Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007

Posted by Zonk on from the read-em-and-lean dept.

Vexorian writes "Is there direct or indirect censorship in the media towards delicate but important topics? Project censored lists 25 stories that did not seem to get the attention they deserved. Whether intentionally or not, for the most part the media skipped over these important topics. From the article: 'Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as network neutrality, the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC's Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day'."

28 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. An important debating point by Winckle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it censorship if the mass media ignores it, or does it show that their viewing public don't care?

    1. Re:An important debating point by retrosteve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes.

      Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them? Those Lindsay Lohan stories really must represent the public's true interest. Look! Look at the funny monkey! Look, Britney has no panties!

      It's well known, for example, that Murdoch's affiliates receive "talking points" for the day showing them what stories they should promote. Affiliates who don't toe the line risk problems.

    2. Re:An important debating point by Sunburnt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?
      Absolutely. I've met plenty of these people. It's not a universal sentiment, but there seems to be enough of them to encourage news organizations to take the easy path of covering trashy gossip instead of doing investigative reporting. Sort of a "chicken and egg" issue.
      --
      Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
    3. Re:An important debating point by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The mass media doesn't report the news anymore. If the so called news isn't entertaining and doesn't fit the demographics for the ads, then its ignored. That's not censorship. That's the free market at work. The news -- like the truth -- is out there if you're willing to look for it. Don't expect the mass media to spoon feed you real news anymore.

      BTW, Most of the stories in the list appeared in the NY Times. So much for censorship...

    4. Re:An important debating point by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      [quote]Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?[/quote]

      You're pretty blind if you think that's [i]not[/i] the case. The attitude people take with wiretapping is "bad guys will get caught, and people with nothing to hide will be fine." The attitude people take with celebrities is "HOLY SHIT! I need to know EVERYTHING that EVER happens to them!"

    5. Re:An important debating point by ngworekara · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mass media has plenty on the line, as I'm sure everyone here knows. Print, television, and even some online media have shareholders with interests in what gets reported. Are they squashing stories and reporting others with a bias? Do we really have to ask that in 2007?
      There is this lingering concept of a liberal slant as well, which is a matter of opinion, but Noam Chomsky makes a pretty good point in Manufacturing Consent that all media in the US is inherently right wing as it is part of the establishment, therefor having a reason to protect the status quo. There isn't really much of a counterbalance to be found to the main corporate news entities outside of the free weeklies in major cities, blogs, and miniature entities like Free Speech TV and Free Speech Radio News, and the market makes it such that most of the better writers don't end up there. Its capitalism at work. Don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, but the mechanics are pretty clear.

      Now here is the part I'm going to get flamed for. I have been amazed at the over hyping of Hugo Chavez as a threat to the US over the last few years. Especially in light of other world leaders whose actions are far more undemocratic and who have gotten a pass, at least till lately (lookin at you Vladimir, you too George.) Chavez was picked in elections found to be free and transparent, yet he's portrayed as a dictator with intents on conquering the whole western hemisphere.

      Now, what two industries has Hugo really been a threat to? Energy and communications. Biggest two contributors to US political parties. Intrinsically tied into our economy, undeniably related to the major media companies. I have seen no real dialog as to the possible benefits to the Venezuelan people as a result of the Venezuelan administration's decision to nationalize oil and communications. I don't necessarily agree with his decision to do so, however, I do believe that if he convinced the Venezuelan people to elect him and his party, twice, that an argument exists. It just isn't being portrayed in the media. Bush's tax cuts also spring to mind. The arguments against the tax cuts have received, IMO, much less time than the arguments for.

      Focusing on Chavez will get me flamed, especially after dropping Chomsky's name, but there are plenty of other examples of a fiscal right wing bias existing in the media in the US. Not that anything is wrong with that, they have the right to, and would be irrational not to, represent their interests as businesses. People should just be wise enough to know what they're dealing with, when they're dealing with large publicly traded media conglomerates.

    6. Re:An important debating point by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Censorship is not about Governments. Anybody can censor. Anybody at all. The film board that orders cuts is a corporate organization. Hell, each of us self-censors when we don't say what we mean. Censorship also does not mean cutting something out because of a political agenda, it merely means cutting something out. So, yes, this is censorship. But, then, so is absolutely everything else in life. Nothing is truly uncensored.

      The next question is whether it matters to Americans. Well, if the media wanted to make something matter, it could. Very few people in this world truly pick and choose their own concerns. Their concerns are usually dictated by culture, religion, experience, popular opinion, manner of presentation, ad nausium. The individual is truly a very small part of the equation. Why do people still remember Jessica Lynch? Because she was significant? No. She was knocked unconscious in a car crash. There are probably hundreds of people who suffer that or worse every day on roads around the world. No, she's remembered because some people worked damn hard to make sure she was remembered - to the point of hiring a Hollywood director to perfect the footage.

      Ok, then if these things could be made interesting and memorable, then why did nobody do so? Some are crackpot conspiracy theories, so no great surprise nobody gives a damn about those. Others are just more scandals and abuses of power that are no different from any of the other scandals and abuses of power that have been taking place. Nothing new there. There were a few - a very few - stories of genuine concern and those have been covered extensively by foreign news services. Personally, everyone I know in the States listens to the BBC and a few read German newspapers online as well.

      So what we end up with is this: Yes, a few important news items didn't get covered by the American media when they should have been. Too bad. They were covered by other media, so any ignorance that exists is ignorance by choice. Nobody made you watch Fox' Fair and Mentally Unbalanced News. Nobody compelled you to only tune into CNN. Yes, I do blame the American media for not being informative enough and for limiting news that could undermine their sponsorship. However, if the majority wanted PBS to rival the major networks, it would have happened by now. There's no such desire. People have voted with their pockets for what exists, and if what exists is crap, then don't blame the commercial networks for being commercial.

      Of course, in this day and age, why are people so bothered about the mainstream outlets anyway? If you've a laptop, a car and a good camera with something similar to steadicam, then be your own freelance journalist. Most of those who go to high-risk parts of Iraq are freelance. So you won't get to go to press conferences, because you're not backed by the right people. So? Nobody learns anything useful from those anyway. The real nitty-gritty is never the stuff the press is allowed first access to, so who cares? If all you want are the PR stunts, then you're reporting nothing new.

      That, to me, is where the crux of the matter lies. People like to complain. The English complain about the weather, the Americans about the news. But nobody wants to do anything about it. If they could and did, that would remove the only real conversation piece they had.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:An important debating point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?"

      People would be more interested in the president wiretapping them if either a) they had rudimentary knowledge of human history and its implications or b) the news media presented the information seriously.

      The chances of the first happening in America is slim. We have "it can't happen here" syndrome, believing our rulers are somehow different from all others throughout recorded history.

      The chances of the second happening depend on it coinciding with the news networks' interests. Unfortunately, the news networks are giant multinationals with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while keeping the audience dazzled. As long as the rulers don't get too uppity, as long as the rulers don't threaten the information cartel, the major networks have no reason to rock the boat (and threaten their advertising revenue).

      Paris Hilton's jail term makes good news in America, because it does maintain the status quo. It has no real relevance to anything important, but at the same time, it can be spun (like any news can be) to appear exciting and relevant.

      You are right that wiretapping would be a major story if the networks decided to treat it as one. But why should they, when it has no effect on the networks themselves? If anything, authoritarianism and lack of competition is what they want. A country where all media outlets are strictly regulated and licensed would be a dream to them, just making it harder for anyone new to enter the business. A country of wiretapping, secret police, "disappearing" suspects -- this is where we are heading, and that's all to the benefit of the people who have money and power. Why would they give this up, especially when their stranglehold is already threatened by the age of free internet discourse?

    8. Re:An important debating point by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lindsay Lohan has way bigger tits than Global Warming.

      Happy 21st!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:An important debating point by Sunburnt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy path? I guess you don't know too many journalists, then[...]I don't think it'd be too far off the mark to say every single reporter in the world would prefer to be Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein than the anonymous photographer who caught Lohan's nipple on camera back in 2004

      I'm sure every journo entertains fantasies of being an ace investigative reporter - the couple I've had the pleasure of knowing certainly do - but the fact of the matter is that it's really hard to actually be that person. The entertainment-focused nature of the media limits the number of these positions available, while journalism students are a buck-a-dozen at many universities. As a result, most reporters aren't smart enough, ambitious enough, sociable enough, or some combination of the three to compete for the these top spots. (This isn't meant as a slight against them. It's the same situation that exists in professional sports: plenty of excellent athletes are simply not skilled enough to play at the top level of their sport, because that level consists of a few hundred guys, chosen from across the world or country.) Even those with sufficient talent may not have enough luck to exclusively catch a truly memorable or history-making story.

      On the other hand, one can always get paid for celebrity trash. It's a shitty way to make a living, but its easier than "sticking to principle," if one considers not eating a difficulty. Besides, I have a hard time believing that some hacks really do enjoy their work.

      --
      Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
    10. Re:An important debating point by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The institutional media simply cannot tell the truth about certain things. If they did, there would be a revolution in short order.

      Can you imagine CNN reporting thus: "Today President Bush attempted to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein - this is a lie aimed at persuading Americans to support a war for oil/strategic dominance/etc."?

      Yet this is the truth. Many people knew it at the time, and it was obviously correct, but you would never see this on a major network.

      The media is part of the establishment. It's not a cabal of old white men who sit around deciding what the news will be, but a diffuse group of people with media power and similar interests. These are the people who tell us the way the world is. As individuals, we live in a very small world where we cannot verify most of the things we are told. Yet, we feel we must make sense of the world. Hence we turn to the media, who seem to know what "the general opinion" and "common sense" are.

      So we get the old "the United States is a free country where any hardworking person can prosper" and "the United States government, while it makes mistakes, is always trying to do the decent thing" tropes. Think of all the "worldwide media events" that "everyone" watches, like Princess Diana's funeral (except it turns out that a hell of a lot of people ignored it). All of this is foisted upon us with the attempt of creating an imaginary community with imaginary norms.

      Who actually believes this based on the evidence they gather outside of the media/industrial complex?

      Nobody.

      But who believes it nonetheless?

      Most people.

      Why?

      Because the media gives the impression of a "common sense" point of view, such that if your own situation doesn't cohere with what they say, then it must be abnormal.

      Unless you are a particularly strong willed person, you are not going to stand up for the evidence in front of your own eyes and the reasoning power of your own mind. But everyone knows on some level that the media never tells the whole truth, and never really deals with the real issues. That's because the societal myth they tell us doesn't pass fundamental tests of coherence. Even though your town is going through massive layoffs, everyone is better off than they were!!! Orwell would have been proud.

      The point of 1984 is not that totalitarian state control of the media leads to false consciousness, but that control of the media by any minority leads to false consciousness.

      The only possible way out of this is decentralised, participatory media. Fortunately, its hour is now at hand, and its effects are beginning to show. How many people who actively use the internet to get their information have not experienced the feeling that the political game played in the regular media is some sort of farce? In some respects I have always felt like this, but with the internet and my expanded access to information, I simply cannot avoid the feeling that the media's portrayal of politics is a ridiculous charade.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
  2. Not worth reading... by SoapBox17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
    Not that anyone here would RTFA anyways, but when I saw this I knew it wasn't worth my time.

    God, I would like to file a bug report...
    1. Re:Not worth reading... by SoapBox17 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Maddox is not a physicist, but when something reaches that critical mass that even Maddox has to call it stupid, then you know it must really be pretty fucking stupid.

      With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page:

      In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

      However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
  3. The list by Bueller_007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    #1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
    #2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
    #3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
    #4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
    #5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo
    #6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
    #7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
    #8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
    #9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
    #10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
    #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
    #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
    #13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
    #14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
    #15 Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
    #16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
    #17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
    #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
    #19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
    #20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
    #21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
    #22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
    #23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
    #24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
    #25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region

    1. Re:The list by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Number 18 is the standard "The US Government Made 9/11 Happen!" paranoid conspiracy crap. If this was ignored by the media, GOOD!

      The majority of the stories are either "Bush/Cheney/The US/Halliburton is evil" or "OMG panic the environment is in trouble." I'm thinking the real purpose of this list is to say "here's stuff I think is really important but most people don't. Since I don't think it was featured enough, I'll going to just claim it was censored by news networks."

      --
      Comment of the year
  4. Wrong Title by FS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree that many of these things should be more important to the public than they are, however this top 25 list was clearly compiled from a left leaning point of view. The title or summary should include something about this obvious bias. For example, to accuse the media of covering for Dick Cheney and Haliburton is insane. The media would take him out instantly if they thought anything they had was strong enough to do it.

    The Internet debate, while very important to me, is not the most important thing in the world that has been "censored." Its position at the top of the list is designed to grab our attention and get traffic headed their way in the hopes that someone will read the rest of this. This website is no better than CNN, ABC, FOX, etc. They all are trying to get across their own viewpoints, not raw news.

  5. Re:summary of most of them by slarabee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Bah. These are not censored stories in even the most generous use of the term.

    Take a look at the judges they bother to mention by name on their own 'about us' page. Every single one of them is a liberal activist with some political axe to grind. This list would be more accurately described as 'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.

    It has as much relevance to true censorship as a list of conservative talking points composed by Ann Coulter and her loony friends.

  6. Who changed the definition of censorship? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm). You know, like North Korea killing stories of mass starvation, or good old Soviet-style disinformation and destruction of the concept of a free press like what's going on in...old Soviet-style Russia.

    However, while I was napping last night, someone conveniently changed the definition to mean "when the mass media doesn't give a certain pet story/cause/event of mine the attention I think it deserves."

    Somebody call Websters. Unless, of course, the story headline is wrong, and this is merely someone upset their pet story/cause/event isn't getting the attention they think it deserves... ...nah, that couldn't be it.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  7. So, let me see if I get this... by Sunburnt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who dissent against a war that is destroying America's military capability are treasonous hippies, but it's cool for Halliburton to actually enable a nuclear program conducted in the "Axis of Evil?"

    Add "treason" to the list of words made meaningless by this corrupt administration and its enablers, along with "freedom," "strength," and "morality."

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  8. And by bluegreenone · · Score: 4, Funny

    And who could forget #26, the remarkable story of ______ _______ _ __ ______ _____ ____ _____ _________. I personally was shocked and amazed when I heard that one, and am glad the government didn't manage to stop the word from getting out.
    ...
    NJ Transit, PATH train schedules online

  9. List is VERY hit and miss by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some of these stories have merit, some are exaggerated, and some are spun to make America look bad because private industries have commercial interests in turbulent regions of the world. I see no evidence that the 9-11 conspiracy theory has been "censored." US celebrities like Rosie O'Donnel and Sean Penn bring this one up all the time. Just like you can find the strange stray biologist that supports creationism, this camp has found one stray physicist to support this conspiracy crap. By including it in the list just shows the list on whole to be an agenda disguised as journalism by pandering to a left leaning fan base.

    Now before I'm attacked as a right wing kook, let me say I tend to be a liberal on social issues, and think there are plenty of stories that need more attention when it comes to social fairness. But just because people yawn or don't believe you, doesn't mean you are being censored. I'd say about half of this list is the proponents just being crybabies that the public (rightly or wrongly) doesn't care more. Maybe the authors should find irrefutable evidence for their assertions or write in more challenging ways that defies being ignored.

    --
    Letter To Iran
  10. I say "Screw it" by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What I lose on the anti-global warming posts, I make up on Simpons-based cracks.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  11. Re:wow, just wow by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Grow up. The sooner people stop taking sides, the faster the world would become a better place.

    Such delicious (and I presume, unintentional) irony on your part. Can't you see that the GP is pointing out that the compilers of the list ARE taking a side? They are deliberately hyping things in a way to make them as divisive as possible. You're ragging on EXACTLY the wrong person. Grow up, indeed!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  12. Botch's definition of censorship by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It takes three parties to have censorship. One that wants to transmit, one that wants to receive, and a third party that forcibly prevents the transmission.

    The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.

    You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience.

  13. Re:wow, just wow by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ugh, alright then. Suppose I agree with you. So what have the "democrats" done LAST YEAR(2006) on an internation/national scale that merits censorship?

    You're still asking the wrong question! I THINK you mean to ask, what have the dems done (or not done) that we should consider newsworthy, but which is being glossed over or ignored? The word "censorship" is, by the way, completely incorrect in this context.

    As for the dems: I think it's newsworthy that despite campaigning on the promise to rid the congress of corruption and the appearance of any unethical carrying-on, that Pelosi chose to put the congressman from Louisiana, freshly caught with $90k of marked bribe CASH in his freezer, on the homeland security oversight committee. On the same note, I think that it's appalling that right in the middle the fuss about how to try to pressure the administration to pull troops out of Iraq, that her granting of completely absurd add-on pork (spinach subsidies, peanut storage funding, etc) to buy more votes for the doomed-to-be-vetoed-but-still-posturing legislation (written just months after an election during which votes were solicited with promises that there would be no more pork) went widely unexamined in the media. Essentially: the press, which largely supports the dems, stays well away from pointing out the blatant lies and hypocrisy coming from the very party that just swore they'd do no such thing.

    Hell, what was one of the biggest promises from Pelosi about the first actions she'd take? Following ALL of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Of course, what was the first recommendation they decided to completely ignore? The one that called for reorganizing the defense and intelligence oversight committes in congress... in a way that would loosen some democrat control in those areas. Where's the press coverage of that sort of thing? It's no more "censored" than the stuff that the article's rant is about - it's just about what the press either largely ignores, or finds that their audience will probably ignore.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  14. Scare-Mongering Bullshit by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Look, I lean pretty far to the left, but this list is bullshit. The MSM organizations are no angels, but I just don't see enough here to justify an allegation of censorship; the compilers of this list complaining about censorship are just as wrong as the intelligent design folk who do the same thing. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence presented here simply does not make the cut.

    Let's examine a few of the problems:
    • They took a few minor problems with a couple specific GM crops and took the unjustifiable leap of stating that "Several recent studies confirm fears that genetically modified (GM) foods damage human health." The actual evidence presented, even if true, does not justify sensational news coverage.
    • The statement "A group of scientists led by biochemist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural application" does not support the statement that roundup in general is harmful to human health. Where's the connection between the concentration used in the field and the concentration in the finished food? They might not even be remotely related. Placental cells placed in a pure caffeine solution will die, yet we consider is safe to drink Coffee! Again, not newsworthy yet. Show me a peer-reviewed, published study that's been reproduced at least once that links roundup (as consumed by humans) to health problems and I'll change my mind. That would be newsworthy.
    • Haliburton is a wicked company, yes. But whether legitimately or not, it has grown to become one of the major suppliers of services to the US government. We must do something to curb its power, yes. However, simply because one of the hundreds of contracts given to Haliburton was not extensively covered is not a reason to think that the MSM is hiding that the sky is falling.
    • The OPEC article is fluff, yes. But do you expect the government to not have a plan about reconstructing the oil industry?


    I don't have time to analyze the entire list. But given the obvious deficiencies in some of the listed entries, very good reasons for not covering them extensively in the media, why should I be convinced that the others were censored?

    Come on, the MSM is no group of angels, and certainly has an agenda, but this article paints us lefties as a bunch of lunatics out of touch with reality, and so does more harm than good for our cause.

  15. Re:summary of most of them by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.

    Wait until the Liberals get power in the US and we find that the US follows exactly the same foreign policy as it does now. We'll probably find that similar shady operatives like Cheney are behind the Democrats who also have business interests in which similarly tie in with US foreign policy decisions.

    Although these stories are used as political ammunition by Democrats, this has nothing to do with them. There actually is no realistic opposition on the political scene to any of these scandals. Both sides of politics are implicated - although to say there are two sides to the political scene in the US is kind of ironic in itself.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  16. Re:On balance by coaxial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please defend the "anti-American" comment. Contrast slashdot with a "pro-American" site.

    The whole "x hates America" meme has been used for over 50 years with little justificiation beyond, "X doesn't agree with my reactionary viewpoint."

    I've checked your website, and I have to ask, why do you hate America? Because from any objective viewpoint, you hate America. Why is that?