servants, two Mercedes, the works. She fled Berlin, and lost everything (including her husband and brothers) her family had built up over many generations of hard work. My father-in-law is Sicilian (poor farmers though), and his family also fled to America after the fascists got their village burned to the ground.
Any economic benefits to fascism are pretty much temporary. Because fascism comes from hubris. And hubris leads to ruin, eventually. (That's why Franklin called it "Temporary Security").
Fascism is fine and dandy - but if you want sustainable prosperity, most of Europe is already working in that direction. They learned this lesson the hard way after two world wars.
Too bad we Americans can't be smarter about this. Especially since so many of us left Europe to get away from this crap.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Chapter III
War is Peace
The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.
To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the su
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Sadly no one realises that this system has been in place for a long time, and works in subtle ways.
Just yesterday CNN.com headlined an article about how "terrorists" were hoping for the Democratic Party to win the mid-terms so that they could weaken Bush.
Of course, this article is actually a nice little plant by someone IN the GOP to get all red blooded Americans fired up to defy such statements, and prove it by voting GOP "to show those muthaf$%^ers that the US don't vote for the party that the enemy wants in power".
See how it works?
Visceral Psyche Films
And it's possibly relevant to note that the healthcare sector expanded makework. It didn't actually provide more medical care to anyone. Instead, it worked at filling out more paperwork and providing less care while costs and industry employment continued to rise.
Hardly something to be happy about, and certainly not something to base an economy on.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Obviously I'm familiar with Goebbels "Peoples Radio" project which was designed to provide Germans with cheap, mass produced radios in order to better enable them to listen to Nazi propaganda and, even then, the cost of these radios was still more than the average family's monthly disposable income.
Heh, sounds similar to Dr. Porsche's "Peoples Car" (ie. Volkswagen beetle). A German worker could dedicate a certain percentage of his wages to "coupons" and save up to buy one of these cars, which was actually pretty reasonably priced (given it's extremely well-engineered economical design). Unfortunately, the plant to build these cars was devoted to building the German version of the Jeep instead (later sold under the name "Thing"). I forget the name of those, but the amphibious version was the "Schwimwagen". So for all the workers who financed building these combat vehicles, none of them ever got their Volkswagen beetle.
The thing is - Porsche didn't support Hitler, politically. He just saw this as a technical challenge, and a way to use engineering and mass production to benefit people. The design was perverted into a weapon of war, and after the war, the French offered him a job designing cars, and when we went to interview, they arrested him and jailed him as a war criminal - and he spent several years in prison designing farm tractors (yes, there are Porsche farm tractors out there).
Fascism is a con-job, designed to concentrate wealth into few hands, at the expense of everyone else.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Federal Thought Police.
Many Americans may have lost wealth - but they have not lost THE ILLUSION of wealth (a.k.a. easy credit).
Nobody was really suffering until the interest rates started to go up (in response to Energy-cost-driven inflation).
Most of us are still blissfully unaware of the massive debt, both private, and public, we've accumulated through our gluttony.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Its sad, but Americans arent going to realize the gift of freedom they have until it is gone. What really suprises me is that the rest of the world is just laughing at us, who do you think is next?
(to avoid another Inflation saving was strongly encouraged or mandated, these saving were used to buy German government bonds and that, ultimately, is how the Nazi state financed a huge increase in state spending without raising taxes).
Actually that's a very effective way to deal with a depression cause by monetary deflation.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The Belgians make far, far better beer than the French. Everybody knows this; even the French, who try to cope by pointing out that many Belgians speak French.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Ah, yes, the Great Liberal Evil: Some guy that said something at some time, and thus represents all the liberals.
We must fight liberals at all costs, who knows what that guy will say next! He'll probably cozy up to Hugo Chavez or something.
Please continue all your random assertions that liberals didn't care at all about the Weavers and that the murder was somehow the fault of liberals, instead of just being an example of the FBI being out of control.
You're not a fucking independent, you asswipe. You're someone who's tracked down a fucking stupid and evil thing the Clinton administration allowed to happen, and was mostly ignored by America, not 'the left', and pretending that somehow invalidates concerns that the government now is acting that way, or worse, in a systematic manner.
There is a rather fundamental difference between the police getting out of control once, or even twice, and killing innocent people, and the government enacting a policy that they can do whatever they want to anyone without any courts. The first, sadly, happens, and there's not a lot we can do about it except oversight and punishment. The second doesn't happen in America, at least not an America I'm a citizen of.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Now, the larger question is, who will counter the untruths of this new department? If you think this department won't spread untruths, think of the horror you will feel when President Hillary (or someone equally as heinous to you) has control of this propaganda machine. Will you still be so blase, or do you really feel it's not an issue, as only 'the good guys' will be in power here from now on?
The press should be the ones countering untruths in the press. But they don't. If President Hillary/Obama/Pick-One actually knowingly, demonstrably spreads factual errors, that's no better than anyone else doing it. But if any deptartment in the government takes an action which produces reportable stats or fallout (traffic regulation? armed conflict? taxes? communication regulation? weather info?) and the media/blogosphere grossly distorts it - it's appropriate for the government to straighten it out. The president's spokesperson can't and shouldn't be the person to deal with everything that the DoD, or EPA, or Treasury, or FCC, or any of a hundred other agencies has to say to the public. That's totally unworkable. And to the extent that the DoD is involved in the stuff that's the most distorted by the people they're fighting, and those distortions are echoed or amplified by a partisan press - you have to be able to talk about it - and that has nothing to do with which party holds which office.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Journalism Scandals
So is the US military reacting to media bias that hurts morale while simultaneously building the enemies will to fight? You don't think MoveOn.org or Worldnetdaily.com aren't exaggerating their diametrically opposed points of view until the truth becomes indistinguishable from outright lies? What is sad is the the US military feels the need to do this. And probably do need to since the truth as long since been discarded.
With Fox News. That seems to be the biggest propaganda machine coming out of Washington.
It's not even "real" news, but they make it sound like it's a real news network.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
BBC story, MSNBC story.
A little background...
Some commentary....
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you are "loosing", please check your pants. Personally I did not think it was quite that bad yet, but I could smell you when you stood upwind.
On a more serious note, I have long warned the current "generation" of Americans about the danger of becoming what they are trying to fight. And of course that is just about the first thing they did. Unfortunately, they did so with the willing assistance of their "elders", who did not give a damn as long as they stayed in control. Very sad.
Rumsfeld is a Commie. Any freemarketer would scream at Rumsfeld's government propaganda competing with private media corporations.
Give a guy a $TRILLION annual budget, and he thinks he's Rupert Murdoch. Without ever having to sell a widget, except that "slam dunk" pitch to America that "Saddam Hussein has WMD in Baghdad and Tikrit, and North, South, West and East of there".
--
make install -not war
If it comes down to a war of ideas, the American people are largely unarmed.
Ruby Ridge? Waco? Why yes, there was a response from a concerned citizen to those events. I can't say whether he was left or right but he most definitely responded.
Here is the wiki about that response. Scroll down to the part about motivations....
(sidenote: I hate to even have to disclaim this but I am not promoting this as an APPROPRIATE response, rather, I am just telling you that these events were responded to)
the papers print the government"s lies.
In the USA the government cannot get the press to quote its lies accurately.
KFG
...as well as the 'inaccurately' negative news?
Let's see if they start correcting Fox News, Bush's favorite news channel.
Peace, or Not?
"This rapid walk away from democracy in the name of democracy is frightning."
The truth is, there has not been a democracy for a long time, it is actually a play powerful actors entitle "democratic theatre", the goal of which is to get people to believe they actually make the real important decisions and that they are "free".
I wondering where luvmypres would get a job when the Netscape gig flames out. Now I know.
Sokal himself is a liberal who wanted to bring the left back from the sciene wars to the class wars: to a large extent he (and others) succeeded. Postmodernism is largely discredited anywhere that you look.
You really want to avoid flying off the handle and getting carried away by your ideas. "Truth is dead" has a nice ring to it, but it just isn't supportable.
This is another fine example of getting carried away with an idea: I'm not a religious person myself, the style of thinking of religious people certainly seems peculiar to me, but it simply is not true that every Good Christian is a fundamentalist zombie right-wing foot solider.
Possibly you've got problems with your own relgious obsessions, eh?
Yeah, and I'm arguing with Some Guy On Slashdot.
Myself, I think it's because we have no good system of evaluation of experts. This is an opportunity for the on-line collaborative systems of the future, in my opinion: consider the possibilities for a web-of-trust of expert proxies.
Oh my god, you're right. I give up. Bang!.
"The only thing surprising is that so many Americans are still looking up with worshipful puppy eyes -- at the leaders who pretend to protect them while stealing their wealth, liberty, and lives."
The truth is the world of nations are simply puppets of powerful and wealthy people to manage as best the can groups of working human populations they deem mostly as expendable where they can get away with it.
Most of the world is basically a theatre for the workers. Think about it, you need serious technology and wealth to truly accurate verify anything someone tells you that is removed from your direct experience of it. (i.e. sattelite photo's, videos by other people, etc, etc).
Lying about of a lot of things is fuck shit easy the bigger your populations become, lastly so many events go on in so many places the modern person intellectual resources are overwhelmed by data, it would literally take the computation of many supercomputers today and the ones to be developed in the future to sort out the bullshit from what can actually happen when pitted against the laws of nature and biology perception and human behaviour.
Just look at religious belief, it THRIVES in the modern internet age, and yet it was proven as falsehood many 1000's of years ago. Too many people simply do not have the thinking capacity or a deep interest in truth when they are too busy living their lives.
All humans have real limitations on what they can really "know" as true, the internet makes much information easier to debunk, but it also makes it harder to verify more lengthy reports of news and facts for their veracity, subtle bias, or what wasn't said.
I am just appalled at the lack of backlash from the international community to United States measures.
Are you sure? Public opinion regarding the US could hardly be any lower nowadays in almost every country in the world. No one is about to give the US an excuse to attack or invade their country however. Let's see what 2008 brings, shall we?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I could wish that we could enlighten the world in one fell swoop..
/. are
Ain't going to happen...psychotic apes act like psychotic apes do...
The problem here is that it doesn't matter...it's been going on for years...
The State uses propaganda to disseminate its will unto its people...so what?
It plays both sides of the fence, they see you coming and get you going...
There are moles and traitors in every group...polarize an issue and you'll
never get a resolution that the constitution supposes protects...
Maybe we should try and get a count of how many trolls on
On some payroll to help lessen the influence a blog like this can have
On public opinion and voters in general (think I'm kidding?)
Putting an official face on the Thought Police will only make it worse...
And contradicting them will bring, will bring..huh, who's going to trust
the Pentagon's redactions ??!! Hold on...is it April 1st and no one told moi ?
End of Line.
The USA won in Vietnam?
Interesting how you define victory...
You are creating a straw man. No one is claiming it would be bad for the government to correct factual errors. In fact, they already do this and have all the manpower they need to correct factual errors. What I am concerned about is how the government will use this in ways that go far, far beyond correcting factual errors. Are you saying that you really trust our current and all possible future governments not to use this to spread lies? You don't think President Hillary might use it to correct "factual innacuracies" about her presidency or her party? You are fine with Democrats using our tax dollars to spread lies about the Republicans? Or do you really, honestly not think that could happen? Because that is what I am scared of. You could present every single legitimate reason in the world for having such a program, but as long as there are compelling reasons not to have such a program, and you haven't addressed those reasons, you have done nothing to effectively argue your case.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The "fun part" of the war -- the bombing-the-crap-out-of-them part -- was over when the Taliban government collapsed.
... the Taliban resurgence" wasn't going to cut it. Iraq did; they had an actual army that could be defeated in something resembling a conventional pitched battle, infrastructure that could be bombed, and (it was thought) people who would gratefully acknowledge their liberators.
The U.S. population doesn't have a whole lot of patience for long search-and-destroy campaigns or counter-guerilla warfare. When they wanted a war, they wanted an actual war. Like, with armies and stuff. And tanks. You know, like in the movies. One with an identifiable enemy and progress that can be marked on maps and analyzed on CNN.
When the Afghanistan campaign ceased being a "war" in the Saving Private Ryan sense, and turned into some sort of long-term occupation against an invisible enemy, the U.S. pretty much packed up and headed for Iraq. As soon as the Taliban government fell, there was talk in the U.S. of pulling out and passing responsibility over to an international force.
The people really wanted a war, but "dismantling
The slow dismantling of the remaining Taliban wasn't -- just as the continuing counter-insurgency warfare in Iraq isn't -- cinematographic enough to capture the interest and support of the U.S. citizenry. If you want to maintain public support in this country for a war, you need to have images of things getting blown up and your troops marching forward on TV every day. The public won't tolerate any lack of perceived forward momentum.
Had Iraq not been invaded, the public would have tired of Afghanistan long ago, just as it now tires of Iraq. The political reasons for keeping the 'war footing' going longer are obvious, but it's silly to place blame on Bush and the Administration as if they were some sort of evil-genius cabal. The public was entirely complicit -- in fact, hugely supportive -- of the war, before they grew bored with it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is the US correction unit. lower you're firewall and drop you're posts. Slashdot will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
If this warning reminds you of the Borg in star trek, this is pure coïncidence. Darwin has not been corrected yet. Planned assimilation time: stardate 2011
A "war" on terror or drugs is a "war" that you cannot win with firepower. True. And a "war" on poverty fares no better, indeed it fares worse.
You can't win a "war" on poverty by taxing the means to improve people's outlook. You can not "win" by depressing economic opportunities, by limiting access to economic activities, and by raising the barrier of entry to the world of gainful employment and entrepreneurship. In other words, you can't win the War on Poverty with firepower.We are still fighting that War as well.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
The best news reporting done in this country was when the government gave money to the major Stations to do the news.
There had been talk of a government braodcast, but the FCC desided it was better to give money to competing broadcaster which would remove the taint og 'government broadcast'
The moment they took that money away, is the moment the news became about advertising money, and knee jerk sensationalism.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Do you really think that the timing of the removal of all Daily Show and Colbert Report clips from YouTube isn't part of this effort? When some elected dork says "I never said that" on national television, Jon and Steven have a habit of showing the clip of them saying "I never said that" followed by the clip(s) of them saying it? We can't have misinformation like that running around on the Internet. Voters could see it and get the right idea.
9/11 was undoubtedly a humiliation, but not on the same level as the treaty of Versailles. The treaty symbolised the hatred of Germany by the entire world. Germans felt downtrodden and humiliated in a much greater sense than the US with terrorism. Sure the US is angry right now, but it'll work out. I don't actually think that the administration has what it takes to change the US into a police state. The guts or the time (don't forget the term limits).
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Looks like the people who are always bleating about "equal time" only mean it when that translates into more time for them. Fox News comes along and goes against the prevailing spin and you'd think it was a rip in the fabric of space/time. The Pentagon decides to put up a web page that contradicts mainstream media coverage and it's the establishment of a Ministry of Propaganda. Just what is it about counter-argument that makes people lose their minds like this? Afraid that maybe their ideas can't be defended?
This reply is a generic one to all posts in this subthread, not to the starter of it.
Considering that pretty much everybody who posted seems to agree that it is all about power and control, don't you think it is time to pull your fingers out and stand up for your rights? By "you" I mean the American people. Why the American people? Because the whole world looks at America and what's done there, will be done everwhere else...well almost everywhere. America calls for the "War on Terror", the whole world is fighting their "War on Terror". America introduces total surveillance, the rest of the world introduces total surveillance. America eliminates civil rights, the rest of the world eliminates civil rights. Why the hell shouldn't it work the other way round? If America stands up against their so called representatives, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world will do the same.
Show your politicians, that enoug is enough. Stand up and go to the streets. Sitting behind a computer screen whinging doesn't help. Get out there and show them that they are supposed to represent the people and not the big corporations. Show them that they are your servants and not the other way round. Show them that you are sick and tired of how the rest of the world thinks about America. Show them that the reason for the terror against America is not the terrorists but the foreign politics of America. The terrorists are just a consequence. Show them that in a democracy, it can not be that the candidate that accumulates the majority of votes loses (sorry guys but your electoral system is a bit...let's say odd). Show them that you are no longer willing to play their game. Show them that you are sick of being watched where ever you go, have your emails read, have your mail opened, have your phone calls screened and have every single detail of ALL your communication archived. It is none of their business who you are talking to and what you are saying. It is none of their business where you go to and what websites you are visiting. You are supposed to live in the land of the free! As long as you just sit there and do nothing, things will only get worse. If you kick the arses of your politicians, our pollies will realise that if they don't watch it, they will get their arses kicked as well.
... "and aim to "correct the record". "
The *record* being whatever their superiors tell them.
I think I see a problem.
In truth, variations on this sort of stuff has been going on for years.
You can not trust any information source absolutely,
but you can definietly *distrust* the military.
People who follow orders without question,
largely without personal responsibility
and permitted to act in absolute secrecy
are not good guardians of the truth.
Agreed, transfer thermonuclear weapons research via ICBM launcher!
Oh dear, I'm afraid I've leaked top secret information, at least the Pentagon will be there to clean up the PR disaster.
I have waited so long to be told what to believe.
If you're happy and you know it, think again!
Enuf said.
Today I received an e-mail from US Centcom in what can only be interpreted as them wanting to include me on a mailing list for thier "corrected" news. More details on my blog: http://www.anotherblogger.com/2006/10/31/us-centco m-contacted-me-for-thier-propaganda-program/
Public opinion and real consequences are two very different things. :(
Public opinion can and will be ignored until it causes things that really hurt.
Like US products not being sold. Trade embargos. US credit rating being lowered.
Forcing US to deal with its enormous budget deficit. That is unlikely to happen since all of the major
credit rating agencies are based in the US.
I am hoping that in 2008 democracy will sort itself out in the US. I am not holding my breath however.
US could have one good presidency and then again some special interest puppet. As long as US elections are determined by the amount of money a candidates organisation has there will be no real democracy is the US.
I simply have this problem called memory. I clearly remember what the left had to say about Ruby Ridge. To hear the left, now, making the same defenses conservatives did about the Weaver family, but instead about clear enemies of the U.S., is hypocrisy. For you to make those same statements makes me think you are, indeed, left (i.e., wrong). This really isn't that difficult a logical path to follow.
/. handle would more than suffice. Which, I say, adds even more to what I think about you....
Who are you? I do not know. You hide behind "anonymous coward" when a de-identifiable
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Multiple studies have shown that students who complete their local D.A.R.E. program are no less likely to have problems with drug abuse than those who do not. Some of those studies have found that once students have found out about the lies and half-truths in the D.A.R.E. curriculum (which stresses rote parroting of anti-drug propaganda over critical thinking skills) they're less likely to listen to authority figures when they discuss drug abuse in the future.
D.A.R.E. is also treated as a sacred cow by local government; any elected official who is critical of the program is instantly metaphorically tarred and feathered and run out of office, despite any logical or fact-based arguments on its cost-effectiveness or usefulness. Police departments receive non-trivial funding from the program, which they use for a variety of purposes, not all of which are related to drug abuse prevention.
D.A.R.E. is broken. It's a substitute for parents having an honest, open dialog regarding the dangers of drug abuse with their children. Rather than "Son/Daughter, drug abuse causes a lot of problems in people's lives. It can be a monstrously destructive force, leading to things like addiction, unplanned pregnancy, accidental death, and imprisonment. You will have friends who will experiment with drugs; of that we're certian. This doesn't make them bad people, but the fact is that they're taking risks which we don't think you should take. If you find yourself in a situation where you feel pressure to try drugs, know that you can call us anytime and we will help you, no questions asked", they get "Drugs are bad, mmkay?", which is as insulting to their intelligence as it sounds.
I can think of a lot worse things my kid could do than puff a joint. I'd rather they be safe and responsible, and come home at the end of the day, regardless of anything else.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Allow companies that control our bandwidth like AT&T to,
a) regulate bandwidth however they see fit
b) become monolithic (after we split them up year ago)
c) create a news organization to disseminate "accurate" news
d) have companies in (b) in the back pocket of the gov't
and you have a recipe for controlling what news is printed and who reads it. Just throttle the bandwidth to the "less accurate" sites and show them how fast news is from the "approved" sites and people will come in droves. Way to go!
I'm near 40. I just want to stay healthy....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
hey, they could hire the ex-Minister of Information from Saddam's Iraq, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
he's an expert at the kind of "correction" they want....and they know he's capable of insisting that they're winning even in the face of undeniable facts to the contrary.