Wow... if that's true, that's the most idiotic thing I have heard in my life... I thought only totalitarian governments had laws like that--guess I was wrong:(
Why would police demolish the VCR? For what purpose, to see if the head was lined w/ narcotics?
Probably to check out if anything is inside it. And if they mess up when disassembling it, just bash it and claim it was already like that. Interestingly I just watch the famous film The French Connection the other day. The cops had to break apart the car but in the movie they somehow managed to put it back together like the original (or did they replace it with a new one? It wasn't clear to me). When they were taking apart the car, they trashed certain parts of it. If these cops trashed the VCR then what better than to make up an excuse? Interestingly The French Connection is based on a true story (BTW, I recommend the film if you are into 70's crime dramas. Very good film with one of the best car chase scenes).
And why the fuck would they keep it for two years after they caught the guy and the evidence? The case went on for two years?
Inefficient bureacracies perhaps. Is there an upper limit on the amount of time they can keep seized assets? If not, then they can hang onto them I guess...
The real question is... Do they install trojan horses and viruses on the computer that they confiscate? Would it be safe to use a confiscated computer or would those computers always be monitored?
Feh. Time to denounce that us citizenship and move to canada. I do NOT want anything to do productively with this country anymore...let the slackers and beurocrats drown in their shit...
First of all, you should never run away from oppression unless your life is under threat. At least that's my philosophy. If USA sucks, you should take it upon yourself to change it. When the US govt threatens you (via CIA or Secret Service) then hop over to Canada. You are always welcome here:)...
Having said that, Canada seems to be blindly following the path of USA. There have been several recent cases where people were sent to Syria to be tortured even though they were Canadian citizens. Canadian government got them out but only after some diplomacy, and well after these people suffered some abuse and torture.
Next, it seems the present Canadian government is "rolling back" its plans to legalize small amounts of marijuana. It is also slowing down in granting equality to homosexuals. What does all this have to do with the issue at hand? Well, the goverment is shifting to the right due to the "war" on terrorism. Right wing goverments are more prone to abuse civil liberties than left-leaning ones. Let's also not forget that Canada passed its own Patriot Act, although it was called something else (Bill xxxsomethingxxx) and wasn't as harsh.
Fortunately, Canada doesn't have a Secret Service and the bureacracy that goes with it. Canada's security issues are generally handled by the RCMP and they are more respected than the FBI. FBI is highly corrupt and at any given point in time, at least 10% of FBI officials work for organized criminals. This is why the FBI is hated by more Americans than any other police force in the developed liberal world (Russia, China, etc don't count). RCMP isn't that bad. However, I think CSIS (equivalent of CIA) went rogue. The recent cases with Syria, as well as a bunch of others imply that. Also, it seems the politicians responsible for CSIS don't know what CSIS is doing--a clear indication of how rogue the agency is.
I don't know the laws but the Secret Service, from what I understand, is supposed to protect politicians (The President, Vice President, and a few others). That's what they are supposed to be doing. These days they are into a lot more.
One might ask why. My theory is that the Secret Service, just like the CIA and DEA, have become BUREACRATIC entities. That is to say, they care more about self-preservation than doing anything else. Breaking into crackers' houses, monitoring encrypted communications, etc are not what the Secret Service is supposed to do. Yet they do it. I have no numbers (these are all secrete I think) but I would guess that more than 50% of the Secret Service budget goes towards activities which have nothing to do with protecting politicians.
At the rate it is going, it wouldn't surprise me if the Secret Service's "jurisdiction" is increased to other activities. Already they are heavily involved in monitoring anti-war protestors and activists (supposedly these non-violent people are a threat to the US president:( ). I think one of the first new "responsibilities" they will gain in the near future is the ability to shut down websites hostile to the US president. Of course, they would have to circumvent freedom of speech but that hasn't stopped others in the past. I mean, remembering that this is Martin Luther King day, one just has to remember how Martin King was minitored and tracked by the FBI and CIA even though it is illegal to do so--at that time and even now. Remember, a bureaucracy can break any law--they just need to cook up something bogus (like Martin Luther King is going to overthrow the US government).
USA does not DESERVE anything. No one does. No innocent person deserves to die. So do not construe my message as saying people deserved to die or anything like that.
Having said that, why do you think USA is always targetted? I mean, why doesn't someone attack Sweden? Or Italy? Or Japan? Or whatever.
And if you say USA is a convenient scapegoat, why so? Scapegoat for what?
We could change our international policies to do nothing but appease the leaders of all other nations, and there would STILL be some motherfuckers trying to blow our shit up.
But if you notice, USA has not been attacked by anyone before the 1950's. Yes there was Pearl Harbour but that was a military attack. Name the last time (before getting involved in the rest of the world's affairs) that USA has been attacked by some hostile group (non-military). Your international policies DO impact the situation. All these groups that are attacking you are REACTIONARY groups. They are NOT some liberal group clamouring for progress. Reactionary groups, as the name implies, react to something.
Do you really think those dirty assholes strapping explosives to themselves have any awareness of which international treaties are being enforced and which are ignored?
No! BUT they do know one thing. That all their horrible goverments (going from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, down to Egypt) are propped up by US political and military "aid". That is what they are against--not some international treaty violated by USA.
If USA stops supporting these autocratic regimes, I'm pretty sure that these terrorist groups will attack their own (weak) governments rather than USA.
Which newspapers and magazines? Do they just happen to be American ones? It looks like you have fallen for propaganda.
Hitler NEVER ever called himself a communist. Not only that, it would be an insult to a Nazi to say so. I can't imagine Hitler admitting that he is a communist. If anything, communists were the enemy of Hitler. I can't imagine anyone calling Hitler a communist. The only people who would have done so are American conservatives (who hated communism but did not agree with Hitler 100% either).
As far as the Eagle thingie is concerned, can you provide some weblinks to show that the Nazis picked it for that particular reason (i.e. supporting both leftists and right wingers)?
The Nazis were very close to that. They were practicing Nazism (a political ideology) on top of capitalism (an economic system). Businesses under the Nazis were all run by private entrepreneurs (many of whom became rich). The state did not meddle with businesses in Germany except when it came to politics (eg. enslaving Jews, killing communists, etc). Other than the economic interferences, the businesses were entirely private run.
One can argue that the rampant discrimination initiated by the Nazis (eg. genocide) is anti-capitalist. But one needs to keep in mind that capitalism has nothing to do with politics (or things like human rights). USA, the model of capitalists, were discriminating against people in the early 1900's too. I mean, capitalism calls for the best person for a job to get it. Yet, hardly any blacks (and other minorities) were hired by the capitalists in the early 1900's. Nazis just extended this to "Aryans". So Nazis were ok on that front, when it comes to capitalism.
Having said that, Nazis did not exactly support "free trade". Nazis were nationalists so they wanted the Aryans to control everything. They were against trade with "inferior people" and "inferior" countries. If anything, all these "inferior" countries were to be invaded and taken over. So they weren't exactly pure capitalists. Free trade is a key tenet of capitalism and hence Nazis weren't pure capitalists. However, they were closer to capitalism than socialism.
The largest drug companies are European if I'm not mistaken.. Anyway...
Capitalists who support capitalism (as opposed to the Marxist definition of capitalist, who own means of production) don't care about profits. They care more about the system than what companies do or do not gain. Capitalism is based on free markets and that is key. Anything that deviates from it, whether be it minimum wage, or tax laws, or IP laws, are anti-capitalist.
Yes, a business would prefer highly restrictive IP laws to maximize profits. But businesses would prefer any law to maximize profits. Profits are maximized under monopolies so why not purposely create monopolies? I'm sure the majority of large corporations would be in favour of it. But it doesn't happen why? The reason is because the capitalists who control the country and even the world don't care about profits. What they care about is free market. Monopolizing an industry is against free markets so capitalists don't support it. I'm sure if free market was not a key requirement for capitalism, the capitalists would support monopolization of markets.
I'm against missile shield too. I can't believe Canada is supporting it:(:(:( People should vote against Paul Martin just for that:(
The missile shield is being built to defend against China. Read de-classified CIA reports and you'll find that China is USA's #1 LONG TERM enemy. WMD supporters will all admit that. You are right in pointing out that rogue states use rogue means (that's why they are called that after all). Missile Shield won't protect against asymetteric attack such as a spy sneaking a bomb into the country. For example, if North Korea wanted to attack USA, it would sneak a bomb into USA and then fake it so that it seems like the bomb came from some other country.
I personally don't think it will work so it won't destabilize the world and result in a nuclear race (which is my worst worry). So that's good. It's just a bunch of US taxpayer money wasted but that's ok since it is just money. I guess those that support the missile shield (who are mostly conservatives) actully believe that they can build a shield that protects against a massive ICBM strike. The Soviets, I imagine correctly, predicted that it wouldn't work (especially with their 10,000+ nukes).
In any case, the planned Missile Shield is too small to be of any use. I imagine it is just a test. If it "works", it will be expanded to a "Star Wars"-like program. The latter would require hundreads of billions of dollars so I'm not sure how far that is going to go. USA can always cut funding for NASA, "medicaid", schools, and shift to the shield.
As a side note, if USA builds a full "Star Wars" (which isn't what the present missile shiled is), I predict that the UN will collapse.
However, this poses a problem for China's economy because respect for laws and lack of court system that can effectively deal with those that ignore IP laws and signed contracts means some potential business partners get screwed and leave the market.
A market without IP laws is actually closer to capitalism. If anything, there would be even MORE people entering the market.
I'm not a capitalist and dont' support capitalism but your assertion that businesses will leave the market seems incorrect. If a country or province or region or whatever does not have IP laws, I think it would be even more attractive to capitalists.
the US threatens to cease trade and cancel IMF and WorldBank funds when the poor get angry
If that happened, everyone would be better off (except for the capitalists and their corporations). The "aid" is certainly not helping many countries. It is my opinion that 90% of the poor countries will NEVER pay back their debt. The loans are usually pocketed by the elites in these poor countries, or recycled back to the debtor's corporations anyway (kind of like how US corporations in Iraq (KBR aka Halliburton, and Bechtel, for example) are just getting recycled US taxpayer money and looted Iraqi resources. Technically USA is providing "aid" to Iraq but most of it is recycled back to a few US corporations ).
I can't wait until the World Bank, IMF, and the strong arm of the capitalists, WTO, collapse. The UN, acting as a humanitarian institution, should have nothing to do with them. UN should stay out of economics and let the capitalists deal with capitalism. Capitalists can run the WTO better than anyone else.
SOME countries benefit from the trade deals. These countries, expectedly, are precisely the ones that follow the US-style of hardball capitalism. Namely, preach capitalism on one hand while ignoring it completely. This is what USA is good at these days. Needless to say, China is doing the exact same thing. Unfortunately the majority of the poor countries (in South America and Africa in particular) haven't caught on to this. Perhaps they are too small to do this. But whatever it is, these poor countries are getting worse and worse by the day. Even poster boys of capitalists, like Argentina and Mexico aren't doing well. For example, Mexico's growth rate is around 1% since NAFTA. Mexico is sitting on a time bomb (so are many of these poor countries).
On top of all this, even if countries export products, they are not better off. The benefits often accrues to the capitalists (who happens to be large multinational corporations in this case). The corporations pay pretty much the same wage as before yet now they can produce products in a cheaper country with very little human rights versus back home in USA (for example) where wages are higher. Wages for workers in these poor countries have not increased much--if at all. Perhaps labour activists being assasinated might have something to do with that...
Really? I guess stupidity is in the eye of the beholder:)
What's wrong with "yo stop dissing people". Too juvenile for you? Too hip for you? Too modern for you?;) I guess you must be old...
Using ellipses is correct because I was posting two thoughts that are not connect to each other. A period would mean that the sentences are related to each other...
Well, for one, there's the option of a bigger war, with even more death, gloom and destruction.
There is no such thing as a bigger war. The reason is because you can only make that observation afterwards, rendering the whole thing meaningless. For instance, many imperialists and capitalists (like Ayn Rand) called for the invasion of USSR circa 60's. Their argument was that the war would be smaller at that time than if it occurred later. Just like the modern neoconvative pre-emptive preventive war doctrine, you cannot prove it. In hindsight, if USA invaded USSR it would have been even worse than if it did not (since USSR collapsed). But if USSR did not collapse would it have been better? You just don't know.
Your argument of preventing bigger war is the same. When senior US government officials were considering the "Ayn Rand" argument that USA should invade every single Communist country, they were debating that. Fortunately, many did not take the "war-preventing" solution.
As far as preventing WWII, I don't see how you can say that. It was countries like USA and Britain that supported fascism in the first place. Fascism was thought to be less of an evil than Communism (a view still held by many Americans) and that's what happened. I mean, there was even an Olympics, a world event, during Hitler's regime. You couldn't have stopped WWII (unless you go way back to the 20's or thereabouts). As far as I'm concerned, Germany was going to be Communist or fascist. Countries like Britain chose to support fascism (mostly because they didn't care about Jews and others (there was so much rampant anti-Semiticism at that time)). If Germany did not become fascist, it would have become Communist. On top of all that, if you did intervene in the early years, you would be anti-democratic (kind of like how the US government is in Iraq right now with their plan to ignore democracy and go with a hand-picked "caucus"). So, democrats (not to be confused with the party) certainly wouldn't have supported intervention in German politics at that time.
The United States has proven to be far LESS "imperialistic" than any previous superpower (Britain and Russia come to mind as recent examples of true imperialists.)
I am against imperialism--period. You clearly support it. To me, it doesn't matter if you are in top 10 empires or the bottom 10, it's all the same. I am against it on ideological grounds. Britain WAS worse than USA. However, I would put USA and USSR as the same (it's not clear to me if you are referring ot USSR when you say Russia, or Russia at some earlier period). Also, it seems you do not understand the difference between modern imperialism and the past. Because of human progress and the establishment of universal human rights, imperialists are more limited. Nowadays, you only invade countries as a last resort. Your goal is always to establish proxy or client states and spread your military bases all over. USA certainly fits this bill (so did USSR). Also, modern day imperialism has more restrictions. For instance, you cannot take over a country and annex it. No one will recognize that. Therefore, you have to convert countries into proxies and clients. Examples of proxy state of USA is Panama and Kuwait; examples of client states of USA are Saudi Arabia and Colombia.
Also, what's the point of comparing to other imperialists of the past? I mean, one can pick Rome and say no country has been worse than Rome in the last 250 years and therefore, all modern regimes are good. Hardly a convincing argument--unless you just want to avoid being placed the #1 worst empire. You can always pick someone out there who is worse than you and start claiming that you are not bad at all.
Contrast this to the approach taken by my previous examples: during their Imperial phase either would have simply annexed Iraq, taken over the oil fields and been done with it.
It is almost impossible to do that due to the establishment of the UN, internationa
First of all the weak arguments (straw man attack, etc) was just an example. I wasn't trying to say yours was that. All I was saying is that yours would fit into similar categories.
What I said, was that it is the reason the government has the law and also has the "war on drugs." I said, that logically, if you get rid of the drugs, you can't have drug related deaths. The government has decided that is an appropriate action. They then make the law and the war. Any arguing with that?
If THAT is your point, your point is almost irrelevant. You are simply making an observation and not supporting any position. Your statement is pretty much a tautology.
Laws are just something that are cooked up by the elites to control the rest of the population. This is the origin of laws (mostly from religion--and religion was HIGHLY corrupt at that time) but is still true. Ignoring that...
Speaking as a leftist in favour of legalizing drugs, there are two arguments. One is a liberatarian argument and the other is a socialist argument.
The libertarian argument is that people should have the freedom to do whatever they want. Anything less than that is simply the government (usually co-opted by the elites) controlling people. (As far as child pornography is concerned, read my words at the end) If you don't buy this argument, you don't support freedom. But that's ok. Only a few humans are libertarians. Anarchists, the most extreme liberatarians on the left, do not even recognize the state and want it abolished. In that case, clearly the government has no jurisdication over the individual, and drugs will be legal (along with a whole hoard of other things).
The socialist argument is that the best way to control ANYTHING is via the government. This implies that you need to legalize something unless you are strongly authoratarian. You probably have to be practicing totalitarianism to control something that is not legal. Since I am not a totalitarian, this means that the government can only control something if it is legal. Another way of saying this is that the government can't control black markets (and to some extent gray markets). Even hardcore totalitarian governments like USSR had difficulties controlling the black market (you were still able to get US dollars, Western music, etc in USSR). Otherwise, government control is nothing more than an illusion. By legalizing drugs, the government can ACTUALLLY control drugs. Whereas, the government has ZERO control over drugs.
Conservatives and various others may think the govt has control over drugs but it is anything but. You can get drugs in every high school. You can get drugs in most nightclubs. You can get drugs if you ask around. And so forth. The amount of drugs used now is FAR higher than at any point (except during the hippie days:) ). The US goverment spends hundreads of millions on DEA alone (likely to hit $1 billion within 10 years). Not to mention the billions spent by police on combating drugs. Government propaganda may make it seem like it is working but that is not true. You might see drug busts once in a while on tv. You know what? Even though those busts occur, the price of drugs on the street usually stays the same. What this means is that the supply is sufficient for the demand. Whether these busts occur or not is totally irrelevant. So the only way to control drugs (the socialist argument) is by government intervention, which necessarily requires legalization.
So those are the two arguments. I'm primarily a socialist so I would go with the 2nd option. Even if you don't buy those arguments, you will lose! Liberalism triumphs over conservatism! Drugs WILL get legalized. Resistance is futile;)
(Side note: Child pornography will never ever be legalized, at least from a left wing perspective. There is a very simple reason for it. Liberalism respects human rights--in fact, liberals are the ones who are always clamouring for it (eg. civil rights movement, feminism, UN, etc). Child pornography will NEVER be allowed because it VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS. In particular, the rights of the child are violated. There is no getting around this. It doesn't matter what you think of the pornography. The fact of the matter is that this will violate human rights. Therefore it will never be permitted. This is similar to how slavery or rape will not be permitted, from a left-wing perspective, for the simple reason that they violate human rights. Unless you throw away all human rights (against liberalism and progressive views), you won't see this happening.)
lol that's a lame argument. I'm surprised people fell for it... but not me:)
You are using an argument that is a poor technique (kind of like ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, non-sequitur, etc). You are attempting to refute an argument by picking some TINY point in the argument and proving that wrong. It's almost like the following argument:
Person 1: Seatbelts are good for everyone. They save lives
Person 2 (you:) ): No they aren't.
Person 1: Yes they are
Person 2: Nope.
Person 1: Prove it
Person 2: Babies wearing seat belts can kill them. Therefore, seat belts are bad. They should be aboslished
Person 3 (me:) ): Well you are picking a tiny extreme point and arguing against it. That's a lame argument.
People stoned and driving cars can kill people... but so can people who put paper bags on their heads and drive cars. Though dangerous in both cases, neither case warrants banning drugs or the paper bag:)
"Slashdot poster feels war is bad. Film at eleven."
heh... If you want some anti-war films, watch Platoon, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Thin Red Line, Gallipoli, The Deer Hunter, or Born on the 4th of July. Of course, you can also check out the classic anti-war documentary Hearts & Minds... If you are a conservative, you should probably stay away from these films though. They could be bad for your health;)...
Everybody knows war is bad, man. Everybody knows that people die in war, and that those who die leave survivors behind.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Yes people die but so what? Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal...my heart is too soft I guess...
That doesn't change the fact that sometimes war is the only option remaining, or the least horrible option from a set of several horrible options.
What are the options that are even worse than war? War is generally considered to be the WORST option. There isn't any that are worse. I'm not sure what you have in mind... In any case, the Iraqi war is hardly the last remaining option. Of course, if you are an imperialist or addicted to oil, it may be. But otherwise, it is a bogus war.
What good would come from broadcasting graphic video of blood and guts? Other than to serve your obvious prurient interest, of course.
Had to look up the word prurient. You might be misusing the word--not sure. Based on the dictionary definition, it seems to be only applied in the context of lust. Anyway...
Broadcasting graphic video will show the TRUE nature of war. Many warmongers (who happen to be centrists and moderates) do not have a clue about war. They grow up in an environment without facing the pain of war. Showing the reality will educate them about war. You can argue that they will become resistant or that they can already watch some documentaries. But I disagree. I don't think people will EVER become immune to pain and suffering. Seeing blood makes you feel uneasy--regardless of how often you have seen it. As for people renting documentaries on their own, automatically the conservatives won't do that since film is thought to be driven by liberals. Others won't do it either because it is a waste of time for them (just like how reading the instruction manual for a computer is a waste of time). So overall, I support showing reality. The countless clueless moderates and centrists will actually learn something about life.
I'm not sure if you are making a neutral observation, or if you are hoping for that. If the former, ignore the rest of my message.... No offense but that is such a selfish view. You are not respecting life. To you, numbers matter. To me they don't. Even one life is valuable to me. Already the fact that 500 deaths (plus 20,000 Iraqis) is apparently not important. How many more are you willing to take? 50,000?
What if NO ONE dies in your community? Does that mean that the war should continue?
It's not exactly a blatant lie but it is definitely misleading. The other post above makes note of this but to repeat, he said "Would you believe it's 5 below zero right now?" He also said "The only thing worse than the actual temperature right now is having the wind chill factored in." Those two comments IMPLY that the temperature around HIM is -5.
I consider those comments misleading. Perhaps you understood them better than me. But a person like me treats his comments as if he were talking about HIS surroundings. It's kind of like me saying 'I am so glad not to be stuck in traffic in San Francisco'. This comment, although not a lie, is highly misleading. I am not in San Francisco and in fact have never been there in my whole life. It's just wrong for me to say that--and the same applies to the issue at hand.
Don't get me wrong. I support working from home. Or working from far away. I support such activities and would prefer if corporations implement them. However, I don't think people should be saying something that is misleading.
I'm going to ignore the diversification issue. I don't really understand your point. I have a feeling that we may be arguing about the same thing...
As far as your other point is concerned, yes, management is the one that has the most knowledge about the business. But you ignore the fact that the shareholders will interfere in any case. At the minimum, they need to interfere to ensure that management acts in the interests of the owners rather than their own (i.e management's). This is why management is compensated with stock options and stuff, and is the agency cost theory under finance. At the most extreme, shareholders will get involved for ethical, moral, and political reasons. A capitalist may not want that to happen but the fact of the matter is that we are all humans. Contrary to capitalist thought, we have a heart and a mind of our own. So we will interfere. An example of the latter case is when shareholders force their companies to be environmentally friendly, or to stop supporting human rights abusers.
I agree with you that the internet is FAR freer (when it comes to media) than anything else. However, it remains to be seen how long this will last or how much things will change. Some of the things you said still don't indicate much freedom of press. You cite Google News, which is a great site and my primary online news site (not counting leftist sites--I'm leftist). You are falling into the same pitfall as the general population. Let me explain.
The general population, living in a somewhat "free" country like USA thinks that the press is quite free. But as I pointed out, the majority of the news comes from two sources: AP and Reuters. The freedom of press is just an illusion. The same is true of Google News. Nearly everything Google lists are mainstream sources (for a valid reason*). Sure, there are hundreads of links for each story. But how many of they are different? Nearly all of them quote the same source. Al Jazeera (even though I don't read it much) isn't any different. They keep quoting Reuters and others all the time. The only difference that you might see is that they will have different stories for the Middle East (like Iraq). They have their own staff in Iraq so that will be independent. But nearly all their other news is the same as the mainstream AP, Reuters, AFP, etc. Just read a story such as the emergence of the SARS disease, or the new flu, or the US plan to change its space goals, and I'll bet they are almost identical to the wire stories. So in summary, Google News is an illusion of press freedom, just like print media in your country may be.
You mention that community papers are more independent. I actually think it is the OPPOSITE for GENERAL news. The vast majority of small papers don't have large staff so they mainly pick up news off the wire (AP, Reuters, freelancers, etc). Therefore, communisty papers are EVEN MORE biased than some of the larger ones. The large papers (like New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) have their staff to do the reporting. So you'll find stories in these large papers that are unique. Having said that, the large papers are influenced and controlled by the elites whereas the elite influence on smaller papers is weaker.
Having said that, I agree with you that small papers are more independent in some sections--often for local events. So the entertainment section (as you cite) or sports will be very independent. This is really interesting if you look at it. The sports section, for instance, is perhaps the most independent section of all. The reason is because the papers have their own staff who have different opinions. In addition, sports does not negatively impact the elites and their control over society so it can be safely ignored by those that control things. People often dismiss sports as being biased, juvenile, and unimportant, but the fact of the matter is that they are more independent than the main news.
I have great hope for the internet. Since the cost of dissimating information is very low, there is great hope for hte future of media online. However, there are many problems. The first one is that no one has a framework for dissimating news without running into financial problems. As a site or medium becomes popular, costs just skyrocket. Something that you can do for free is very difficult when in becomes popular. I am somewhat familiar with the problems faced independent media since I follow leftist websites. Many have problems with funding. Others have problems with disinformation. Some even don't know how to organize themselves. So far the only successful ones have been "text" sites. The ones that try to provide news through video, webcast or some other means cannot often afford to pay bandwidth. So there are many problems. Personally, I think the ideal situation will be when you have an independent media that provides the news. People throughout the world should be able to report news, regardless of their power (i.e. don't have to be supported by elites). But this will take some time. I always
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... if that's true, that's the most idiotic thing I have heard in my life... I thought only totalitarian governments had laws like that--guess I was wrong :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why would police demolish the VCR? For what purpose, to see if the head was lined w/ narcotics?
Probably to check out if anything is inside it. And if they mess up when disassembling it, just bash it and claim it was already like that. Interestingly I just watch the famous film The French Connection the other day. The cops had to break apart the car but in the movie they somehow managed to put it back together like the original (or did they replace it with a new one? It wasn't clear to me). When they were taking apart the car, they trashed certain parts of it. If these cops trashed the VCR then what better than to make up an excuse? Interestingly The French Connection is based on a true story (BTW, I recommend the film if you are into 70's crime dramas. Very good film with one of the best car chase scenes).
And why the fuck would they keep it for two years after they caught the guy and the evidence? The case went on for two years?
Inefficient bureacracies perhaps. Is there an upper limit on the amount of time they can keep seized assets? If not, then they can hang onto them I guess...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The real question is... Do they install trojan horses and viruses on the computer that they confiscate? Would it be safe to use a confiscated computer or would those computers always be monitored?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Feh. Time to denounce that us citizenship and move to canada. I do NOT want anything to do productively with this country anymore...let the slackers and beurocrats drown in their shit...
:) ...
First of all, you should never run away from oppression unless your life is under threat. At least that's my philosophy. If USA sucks, you should take it upon yourself to change it. When the US govt threatens you (via CIA or Secret Service) then hop over to Canada. You are always welcome here
Having said that, Canada seems to be blindly following the path of USA. There have been several recent cases where people were sent to Syria to be tortured even though they were Canadian citizens. Canadian government got them out but only after some diplomacy, and well after these people suffered some abuse and torture.
Next, it seems the present Canadian government is "rolling back" its plans to legalize small amounts of marijuana. It is also slowing down in granting equality to homosexuals. What does all this have to do with the issue at hand? Well, the goverment is shifting to the right due to the "war" on terrorism. Right wing goverments are more prone to abuse civil liberties than left-leaning ones. Let's also not forget that Canada passed its own Patriot Act, although it was called something else (Bill xxxsomethingxxx) and wasn't as harsh.
Fortunately, Canada doesn't have a Secret Service and the bureacracy that goes with it. Canada's security issues are generally handled by the RCMP and they are more respected than the FBI. FBI is highly corrupt and at any given point in time, at least 10% of FBI officials work for organized criminals. This is why the FBI is hated by more Americans than any other police force in the developed liberal world (Russia, China, etc don't count). RCMP isn't that bad. However, I think CSIS (equivalent of CIA) went rogue. The recent cases with Syria, as well as a bunch of others imply that. Also, it seems the politicians responsible for CSIS don't know what CSIS is doing--a clear indication of how rogue the agency is.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know the laws but the Secret Service, from what I understand, is supposed to protect politicians (The President, Vice President, and a few others). That's what they are supposed to be doing. These days they are into a lot more.
:( ). I think one of the first new "responsibilities" they will gain in the near future is the ability to shut down websites hostile to the US president. Of course, they would have to circumvent freedom of speech but that hasn't stopped others in the past. I mean, remembering that this is Martin Luther King day, one just has to remember how Martin King was minitored and tracked by the FBI and CIA even though it is illegal to do so--at that time and even now. Remember, a bureaucracy can break any law--they just need to cook up something bogus (like Martin Luther King is going to overthrow the US government).
One might ask why. My theory is that the Secret Service, just like the CIA and DEA, have become BUREACRATIC entities. That is to say, they care more about self-preservation than doing anything else. Breaking into crackers' houses, monitoring encrypted communications, etc are not what the Secret Service is supposed to do. Yet they do it. I have no numbers (these are all secrete I think) but I would guess that more than 50% of the Secret Service budget goes towards activities which have nothing to do with protecting politicians.
At the rate it is going, it wouldn't surprise me if the Secret Service's "jurisdiction" is increased to other activities. Already they are heavily involved in monitoring anti-war protestors and activists (supposedly these non-violent people are a threat to the US president
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA does not DESERVE anything. No one does. No innocent person deserves to die. So do not construe my message as saying people deserved to die or anything like that.
Having said that, why do you think USA is always targetted? I mean, why doesn't someone attack Sweden? Or Italy? Or Japan? Or whatever.
And if you say USA is a convenient scapegoat, why so? Scapegoat for what?
We could change our international policies to do nothing but appease the leaders of all other nations, and there would STILL be some motherfuckers trying to blow our shit up.
But if you notice, USA has not been attacked by anyone before the 1950's. Yes there was Pearl Harbour but that was a military attack. Name the last time (before getting involved in the rest of the world's affairs) that USA has been attacked by some hostile group (non-military). Your international policies DO impact the situation. All these groups that are attacking you are REACTIONARY groups. They are NOT some liberal group clamouring for progress. Reactionary groups, as the name implies, react to something.
Do you really think those dirty assholes strapping explosives to themselves have any awareness of which international treaties are being enforced and which are ignored?
No! BUT they do know one thing. That all their horrible goverments (going from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, down to Egypt) are propped up by US political and military "aid". That is what they are against--not some international treaty violated by USA.
If USA stops supporting these autocratic regimes, I'm pretty sure that these terrorist groups will attack their own (weak) governments rather than USA.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Which newspapers and magazines? Do they just happen to be American ones? It looks like you have fallen for propaganda.
Hitler NEVER ever called himself a communist. Not only that, it would be an insult to a Nazi to say so. I can't imagine Hitler admitting that he is a communist. If anything, communists were the enemy of Hitler. I can't imagine anyone calling Hitler a communist. The only people who would have done so are American conservatives (who hated communism but did not agree with Hitler 100% either).
As far as the Eagle thingie is concerned, can you provide some weblinks to show that the Nazis picked it for that particular reason (i.e. supporting both leftists and right wingers)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
capitalist-nazi
The Nazis were very close to that. They were practicing Nazism (a political ideology) on top of capitalism (an economic system). Businesses under the Nazis were all run by private entrepreneurs (many of whom became rich). The state did not meddle with businesses in Germany except when it came to politics (eg. enslaving Jews, killing communists, etc). Other than the economic interferences, the businesses were entirely private run.
One can argue that the rampant discrimination initiated by the Nazis (eg. genocide) is anti-capitalist. But one needs to keep in mind that capitalism has nothing to do with politics (or things like human rights). USA, the model of capitalists, were discriminating against people in the early 1900's too. I mean, capitalism calls for the best person for a job to get it. Yet, hardly any blacks (and other minorities) were hired by the capitalists in the early 1900's. Nazis just extended this to "Aryans". So Nazis were ok on that front, when it comes to capitalism.
Having said that, Nazis did not exactly support "free trade". Nazis were nationalists so they wanted the Aryans to control everything. They were against trade with "inferior people" and "inferior" countries. If anything, all these "inferior" countries were to be invaded and taken over. So they weren't exactly pure capitalists. Free trade is a key tenet of capitalism and hence Nazis weren't pure capitalists. However, they were closer to capitalism than socialism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The largest drug companies are European if I'm not mistaken.. Anyway...
Capitalists who support capitalism (as opposed to the Marxist definition of capitalist, who own means of production) don't care about profits. They care more about the system than what companies do or do not gain. Capitalism is based on free markets and that is key. Anything that deviates from it, whether be it minimum wage, or tax laws, or IP laws, are anti-capitalist.
Yes, a business would prefer highly restrictive IP laws to maximize profits. But businesses would prefer any law to maximize profits. Profits are maximized under monopolies so why not purposely create monopolies? I'm sure the majority of large corporations would be in favour of it. But it doesn't happen why? The reason is because the capitalists who control the country and even the world don't care about profits. What they care about is free market. Monopolizing an industry is against free markets so capitalists don't support it. I'm sure if free market was not a key requirement for capitalism, the capitalists would support monopolization of markets.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm against missile shield too. I can't believe Canada is supporting it :(:(:( People should vote against Paul Martin just for that :(
The missile shield is being built to defend against China. Read de-classified CIA reports and you'll find that China is USA's #1 LONG TERM enemy. WMD supporters will all admit that. You are right in pointing out that rogue states use rogue means (that's why they are called that after all). Missile Shield won't protect against asymetteric attack such as a spy sneaking a bomb into the country. For example, if North Korea wanted to attack USA, it would sneak a bomb into USA and then fake it so that it seems like the bomb came from some other country.
I personally don't think it will work so it won't destabilize the world and result in a nuclear race (which is my worst worry). So that's good. It's just a bunch of US taxpayer money wasted but that's ok since it is just money. I guess those that support the missile shield (who are mostly conservatives) actully believe that they can build a shield that protects against a massive ICBM strike. The Soviets, I imagine correctly, predicted that it wouldn't work (especially with their 10,000+ nukes).
In any case, the planned Missile Shield is too small to be of any use. I imagine it is just a test. If it "works", it will be expanded to a "Star Wars"-like program. The latter would require hundreads of billions of dollars so I'm not sure how far that is going to go. USA can always cut funding for NASA, "medicaid", schools, and shift to the shield.
As a side note, if USA builds a full "Star Wars" (which isn't what the present missile shiled is), I predict that the UN will collapse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
However, this poses a problem for China's economy because respect for laws and lack of court system that can effectively deal with those that ignore IP laws and signed contracts means some potential business partners get screwed and leave the market.
A market without IP laws is actually closer to capitalism. If anything, there would be even MORE people entering the market.
I'm not a capitalist and dont' support capitalism but your assertion that businesses will leave the market seems incorrect. If a country or province or region or whatever does not have IP laws, I think it would be even more attractive to capitalists.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol that's funny :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
the US threatens to cease trade and cancel IMF and WorldBank funds when the poor get angry
If that happened, everyone would be better off (except for the capitalists and their corporations). The "aid" is certainly not helping many countries. It is my opinion that 90% of the poor countries will NEVER pay back their debt. The loans are usually pocketed by the elites in these poor countries, or recycled back to the debtor's corporations anyway (kind of like how US corporations in Iraq (KBR aka Halliburton, and Bechtel, for example) are just getting recycled US taxpayer money and looted Iraqi resources. Technically USA is providing "aid" to Iraq but most of it is recycled back to a few US corporations ).
I can't wait until the World Bank, IMF, and the strong arm of the capitalists, WTO, collapse. The UN, acting as a humanitarian institution, should have nothing to do with them. UN should stay out of economics and let the capitalists deal with capitalism. Capitalists can run the WTO better than anyone else.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
SOME countries benefit from the trade deals. These countries, expectedly, are precisely the ones that follow the US-style of hardball capitalism. Namely, preach capitalism on one hand while ignoring it completely. This is what USA is good at these days. Needless to say, China is doing the exact same thing. Unfortunately the majority of the poor countries (in South America and Africa in particular) haven't caught on to this. Perhaps they are too small to do this. But whatever it is, these poor countries are getting worse and worse by the day. Even poster boys of capitalists, like Argentina and Mexico aren't doing well. For example, Mexico's growth rate is around 1% since NAFTA. Mexico is sitting on a time bomb (so are many of these poor countries).
On top of all this, even if countries export products, they are not better off. The benefits often accrues to the capitalists (who happens to be large multinational corporations in this case). The corporations pay pretty much the same wage as before yet now they can produce products in a cheaper country with very little human rights versus back home in USA (for example) where wages are higher. Wages for workers in these poor countries have not increased much--if at all. Perhaps labour activists being assasinated might have something to do with that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Really? I guess stupidity is in the eye of the beholder :)
;) I guess you must be old...
What's wrong with "yo stop dissing people". Too juvenile for you? Too hip for you? Too modern for you?
Using ellipses is correct because I was posting two thoughts that are not connect to each other. A period would mean that the sentences are related to each other...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Well, for one, there's the option of a bigger war, with even more death, gloom and destruction.
There is no such thing as a bigger war. The reason is because you can only make that observation afterwards, rendering the whole thing meaningless. For instance, many imperialists and capitalists (like Ayn Rand) called for the invasion of USSR circa 60's. Their argument was that the war would be smaller at that time than if it occurred later. Just like the modern neoconvative pre-emptive preventive war doctrine, you cannot prove it. In hindsight, if USA invaded USSR it would have been even worse than if it did not (since USSR collapsed). But if USSR did not collapse would it have been better? You just don't know.
Your argument of preventing bigger war is the same. When senior US government officials were considering the "Ayn Rand" argument that USA should invade every single Communist country, they were debating that. Fortunately, many did not take the "war-preventing" solution.
As far as preventing WWII, I don't see how you can say that. It was countries like USA and Britain that supported fascism in the first place. Fascism was thought to be less of an evil than Communism (a view still held by many Americans) and that's what happened. I mean, there was even an Olympics, a world event, during Hitler's regime. You couldn't have stopped WWII (unless you go way back to the 20's or thereabouts). As far as I'm concerned, Germany was going to be Communist or fascist. Countries like Britain chose to support fascism (mostly because they didn't care about Jews and others (there was so much rampant anti-Semiticism at that time)). If Germany did not become fascist, it would have become Communist. On top of all that, if you did intervene in the early years, you would be anti-democratic (kind of like how the US government is in Iraq right now with their plan to ignore democracy and go with a hand-picked "caucus"). So, democrats (not to be confused with the party) certainly wouldn't have supported intervention in German politics at that time.
The United States has proven to be far LESS "imperialistic" than any previous superpower (Britain and Russia come to mind as recent examples of true imperialists.)
I am against imperialism--period. You clearly support it. To me, it doesn't matter if you are in top 10 empires or the bottom 10, it's all the same. I am against it on ideological grounds. Britain WAS worse than USA. However, I would put USA and USSR as the same (it's not clear to me if you are referring ot USSR when you say Russia, or Russia at some earlier period). Also, it seems you do not understand the difference between modern imperialism and the past. Because of human progress and the establishment of universal human rights, imperialists are more limited. Nowadays, you only invade countries as a last resort. Your goal is always to establish proxy or client states and spread your military bases all over. USA certainly fits this bill (so did USSR). Also, modern day imperialism has more restrictions. For instance, you cannot take over a country and annex it. No one will recognize that. Therefore, you have to convert countries into proxies and clients. Examples of proxy state of USA is Panama and Kuwait; examples of client states of USA are Saudi Arabia and Colombia.
Also, what's the point of comparing to other imperialists of the past? I mean, one can pick Rome and say no country has been worse than Rome in the last 250 years and therefore, all modern regimes are good. Hardly a convincing argument--unless you just want to avoid being placed the #1 worst empire. You can always pick someone out there who is worse than you and start claiming that you are not bad at all.
Contrast this to the approach taken by my previous examples: during their Imperial phase either would have simply annexed Iraq, taken over the oil fields and been done with it.
It is almost impossible to do that due to the establishment of the UN, internationa
First of all the weak arguments (straw man attack, etc) was just an example. I wasn't trying to say yours was that. All I was saying is that yours would fit into similar categories.
What I said, was that it is the reason the government has the law and also has the "war on drugs." I said, that logically, if you get rid of the drugs, you can't have drug related deaths. The government has decided that is an appropriate action. They then make the law and the war. Any arguing with that?
If THAT is your point, your point is almost irrelevant. You are simply making an observation and not supporting any position. Your statement is pretty much a tautology.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yo stop dissing people... Posting as an anonymous coward, and claiming someone else is stupid without any justification just makes YOU look stupid...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Laws are just something that are cooked up by the elites to control the rest of the population. This is the origin of laws (mostly from religion--and religion was HIGHLY corrupt at that time) but is still true. Ignoring that...
:) ). The US goverment spends hundreads of millions on DEA alone (likely to hit $1 billion within 10 years). Not to mention the billions spent by police on combating drugs. Government propaganda may make it seem like it is working but that is not true. You might see drug busts once in a while on tv. You know what? Even though those busts occur, the price of drugs on the street usually stays the same. What this means is that the supply is sufficient for the demand. Whether these busts occur or not is totally irrelevant. So the only way to control drugs (the socialist argument) is by government intervention, which necessarily requires legalization.
;)
Speaking as a leftist in favour of legalizing drugs, there are two arguments. One is a liberatarian argument and the other is a socialist argument.
The libertarian argument is that people should have the freedom to do whatever they want. Anything less than that is simply the government (usually co-opted by the elites) controlling people. (As far as child pornography is concerned, read my words at the end) If you don't buy this argument, you don't support freedom. But that's ok. Only a few humans are libertarians. Anarchists, the most extreme liberatarians on the left, do not even recognize the state and want it abolished. In that case, clearly the government has no jurisdication over the individual, and drugs will be legal (along with a whole hoard of other things).
The socialist argument is that the best way to control ANYTHING is via the government. This implies that you need to legalize something unless you are strongly authoratarian. You probably have to be practicing totalitarianism to control something that is not legal. Since I am not a totalitarian, this means that the government can only control something if it is legal. Another way of saying this is that the government can't control black markets (and to some extent gray markets). Even hardcore totalitarian governments like USSR had difficulties controlling the black market (you were still able to get US dollars, Western music, etc in USSR). Otherwise, government control is nothing more than an illusion. By legalizing drugs, the government can ACTUALLLY control drugs. Whereas, the government has ZERO control over drugs.
Conservatives and various others may think the govt has control over drugs but it is anything but. You can get drugs in every high school. You can get drugs in most nightclubs. You can get drugs if you ask around. And so forth. The amount of drugs used now is FAR higher than at any point (except during the hippie days
So those are the two arguments. I'm primarily a socialist so I would go with the 2nd option. Even if you don't buy those arguments, you will lose! Liberalism triumphs over conservatism! Drugs WILL get legalized. Resistance is futile
(Side note: Child pornography will never ever be legalized, at least from a left wing perspective. There is a very simple reason for it. Liberalism respects human rights--in fact, liberals are the ones who are always clamouring for it (eg. civil rights movement, feminism, UN, etc). Child pornography will NEVER be allowed because it VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS. In particular, the rights of the child are violated. There is no getting around this. It doesn't matter what you think of the pornography. The fact of the matter is that this will violate human rights. Therefore it will never be permitted. This is similar to how slavery or rape will not be permitted, from a left-wing perspective, for the simple reason that they violate human rights. Unless you throw away all human rights (against liberalism and progressive views), you won't see this happening.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol that's a lame argument. I'm surprised people fell for it... but not me :)
:) ): No they aren't. :) ): Well you are picking a tiny extreme point and arguing against it. That's a lame argument.
:)
You are using an argument that is a poor technique (kind of like ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, non-sequitur, etc). You are attempting to refute an argument by picking some TINY point in the argument and proving that wrong. It's almost like the following argument:
Person 1: Seatbelts are good for everyone. They save lives
Person 2 (you
Person 1: Yes they are
Person 2: Nope.
Person 1: Prove it
Person 2: Babies wearing seat belts can kill them. Therefore, seat belts are bad. They should be aboslished
Person 3 (me
People stoned and driving cars can kill people... but so can people who put paper bags on their heads and drive cars. Though dangerous in both cases, neither case warrants banning drugs or the paper bag
Sivaram Velauthapillai
"Slashdot poster feels war is bad. Film at eleven."
;) ...
heh... If you want some anti-war films, watch Platoon, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Thin Red Line, Gallipoli, The Deer Hunter, or Born on the 4th of July. Of course, you can also check out the classic anti-war documentary Hearts & Minds... If you are a conservative, you should probably stay away from these films though. They could be bad for your health
Everybody knows war is bad, man. Everybody knows that people die in war, and that those who die leave survivors behind.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Yes people die but so what? Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal...my heart is too soft I guess...
That doesn't change the fact that sometimes war is the only option remaining, or the least horrible option from a set of several horrible options.
What are the options that are even worse than war? War is generally considered to be the WORST option. There isn't any that are worse. I'm not sure what you have in mind... In any case, the Iraqi war is hardly the last remaining option. Of course, if you are an imperialist or addicted to oil, it may be. But otherwise, it is a bogus war.
What good would come from broadcasting graphic video of blood and guts? Other than to serve your obvious prurient interest, of course.
Had to look up the word prurient. You might be misusing the word--not sure. Based on the dictionary definition, it seems to be only applied in the context of lust. Anyway...
Broadcasting graphic video will show the TRUE nature of war. Many warmongers (who happen to be centrists and moderates) do not have a clue about war. They grow up in an environment without facing the pain of war. Showing the reality will educate them about war. You can argue that they will become resistant or that they can already watch some documentaries. But I disagree. I don't think people will EVER become immune to pain and suffering. Seeing blood makes you feel uneasy--regardless of how often you have seen it. As for people renting documentaries on their own, automatically the conservatives won't do that since film is thought to be driven by liberals. Others won't do it either because it is a waste of time for them (just like how reading the instruction manual for a computer is a waste of time). So overall, I support showing reality. The countless clueless moderates and centrists will actually learn something about life.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not sure if you are making a neutral observation, or if you are hoping for that. If the former, ignore the rest of my message.... No offense but that is such a selfish view. You are not respecting life. To you, numbers matter. To me they don't. Even one life is valuable to me. Already the fact that 500 deaths (plus 20,000 Iraqis) is apparently not important. How many more are you willing to take? 50,000?
What if NO ONE dies in your community? Does that mean that the war should continue?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's not exactly a blatant lie but it is definitely misleading. The other post above makes note of this but to repeat, he said "Would you believe it's 5 below zero right now?" He also said "The only thing worse than the actual temperature right now is having the wind chill factored in." Those two comments IMPLY that the temperature around HIM is -5.
I consider those comments misleading. Perhaps you understood them better than me. But a person like me treats his comments as if he were talking about HIS surroundings. It's kind of like me saying 'I am so glad not to be stuck in traffic in San Francisco'. This comment, although not a lie, is highly misleading. I am not in San Francisco and in fact have never been there in my whole life. It's just wrong for me to say that--and the same applies to the issue at hand.
Don't get me wrong. I support working from home. Or working from far away. I support such activities and would prefer if corporations implement them. However, I don't think people should be saying something that is misleading.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm going to ignore the diversification issue. I don't really understand your point. I have a feeling that we may be arguing about the same thing...
As far as your other point is concerned, yes, management is the one that has the most knowledge about the business. But you ignore the fact that the shareholders will interfere in any case. At the minimum, they need to interfere to ensure that management acts in the interests of the owners rather than their own (i.e management's). This is why management is compensated with stock options and stuff, and is the agency cost theory under finance. At the most extreme, shareholders will get involved for ethical, moral, and political reasons. A capitalist may not want that to happen but the fact of the matter is that we are all humans. Contrary to capitalist thought, we have a heart and a mind of our own. So we will interfere. An example of the latter case is when shareholders force their companies to be environmentally friendly, or to stop supporting human rights abusers.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree with you that the internet is FAR freer (when it comes to media) than anything else. However, it remains to be seen how long this will last or how much things will change. Some of the things you said still don't indicate much freedom of press. You cite Google News, which is a great site and my primary online news site (not counting leftist sites--I'm leftist). You are falling into the same pitfall as the general population. Let me explain.
The general population, living in a somewhat "free" country like USA thinks that the press is quite free. But as I pointed out, the majority of the news comes from two sources: AP and Reuters. The freedom of press is just an illusion. The same is true of Google News. Nearly everything Google lists are mainstream sources (for a valid reason*). Sure, there are hundreads of links for each story. But how many of they are different? Nearly all of them quote the same source. Al Jazeera (even though I don't read it much) isn't any different. They keep quoting Reuters and others all the time. The only difference that you might see is that they will have different stories for the Middle East (like Iraq). They have their own staff in Iraq so that will be independent. But nearly all their other news is the same as the mainstream AP, Reuters, AFP, etc. Just read a story such as the emergence of the SARS disease, or the new flu, or the US plan to change its space goals, and I'll bet they are almost identical to the wire stories. So in summary, Google News is an illusion of press freedom, just like print media in your country may be.
You mention that community papers are more independent. I actually think it is the OPPOSITE for GENERAL news. The vast majority of small papers don't have large staff so they mainly pick up news off the wire (AP, Reuters, freelancers, etc). Therefore, communisty papers are EVEN MORE biased than some of the larger ones. The large papers (like New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) have their staff to do the reporting. So you'll find stories in these large papers that are unique. Having said that, the large papers are influenced and controlled by the elites whereas the elite influence on smaller papers is weaker.
Having said that, I agree with you that small papers are more independent in some sections--often for local events. So the entertainment section (as you cite) or sports will be very independent. This is really interesting if you look at it. The sports section, for instance, is perhaps the most independent section of all. The reason is because the papers have their own staff who have different opinions. In addition, sports does not negatively impact the elites and their control over society so it can be safely ignored by those that control things. People often dismiss sports as being biased, juvenile, and unimportant, but the fact of the matter is that they are more independent than the main news.
I have great hope for the internet. Since the cost of dissimating information is very low, there is great hope for hte future of media online. However, there are many problems. The first one is that no one has a framework for dissimating news without running into financial problems. As a site or medium becomes popular, costs just skyrocket. Something that you can do for free is very difficult when in becomes popular. I am somewhat familiar with the problems faced independent media since I follow leftist websites. Many have problems with funding. Others have problems with disinformation. Some even don't know how to organize themselves. So far the only successful ones have been "text" sites. The ones that try to provide news through video, webcast or some other means cannot often afford to pay bandwidth. So there are many problems. Personally, I think the ideal situation will be when you have an independent media that provides the news. People throughout the world should be able to report news, regardless of their power (i.e. don't have to be supported by elites). But this will take some time. I always