OK, I know you slept through government class but try and follow along here. The Attorney General (This is the head of the Justice Department) is appointed by George Bush. He was appointed to forward the Bush agenda in what cases are brought before federal courts. John Ashcroft is not a judge, not part of the judiciary, has absolutely nothing to do with them.
Would it have been better to say "John Ashcroft bailed out Microsoft"? What is the difference? There was never any doubt that George would bail them out, they were his #3 donor. Right behind the oil companies. Wouldn't be right for Big Oil to get a 1000% return on their investment in him and then turn around and not show Microsoft some generosity.
Fucking corporate whores. Last chance for democracy was campaign finance reform. I didn't hold out alot of hope on watching elected officials cut themselves off from their trough, but now that's gone.
Actually, I didn't write that, I cited the site where it came from.
I was going to post again and argue more about the conservative bias perspective, but the more I started thinking about it the less sure I was.
When I started thinking of particular examples, I started to see a new patern. It's not so much that the media are pro-business or pro-government or pro-labor. It's that they are just much more comfortable with people in power. They distrust community groups, they would rather take their information from elected people and companies. That would be why it is much easier to show a pro-boeing, pro-pharmacuetical company, pro-parking garage bias than to show a pro-business (or pro labor) bias.
The slant seems to always be toward whichever group is more powerful.
When you try and throw a left/right bias on the media you've obscured the real bias which is power. This is much scarier than ideological bias as it can be imposed on any ideology.
Yeah, but the point is they couldn't find any left wing cable or media voices.
The print newspaper is the last bastion of moderate or unbiased reporting and it's going away fast.
If you think they are wrong I'd like to throw out a rant from the site in question:
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on Smirk?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Smirk?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.
I've rethought my unconditional support of the 2nd amendment. Handguns are not a neccesary item in a well regulated militia. I would be very willing to support an interpretation that would support the outlawing of handguns but would not permit the regulation of assault weapons or rifles. As an aside I own handguns and would have to get rid of them if this interpretation was accepted.
This keeps alive my main motivation for support of the right to bear arms which is my belief that the government is more responsive to an armed populace that has the capacity at a serious level to revolt.
Rifles are not popular with criminals. They are not concealable. They cost to much to want to throw them away after a crime. Despite what you see on TV your chance of a criminal killing you with an automatic weapon is pretty low. It's not nil, I was at a bar once when someone was blackout drunk and got in a fight with someone, as he was being tossed out, he said "I'm going home and getting my gun and coming back and killing you." Nobody took him seriously, he left, came back about an hour later with a rifle and shot the guy who he was mad at and left. He was arrested about 5 minutes later and he'll probably spend something close to the rest of his life in jail. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would come a little closer to getting at the heart of the debate.
I know this interpretation would never happen because people are either polarized toward never giving up their handguns at any cost or
Re:Department of Defense getting in on the fun?
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 1
This is from the chicago area protest mailing list:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Peter A. Peterson II wrote:
> Many geographic organizers are noticing that the DoD is spidering
> their sites looking at pro-dmitry material.
>
> Chicago is no exception.
>
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:28:22 -0500] "GET/~pictures/
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:30:22 -0500] "GET/~pictures/
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:34:22 -0500] "GET/~pictures/
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:38:22 -0500] "GET/~pictures/
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
>
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [22/Aug/2001:03:46:18 -0500] "GET/robots.txt
HTTP/1.0" 404 204
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [22/Aug/2001:03:46:18 -0500] "GET
/free-sklyarov/chicago-protest-information.txt HTTP/1.0" 200 8830
>
> I just hope they pick good pictures for my file.
>
> pedro
>
Hmm... looks like they've been hitting goose every day since the 14th.
Odd.
Maybe I'm just terribly optimistic, but I don't think they can keep that up forever. I think the new spin is that prostests are "in" now. Like pissing people off to the points of rioting in the streets is a fad like the backstreet boys or something.
It's sad how far the media whores have fallen, there will have to be a correction. I can't allow myself to believe people are this stupid.
to quote chomsky:
"In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to elimintate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal."
Could someone tell me what @home does? I know the local cable company owns the cable, not them. What exactly does @home provide? Can I call my cable company and ask them to find another ummm...whatever the hell @does for them?
I'm totally confused. The more I hear about @home the less I want anything to do with them, but there isn't much I can do. The local switch is DSL ready but everytime I try and get DSL the tests always fail, probably sub-standard phone lines.
I had a DUI a few years ago, I took the field sobriety test failed it. Was given a field breathalyzer, failed it. Got packed in the car, took downtown, they gave me another breathalyzer, failed it. Went to jail.
I didn't have to take any of those breathalyzers (well i guess if you are hung up on the implied consent thing i did). What I mean is they couldn't have held me down and held my nose until I blew in it. All they could do is take my license away for a little while for not taking it.
I can't decide if it's bullshit or not. In Illinois, the cop comes over and if he thinks you're drunk he asks you to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test. He can't make you take it though, if you refuse you are taken to jail and your car is impounded and you are arrested for drunk driving.
If you can manage to walk over to the back of the car without stumbling or talking loud enough that the microphone catchs your slurred voice there is only the cops testimony that he smelled alcohol or you looked drunk or whatever the reason was that he wanted you to walk the line.
This gives you some hope of getting not guilty vs the 100% if you blow an illegal blood alcohol count.
The downside is that if you refuse the test your license is suspended for 3 months, not for drunk driving but for refusing.
oh, i like that even less....sort of sets a precedent for blocking scanning companys domains on your router..
I had to read that a few times to understand what you were getting at. You've basically outlined article 31 of the TRIPS agreement and specified how they would be in compliance with the treaty.
That's all well and good, but you don't see any problem with patents killing people? The world has gone insane, the US threatens to crush China with the WTO over some pirated records but their horrible human rights record is no problem to their most favored nation status.
Everyone needs to step back and re-evaluate our priority's. I like my money also, but I'm not willing to let people die over my patent rights. We didn't always have 10 year patents on drugs and the pharmaceutical industry didn't die.
If I owned pharmaceutical stock, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. That or maybe I should buy one share so I can complain that I'd rather see a slower growth rate on my stock and some tighter profit margins than kill people for a few more dollars.
oh god, libertarians for a one world government, i never thought i'd see this day.
ok, when did freedom become the right to slate patent laws over the entire world? This wouldn't have even been an issue if the company wasn't able to sue via the WTO, specifically under the TRIPS agreement. Earlier attempts were made at the inception of the Uruguay Round, about 50 countries did not confer protection for pharmaceutical products. The TRIPS Agreement obliged all WTO Member countries to recognize such protection. There is some wiggle room under TRIPS however. The TRIPS Agreement is not a uniform law (Unctad, 1996). It only sets forth minimum standards to be provided for. Any WTO Member may grant a broader protection than that required under the Agreement, but it can not be obliged to do so (article 1). Article 7 of the Agreement ("Objectives"), establishes a general framework for the interpretation of its provisions. It aims at balancing the interests of innovators and users of technology in the protection of intellectual property, in a manner that enhances "social and economic welfare".
I'm sure Roche exec's aren't standing in line at the soup kitchen. It's not like Brazil robbed a shipment of drugs and passed them out. I think it's pretty telling when they can save the kind of money they can by making the drugs themselves.
I'm just disapointed in your whole line of reasoning, you are supposed to be for less legislation and you are backing a non-democratic treaty based form of law from which you were restricted from participating in.
I live in Rockford, Illinois. It has a population of 175,000 and 3 hospitals. Each of those hospitals has it's own open-heart surgery center, it's own specialists for most everything outside the extremely specialized (eg. separating conjoined twins, sex changes, other things that would require john hopkins or something).
It's a complete waste of resources, in their desire to compete with each other they have duplicated resources that would have been better allocted by some form of cooperation where they could have divided these fields up.
I wouldn't look at numbers or money to decide who has the best health care system. There are already good statistics based on mortality, quality of care and they don't show any gap between U.S. and Canadian health care. As a matter of fact a Harris poll found Americans to be the least likely of all industrialized nations to be happy with their health care.
(psssst, don't tell Any Rand she'll blow a blood vessel....oh yeah she did, n/m)
You know, I went to the trouble of emailing Don Manzullo, my representative in Northern Illinois. He makes it something of a bother to even do as his office doesn't accept email from non-constituants. I put my thoughts together regarding the dimitri case and fired it off.
Two weeks later, I get this big mannila envelope with a little four line form letter thanking me for my interest in the case and this huge packet of press clipings regarding the case. Ever since then, every week like clockwork I get this huge packet of clipings in a big mannila envelope from Don.
I have no idea what I accomplished in writing in the first place. I guess it's better than nothing. I didn't really expect the representative to call up thanking me for pointing out the case and asking me out to dinner to discuss it further.
Did any of you write your congressmen and get some different responce?
You should really get in sync with that benevolent libertarian party you appear to be so enamored with.
their stance on property rights
I've heard the libertarian talking heads on the subject, they see us as theives and are all in favor of cracking down on intellectual property theft.
Honestly, I don't know what a libertarian government would do about it, but I would imagine you would see some responce. You see I'm a former libertarian. I came around when I realized that the corporations that prop up the government are more dangerous than that government.
Libertarians all read too much Ayn Rand and lionize the great capitalists. I'm pretty much a capitalist. I've got a small business, I'd like to see it bigger and better. The problem is when something grows beyond a man trying to make his money and becomes this huge corporate monster beyond the control of any rationale for behavior other than making a profit by any means necessary.
Libertarians want to extend the freedom from government intervention to entity's that want to deprive me of my freedoms. The corporations that have grown up are fully capable of taking choices away from me that I want to make. They have formed cartels that are not able to be countered with free market forces (eg. the dvd consortium, WIPA, the nest of whores that surrounds and makes up microsoft). I'm sort of without a party now. Is there some party in the US that is pro-personal liberty and in favor of strong controls on business past a certain size?
It absolutely must have been an x-files episode. We grabbed up every German scientist we could while the Russians did the same. Same thing with the japanese researchers involved in atrocities experimenting with biological warfare. As a matter of fact the experiments were kept secret until the 90's because the U.S. granted immunity from war crimes prosecution to the Japanese doctors in exchange for their data and helped covering up the human experiment. Instead of putting the ringleaders on trial, U.S. gave them stipends in order to have some germ warfare advantage over the communist Soviet Union.
In fact Hollywood mostly portrays big corporations as the ultimate bad guys. Rollerball, Soylent Green, the Robocop series for example.
Yeah, except hollywood seems to think of it's self as a nice little cottage industry. Something like a nice little artist commune beset by a tyrynical government that steps on it's rights to free expression once in awhile and bravely fights back.
They convieniently forget the corporations and lawyers that make up it's spearline and make damn sure the money keeps piling in by fair means or foul.
It's the big story at the top of the page now. I'm wondering if they just pick that story from the amount of traffic that a certain story is generating. It's not exactly a banner news day but there's certainly things more important than some op-ed piece from the career section.
If that's so, you could form advocacy groups where someone sets up a site and links to the cnn story that you want to get coverage for and the people involved with that issue could go through and click them all every day.
Or more nefariously spoof ip's to make unique hits and run a script....
hmmmmmm
I watched CNN after the g8 in genoa. The best they could do to explain why the protesters were there was one libertarian talking head and one blue dog democrat blathering at each other about how they were isolationists, the other talking head rebutted saying they were ludites. It was disgraceful. It's a BIG movement with a big umbrella that pretty well covers the gambit between extreme far right anarchists who see just flat do not exept government rule, they protest at the g8,IMF,World Bank stuff because they know there will be others and media coverage. On the other side you have hard core communists who see capitalism as the root of all evil. What people don't understand is that those fringes make up about 1% of people opposed to the globalisation movement.
About 20-30% are there on a single issue. They are environmentalists there to protest the fact that the WTO is trying to enforce a world standard of low environmental standards, it's reached a point where the US succesfully sued mexico into having to take a toxic waste dump because their refusal was a "restriction of fair trade". I'm not a big tree-hugger but I do think that is sort of spooky.
The other single issue people are there for debt forgiveness for third world nations, or labor organizers who are scared of the WTO because they treat labor the same way they do the environment as far as "restriction to free trade" goes.
I'm there because I think it is scary as hell that the g8 (seven wealthiest nations plus russia) all come together and have secret closed talked meetings about how best to divide up the wealth of the world. I'm there because I see the world rapidly devolving into a state of corporate fuedalism.
Blah, I sort of understand why the mainstream media doesn't try and explain this for reasons other than conspiracy theory, it has about 150 different facits and just trying to describe what the WTO and world bank do doesn't sound byte well.
A nice summary of what most of the anti WTO folks not on the fringe is here http://www.50years.org/platform.html
it's sort of dry and boring, no crazed manifesto calling for everyone to beat their computer into a plowshare and go get behind the ass of a mule all day. Sorry to disappoint
Well, I'm glad they came around on the actual prosecution but they didn't exactly pull a 100% mea culpa on the issue. They said "We strongly support the DMCA and the enforcement of copyright protection of digital content," said Colleen Pouliot, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Adobe. "However, the prosecution of this individual in this particular case is not conducive to the best interests of any of the parties involved or the industry. ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor software is no longer available in the United States, and from that perspective the DMCA worked. Adobe will continue to protect its copyright interests and those of its customers."
So it's more like, "To hell with it, we got what we wanted, we've scared the hell out of everyone in the world. All we can get from this point out is a bunch of bad press mainly aimed at our primary consumers (Web designers and pre-press folk). Go ahead and let him go"
There is open source news actually
check out indymedia.org. There has been a decent amount of coverage on Skylarov's case. Not so much recently because the place is still kind of going nuts over the G8 summit in genoa. Actually most of the story's lately have been about the mainstream media's lack of coverage of both those issues.... Hmmmm, I'm trying to decide if that's worthwhile or not.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I feel dirty responding to this. I don't know whether I just got trolled or not, but I'll bite.
1 oz. citrate caffeine
1 oz. vanilla
2½ oz. flavoring *
4 oz. fluid extract of coca
3 oz. citric acid
1 qt. lime juice
30 lbs. sugar
2½ gal. water
caramel
* orange, lemon, nutmeg, cinnamon, coriander, neroli oils, alcohol
Oh God, They're breaking down the door!!!!
You absofuckinglutely would not get thrown in jail for publishing a recipe. As long as it was you screwing around in your kitchen and you came up with how it was done there is no way in hell anyone could sue you, much less bring criminal charges against you.
If on the other hand you worked for coca-cola, were made privy to the recipe then published it you could face CIVIL charges. No one has ever gone to jail for anything like this ever, it's something out of a Kafka novel and I keep hearing these wet fart noises from bleating sheep saying "but he broke the law". Who gives a damn if he broke a law? It's a stupid law, and people have an obligation to break stupid laws. It's movement towards making the stupid law go away.
Don't simply break the law....What the hell are you talking about? A tenent of civil disobedience is that to break an unjust law is a moral imperative.
There is rich tradition of nonviolent protest in this country, including Harriet Tubman's underground railroad during the civil war and Henry David Thoreau's refusal to pay war taxes. Nonviolent civil disobedience was a critical factor in gaining women the right to vote in the United States, as well. Those folks were certainly "breaking the law", and they sure as hell got arrested a few times.
I'm not going to lump skylarov in with Rosa Parks or Thoreau, Harriet Tubman wasn't charging $99 to break slaves out of the south. However, an attitude of "it's just unthinkable to break a law however stupid it is" is just plain dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I know you slept through government class but try and follow along here. The Attorney General (This is the head of the Justice Department) is appointed by George Bush. He was appointed to forward the Bush agenda in what cases are brought before federal courts. John Ashcroft is not a judge, not part of the judiciary, has absolutely nothing to do with them.
Would it have been better to say "John Ashcroft bailed out Microsoft"? What is the difference? There was never any doubt that George would bail them out, they were his #3 donor. Right behind the oil companies. Wouldn't be right for Big Oil to get a 1000% return on their investment in him and then turn around and not show Microsoft some generosity.
Fucking corporate whores. Last chance for democracy was campaign finance reform. I didn't hold out alot of hope on watching elected officials cut themselves off from their trough, but now that's gone.
I know damn well I wrote one...
I'm positive it wasn't me and 29 other people.
Actually, I didn't write that, I cited the site where it came from.
I was going to post again and argue more about the conservative bias perspective, but the more I started thinking about it the less sure I was.
When I started thinking of particular examples, I started to see a new patern. It's not so much that the media are pro-business or pro-government or pro-labor. It's that they are just much more comfortable with people in power. They distrust community groups, they would rather take their information from elected people and companies. That would be why it is much easier to show a pro-boeing, pro-pharmacuetical company, pro-parking garage bias than to show a pro-business (or pro labor) bias.
The slant seems to always be toward whichever group is more powerful.
When you try and throw a left/right bias on the media you've obscured the real bias which is power. This is much scarier than ideological bias as it can be imposed on any ideology.
Yeah, but the point is they couldn't find any left wing cable or media voices.
The print newspaper is the last bastion of moderate or unbiased reporting and it's going away fast.
If you think they are wrong I'd like to throw out a rant from the site in question:
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on Smirk?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Smirk?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.
I've rethought my unconditional support of the 2nd amendment. Handguns are not a neccesary item in a well regulated militia. I would be very willing to support an interpretation that would support the outlawing of handguns but would not permit the regulation of assault weapons or rifles. As an aside I own handguns and would have to get rid of them if this interpretation was accepted.
This keeps alive my main motivation for support of the right to bear arms which is my belief that the government is more responsive to an armed populace that has the capacity at a serious level to revolt.
Rifles are not popular with criminals. They are not concealable. They cost to much to want to throw them away after a crime. Despite what you see on TV your chance of a criminal killing you with an automatic weapon is pretty low. It's not nil, I was at a bar once when someone was blackout drunk and got in a fight with someone, as he was being tossed out, he said "I'm going home and getting my gun and coming back and killing you." Nobody took him seriously, he left, came back about an hour later with a rifle and shot the guy who he was mad at and left. He was arrested about 5 minutes later and he'll probably spend something close to the rest of his life in jail. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would come a little closer to getting at the heart of the debate.
I know this interpretation would never happen because people are either polarized toward never giving up their handguns at any cost or
This is from the chicago area protest mailing list:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
/~pictures/
/~pictures/
/~pictures/
/~pictures/
/robots.txt
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Peter A. Peterson II wrote:
> Many geographic organizers are noticing that the DoD is spidering
> their sites looking at pro-dmitry material.
>
> Chicago is no exception.
>
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:28:22 -0500] "GET
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:30:22 -0500] "GET
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:34:22 -0500] "GET
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [20/Aug/2001:05:38:22 -0500] "GET
HTTP/1.0" 200 6965
>
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [22/Aug/2001:03:46:18 -0500] "GET
HTTP/1.0" 404 204
> bu-wcs2-kelly.nipr.mil - - [22/Aug/2001:03:46:18 -0500] "GET
/free-sklyarov/chicago-protest-information.txt HTTP/1.0" 200 8830
>
> I just hope they pick good pictures for my file.
>
> pedro
>
Hmm... looks like they've been hitting goose every day since the 14th.
Odd.
- -Nate
Maybe I'm just terribly optimistic, but I don't think they can keep that up forever. I think the new spin is that prostests are "in" now. Like pissing people off to the points of rioting in the streets is a fad like the backstreet boys or something.
It's sad how far the media whores have fallen, there will have to be a correction. I can't allow myself to believe people are this stupid.
CNN is far from left leaning
to quote chomsky:
"In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to elimintate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal."
Could someone tell me what @home does? I know the local cable company owns the cable, not them. What exactly does @home provide? Can I call my cable company and ask them to find another ummm...whatever the hell @does for them?
I'm totally confused. The more I hear about @home the less I want anything to do with them, but there isn't much I can do. The local switch is DSL ready but everytime I try and get DSL the tests always fail, probably sub-standard phone lines.
I had a DUI a few years ago, I took the field sobriety test failed it. Was given a field breathalyzer, failed it. Got packed in the car, took downtown, they gave me another breathalyzer, failed it. Went to jail.
I didn't have to take any of those breathalyzers (well i guess if you are hung up on the implied consent thing i did). What I mean is they couldn't have held me down and held my nose until I blew in it. All they could do is take my license away for a little while for not taking it.
I can't decide if it's bullshit or not. In Illinois, the cop comes over and if he thinks you're drunk he asks you to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test. He can't make you take it though, if you refuse you are taken to jail and your car is impounded and you are arrested for drunk driving.
If you can manage to walk over to the back of the car without stumbling or talking loud enough that the microphone catchs your slurred voice there is only the cops testimony that he smelled alcohol or you looked drunk or whatever the reason was that he wanted you to walk the line.
This gives you some hope of getting not guilty vs the 100% if you blow an illegal blood alcohol count.
The downside is that if you refuse the test your license is suspended for 3 months, not for drunk driving but for refusing.
oh, i like that even less....sort of sets a precedent for blocking scanning companys domains on your router..
I had to read that a few times to understand what you were getting at. You've basically outlined article 31 of the TRIPS agreement and specified how they would be in compliance with the treaty.
That's all well and good, but you don't see any problem with patents killing people? The world has gone insane, the US threatens to crush China with the WTO over some pirated records but their horrible human rights record is no problem to their most favored nation status.
Everyone needs to step back and re-evaluate our priority's. I like my money also, but I'm not willing to let people die over my patent rights. We didn't always have 10 year patents on drugs and the pharmaceutical industry didn't die.
If I owned pharmaceutical stock, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. That or maybe I should buy one share so I can complain that I'd rather see a slower growth rate on my stock and some tighter profit margins than kill people for a few more dollars.
Jesus, there are some cruel people in here
oh god, libertarians for a one world government, i never thought i'd see this day.
ok, when did freedom become the right to slate patent laws over the entire world? This wouldn't have even been an issue if the company wasn't able to sue via the WTO, specifically under the TRIPS agreement. Earlier attempts were made at the inception of the Uruguay Round, about 50 countries did not confer protection for pharmaceutical products. The TRIPS Agreement obliged all WTO Member countries to recognize such protection. There is some wiggle room under TRIPS however. The TRIPS Agreement is not a uniform law (Unctad, 1996). It only sets forth minimum standards to be provided for. Any WTO Member may grant a broader protection than that required under the Agreement, but it can not be obliged to do so (article 1). Article 7 of the Agreement ("Objectives"), establishes a general framework for the interpretation of its provisions. It aims at balancing the interests of innovators and users of technology in the protection of intellectual property, in a manner that enhances "social and economic welfare".
I'm sure Roche exec's aren't standing in line at the soup kitchen. It's not like Brazil robbed a shipment of drugs and passed them out. I think it's pretty telling when they can save the kind of money they can by making the drugs themselves.
I'm just disapointed in your whole line of reasoning, you are supposed to be for less legislation and you are backing a non-democratic treaty based form of law from which you were restricted from participating in.
I live in Rockford, Illinois. It has a population of 175,000 and 3 hospitals. Each of those hospitals has it's own open-heart surgery center, it's own specialists for most everything outside the extremely specialized (eg. separating conjoined twins, sex changes, other things that would require john hopkins or something).
It's a complete waste of resources, in their desire to compete with each other they have duplicated resources that would have been better allocted by some form of cooperation where they could have divided these fields up.
I wouldn't look at numbers or money to decide who has the best health care system. There are already good statistics based on mortality, quality of care and they don't show any gap between U.S. and Canadian health care. As a matter of fact a Harris poll found Americans to be the least likely of all industrialized nations to be happy with their health care.
(psssst, don't tell Any Rand she'll blow a blood vessel....oh yeah she did, n/m)
You know, I went to the trouble of emailing Don Manzullo, my representative in Northern Illinois. He makes it something of a bother to even do as his office doesn't accept email from non-constituants. I put my thoughts together regarding the dimitri case and fired it off.
Two weeks later, I get this big mannila envelope with a little four line form letter thanking me for my interest in the case and this huge packet of press clipings regarding the case. Ever since then, every week like clockwork I get this huge packet of clipings in a big mannila envelope from Don.
I have no idea what I accomplished in writing in the first place. I guess it's better than nothing. I didn't really expect the representative to call up thanking me for pointing out the case and asking me out to dinner to discuss it further.
Did any of you write your congressmen and get some different responce?
You should really get in sync with that benevolent libertarian party you appear to be so enamored with.
their stance on property rights
I've heard the libertarian talking heads on the subject, they see us as theives and are all in favor of cracking down on intellectual property theft.
Honestly, I don't know what a libertarian government would do about it, but I would imagine you would see some responce. You see I'm a former libertarian. I came around when I realized that the corporations that prop up the government are more dangerous than that government.
Libertarians all read too much Ayn Rand and lionize the great capitalists. I'm pretty much a capitalist. I've got a small business, I'd like to see it bigger and better. The problem is when something grows beyond a man trying to make his money and becomes this huge corporate monster beyond the control of any rationale for behavior other than making a profit by any means necessary.
Libertarians want to extend the freedom from government intervention to entity's that want to deprive me of my freedoms. The corporations that have grown up are fully capable of taking choices away from me that I want to make. They have formed cartels that are not able to be countered with free market forces (eg. the dvd consortium, WIPA, the nest of whores that surrounds and makes up microsoft). I'm sort of without a party now. Is there some party in the US that is pro-personal liberty and in favor of strong controls on business past a certain size?
It absolutely must have been an x-files episode. We grabbed up every German scientist we could while the Russians did the same. Same thing with the japanese researchers involved in atrocities experimenting with biological warfare. As a matter of fact the experiments were kept secret until the 90's because the U.S. granted immunity from war crimes prosecution to the Japanese doctors in exchange for their data and helped covering up the human experiment. Instead of putting the ringleaders on trial, U.S. gave them stipends in order to have some germ warfare advantage over the communist Soviet Union.
In fact Hollywood mostly portrays big corporations as the ultimate bad guys. Rollerball, Soylent Green, the Robocop series for example.
Yeah, except hollywood seems to think of it's self as a nice little cottage industry. Something like a nice little artist commune beset by a tyrynical government that steps on it's rights to free expression once in awhile and bravely fights back.
They convieniently forget the corporations and lawyers that make up it's spearline and make damn sure the money keeps piling in by fair means or foul.
this....
It's the big story at the top of the page now. I'm wondering if they just pick that story from the amount of traffic that a certain story is generating. It's not exactly a banner news day but there's certainly things more important than some op-ed piece from the career section.
If that's so, you could form advocacy groups where someone sets up a site and links to the cnn story that you want to get coverage for and the people involved with that issue could go through and click them all every day.
Or more nefariously spoof ip's to make unique hits and run a script....
hmmmmmm
I watched CNN after the g8 in genoa. The best they could do to explain why the protesters were there was one libertarian talking head and one blue dog democrat blathering at each other about how they were isolationists, the other talking head rebutted saying they were ludites. It was disgraceful. It's a BIG movement with a big umbrella that pretty well covers the gambit between extreme far right anarchists who see just flat do not exept government rule, they protest at the g8,IMF,World Bank stuff because they know there will be others and media coverage. On the other side you have hard core communists who see capitalism as the root of all evil. What people don't understand is that those fringes make up about 1% of people opposed to the globalisation movement.
About 20-30% are there on a single issue. They are environmentalists there to protest the fact that the WTO is trying to enforce a world standard of low environmental standards, it's reached a point where the US succesfully sued mexico into having to take a toxic waste dump because their refusal was a "restriction of fair trade". I'm not a big tree-hugger but I do think that is sort of spooky.
The other single issue people are there for debt forgiveness for third world nations, or labor organizers who are scared of the WTO because they treat labor the same way they do the environment as far as "restriction to free trade" goes.
I'm there because I think it is scary as hell that the g8 (seven wealthiest nations plus russia) all come together and have secret closed talked meetings about how best to divide up the wealth of the world. I'm there because I see the world rapidly devolving into a state of corporate fuedalism.
Blah, I sort of understand why the mainstream media doesn't try and explain this for reasons other than conspiracy theory, it has about 150 different facits and just trying to describe what the WTO and world bank do doesn't sound byte well.
A nice summary of what most of the anti WTO folks not on the fringe is here http://www.50years.org/platform.html
it's sort of dry and boring, no crazed manifesto calling for everyone to beat their computer into a plowshare and go get behind the ass of a mule all day. Sorry to disappoint
Well, I'm glad they came around on the actual prosecution but they didn't exactly pull a 100% mea culpa on the issue. They said "We strongly support the DMCA and the enforcement of copyright protection of digital content," said Colleen Pouliot, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Adobe. "However, the prosecution of this individual in this particular case is not conducive to the best interests of any of the parties involved or the industry. ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor software is no longer available in the United States, and from that perspective the DMCA worked. Adobe will continue to protect its copyright interests and those of its customers."
So it's more like, "To hell with it, we got what we wanted, we've scared the hell out of everyone in the world. All we can get from this point out is a bunch of bad press mainly aimed at our primary consumers (Web designers and pre-press folk). Go ahead and let him go"
now they use artificial flavors in lieu of the coca and cola extracts, hasn't changed much otherwise...
There is open source news actually
check out indymedia.org. There has been a decent amount of coverage on Skylarov's case. Not so much recently because the place is still kind of going nuts over the G8 summit in genoa. Actually most of the story's lately have been about the mainstream media's lack of coverage of both those issues.... Hmmmm, I'm trying to decide if that's worthwhile or not.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I feel dirty responding to this. I don't know whether I just got trolled or not, but I'll bite.
1 oz. citrate caffeine
1 oz. vanilla
2½ oz. flavoring *
4 oz. fluid extract of coca
3 oz. citric acid
1 qt. lime juice
30 lbs. sugar
2½ gal. water
caramel
* orange, lemon, nutmeg, cinnamon, coriander, neroli oils, alcohol
Oh God, They're breaking down the door!!!!
You absofuckinglutely would not get thrown in jail for publishing a recipe. As long as it was you screwing around in your kitchen and you came up with how it was done there is no way in hell anyone could sue you, much less bring criminal charges against you.
If on the other hand you worked for coca-cola, were made privy to the recipe then published it you could face CIVIL charges. No one has ever gone to jail for anything like this ever, it's something out of a Kafka novel and I keep hearing these wet fart noises from bleating sheep saying "but he broke the law". Who gives a damn if he broke a law? It's a stupid law, and people have an obligation to break stupid laws. It's movement towards making the stupid law go away.
Don't simply break the law....What the hell are you talking about? A tenent of civil disobedience is that to break an unjust law is a moral imperative.
There is rich tradition of nonviolent protest in this country, including Harriet Tubman's underground railroad during the civil war and Henry David Thoreau's refusal to pay war taxes. Nonviolent civil disobedience was a critical factor in gaining women the right to vote in the United States, as well. Those folks were certainly "breaking the law", and they sure as hell got arrested a few times.
I'm not going to lump skylarov in with Rosa Parks or Thoreau, Harriet Tubman wasn't charging $99 to break slaves out of the south. However, an attitude of "it's just unthinkable to break a law however stupid it is" is just plain dangerous.