If you look in the text of each, Ctrl+F for "government" and I believe you will see that one of Project Censored's criteria is that each topic must have had a U.S. or foreign goverment official take some action to suppress it in some way.
In #4, for example, the Pentagon has convinced the NIH to deny funding to any researcher proposing to test the hypothesis that Gulf War Syndrome results from uranium inhalation.
And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky Canadians.
I readily admit my faults, and I really liked Bush's executive order of May 2001 banning the importation of war-funding diamonds to Sierra Leone. I only wish that I could find anything even approaching the goodness of that act in his record since.
Chalabi told Bush that he had lots of detailed records of the transactions of which you speak, but couldn't come up with them after months. He played Bush like a fiddle.
Yeah, as soon as Chalabi gives KPMG those mysteriously missing computer disks with all that airtight evidence he personally promised Bush and Rumsfeld.
Except that Chalabi is in Tehran, being hailed as an Iranian national hero for convincing Bush to overextend the U.S. Army right in front of everyone itching for the fight.
On the right, FAIR's counterpart is Accuracy In Media, which is currently running as their top story, "The Big Bad FBI -- The New York Times destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case." As far as I can tell, AIM is willing to apologize for the justice department, but doesn't even bother to put out any study at all claiming left-wing media bias. Don't you think they would at least try to put out a counter study?
When AIM first started out, they used to do one every month, but then FAIR started posting counterpoints and some AP writer would pick the two up and put the highlights from each on the wires. Those highlights always seemed to favor FAIR's viewpoint, and the AP stories started saying so.
So now AIM doesn't even make any general claims about a pervasive bias. Think about it.
Why would anyone be so quick to call it propoganda? 10,000 Gulf War vets have already died of diseases with symptoms identical to uranium dust inhalation. Why deny it?
Here are the pertinent excerpts, if you don't believe them then tell me exactly what you don't believe:
UMRC's Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.
At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs....
Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unit... are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre http://www.umrc.net/ conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156 685c.html
Leuren Moret reports, "In my research on depleted uranium during the past 5 years, the most disturbing information concerns the impact on the unborn children and future generations for both soldiers serving in the depleted uranium wars, and for the civilians who must live in the permanently radioactive contaminated regions. Today, more than 240,000 Gulf War veterans are on permanent medical disability and more than 11,000 are dead. They have been denied testing, medical care, and compensation for depleted uranium exposure and related illnesses since 1991."
Moret continues "Even worse, they brought it home in their bodies. In some families, the children born before the Gulf War are the only healthy members. Wives and female partners of Gulf War veterans have reported a condition known as burning semen syndrome, and are now internally contaminated from depleted uranium carried in the semen of exposed veterans. Many are reporting reproductive illnesses such as endometriosis. In a U.S. government study, conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs on post-Gulf War babies, 67% were found to have serious birth defects or serious illnesses. They were born without eyes (anophthalmos), ears, had missing organs, missing legs and arms, fused fingers, thyroid or other organ malformations...."
UMRC found artificial uranium in bomb craters, surrounding watercourses and the bodies of civilians exposed to US Coalition bombing in Afghanistan. Civilians surveyed presented with the classical symptoms
I knew I was forgetting those from my bookmarks -- I get their regular emails and recommend anyone with an interest in this topic sign up on their lists.
I also read Tacitus, Redstate, Instapundit, mainstream political reporting and local editorials, but I don't think those are as accurate as the sites I mentioned.
Plus, CJR Campaign Desk, Pat Oliphant, and Ben Sargent are all pretty centrist if you ask me.
Who do you consider to be the most centrist political cartoonist?
So do you think we should stop companies from using new technology, computers, robotics, and other machines that replace workers?
No, because, for example, that would be completely impractical and totally ignored.
However, every community has the right to regulate its labor market. If you want the benefit of living here, then you may have to give up the right to unlimited use of foreign labor.
My teenage daughter might want to employ a Swedish band for her slumber party entertainment, but even if she could afford to hire them, as long as it's my house, I have the right to say no.
Your first Krugman link is an interview that is clearly against outsourcing. Where do you read that it is in favor of it?
I'm willing to admit that Krugman was probably in favor of outsourcing in the 1998 time-frame, when job creation was fast outpacing labor force growth, leading to potentially inflationary pressure on salaries.
Perhaps we do not read the same economics journals, but perhaps you have heard of Paul Krugman and J. K. Gailbraith?
The pro-outsourcing arguments are as deficient as the anti-minimum-wage arguments, and for the same reason. They both assume that labor markets have the same dynamics as commodity markets. Although often persuasive on the surface, in practice, when people are making a higher wage, they are less inclined to quit, which saves training expenses, and they are more likely to work harder, increasing the value of their work. There is strong evidence that the net labor cost does not increase after reasonable increases in the minimum wage, and rock-solid evidence against increased unemployment. For example:
"Total employment in the higher minimum wage states increased by 6.2 percent from January 1998 to January 2004, 50 percent greater than the combined job growth of 4.1 percent for the other states where the federal minimum wage prevailed. And Retail employment grew by 6.1 percent in the minimum wage states versus 1.9 percent in the other states."
Sorry, but by the time the space program rolled around, most computer R&D funding was commercial. The Apollo computer was made from 5000 off-the-shelf integrated circuits and core memory.
The whitehouse.gov webbaster has stated that the only person who has ever typed his own replies to "Ask The White House" questions is Treasury Secretary Snow. (Remember, the guy who "staked his reputation on job growth by Christmas" a year ago?) Everyone else has dictated answers to an assistant.
Slashdot Mirror
In #4, for example, the Pentagon has convinced the NIH to deny funding to any researcher proposing to test the hypothesis that Gulf War Syndrome results from uranium inhalation.
And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky Canadians.
Perhaps some day those who believe that the media actually has a right-wing bias will develop hyperlinking technology.
Some amazingly helpful soul has posted all the Google caches.
If it looks like a true statement is undermining credibility, that almost always means that something is seriously wrong and needs to be corrected.
Remind me never to slip through an interdimensional gate to the bizzaro world you must live in.
I readily admit my faults, and I really liked Bush's executive order of May 2001 banning the importation of war-funding diamonds to Sierra Leone. I only wish that I could find anything even approaching the goodness of that act in his record since.
If it weren't, then will you volunteer to inhale some to prove your point?
We are talking about renal failure, not cancer.
Uranium dust inhalation is not deadly because uranium is radioactive, it is deadly because it is a heavy metal.
Chalabi told Bush that he had lots of detailed records of the transactions of which you speak, but couldn't come up with them after months. He played Bush like a fiddle.
According to Slate, "Since 1930, GDP growth was 5.4 percent for Democratic presidents and 1.6 percent for Republicans."
If you take all the data from the same time-frames one year later to allow for delayed policy effects, it makes the Democrats look even better.
If you think it says that, you didn't read it very carefully. The only Carter/Reagan comparison made has to do with jobs alone.
Except that Chalabi is in Tehran, being hailed as an Iranian national hero for convincing Bush to overextend the U.S. Army right in front of everyone itching for the fight.
Get your head out of the sand.
On the right, FAIR's counterpart is Accuracy In Media, which is currently running as their top story, "The Big Bad FBI -- The New York Times destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case." As far as I can tell, AIM is willing to apologize for the justice department, but doesn't even bother to put out any study at all claiming left-wing media bias. Don't you think they would at least try to put out a counter study?
When AIM first started out, they used to do one every month, but then FAIR started posting counterpoints and some AP writer would pick the two up and put the highlights from each on the wires. Those highlights always seemed to favor FAIR's viewpoint, and the AP stories started saying so.
So now AIM doesn't even make any general claims about a pervasive bias. Think about it.
On the contrary, take #4 for example, High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians, which is ssupported by several publications in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
Why would anyone be so quick to call it propoganda? 10,000 Gulf War vets have already died of diseases with symptoms identical to uranium dust inhalation. Why deny it?
Here are the pertinent excerpts, if you don't believe them then tell me exactly what you don't believe:
I think that is unsuprising given that most media outlets are owned and controled by rich conservatives and corporations.
Institute for Public Accuracy
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
I knew I was forgetting those from my bookmarks -- I get their regular emails and recommend anyone with an interest in this topic sign up on their lists.
Plus, CJR Campaign Desk, Pat Oliphant, and Ben Sargent are all pretty centrist if you ask me.
Who do you consider to be the most centrist political cartoonist?
No, because, for example, that would be completely impractical and totally ignored.
However, every community has the right to regulate its labor market. If you want the benefit of living here, then you may have to give up the right to unlimited use of foreign labor.
My teenage daughter might want to employ a Swedish band for her slumber party entertainment, but even if she could afford to hire them, as long as it's my house, I have the right to say no.
I'm willing to admit that Krugman was probably in favor of outsourcing in the 1998 time-frame, when job creation was fast outpacing labor force growth, leading to potentially inflationary pressure on salaries.
The Washington Monthly
The Daily Kos
The Columbia Journalism Review Campaign Desk
The Center for American Progress
Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall
Tom Toles political cartoons
Ben Sargent cartoons
Pat Oliphant cartoons
Jamie Zawinski's freinds
Ed Fitzgerald's blog
more to follow-up...
Perhaps we do not read the same economics journals, but perhaps you have heard of Paul Krugman and J. K. Gailbraith?
The pro-outsourcing arguments are as deficient as the anti-minimum-wage arguments, and for the same reason. They both assume that labor markets have the same dynamics as commodity markets. Although often persuasive on the surface, in practice, when people are making a higher wage, they are less inclined to quit, which saves training expenses, and they are more likely to work harder, increasing the value of their work. There is strong evidence that the net labor cost does not increase after reasonable increases in the minimum wage, and rock-solid evidence against increased unemployment. For example:
Telling someone that outsourcing his job will save him money is pathetic and absurd on its face.Sorry, but by the time the space program rolled around, most computer R&D funding was commercial. The Apollo computer was made from 5000 off-the-shelf integrated circuits and core memory.
The whitehouse.gov webbaster has stated that the only person who has ever typed his own replies to "Ask The White House" questions is Treasury Secretary Snow. (Remember, the guy who "staked his reputation on job growth by Christmas" a year ago?) Everyone else has dictated answers to an assistant.
yes, but this decision isn't the sort that usually gets the 9th in trouble.