Saturday, July 28, 2007

CNN: TSA knew 'dry run' terror alerts were bogus ... "Well it turns out none of that is true."

CNN: TSA knew 'dry run' terror alerts were bogus | David Edwards and Nick Juliano | Published: Friday July 27, 2007

The Transportation Security Agency's national security bulletin issued was based on bogus examples that were combined to give the impression of ominous terrorist plotting, CNN reports.

"That bulletin for law enforcement eyes only told of suspicious items recently found in passenger's bags at airport checkpoints, warned that they may signify dry runs for terrorist attacks," CNN's Brian Todd reported Friday afternoon. "Well it turns out none of that is true." ...

Cleavage & the Clinton Campaign Chest ... Givhan's Style column has sparked plenty of reaction, much of it negative

Cleavage & the Clinton Campaign Chest | By Howard Kurtz | Washington Post Staff Writer | Saturday, July 28, 2007; Page C01

A journalistic assessment of Hillary Clinton's cleavage became the most improbable presidential campaign controversy yet as her team yesterday rolled out a fundraising letter calling a Washington Post column on the subject "grossly inappropriate" and "insulting."

One week after the piece, by fashion writer Robin Givhan, took note of the Democratic candidate's relatively low neckline during a speech on the Senate floor, senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis urged donors to "take a stand against this kind of coarseness and pettiness in American culture."
...
Stories about the physical appearance of candidates, from Al Gore's earth-tones wardrobe to John Edwards's $400 haircut to a bathing-suit shot of Barack Obama in a People spread on "Beach Babes," have long been an entertaining sideshow. But since no journalist has plunged into this particular territory, given the predominantly male nature of past White House contests, Givhan's Style column has sparked plenty of reaction, much of it negative. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote yesterday that Givhan "managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley." ...

Friday, July 27, 2007

Reid calls Post editorial board 'eager cheerleaders' for Bush war effort

Reid calls Post editorial board 'eager cheerleaders' for Bush war effort | Nick Juliano | Published: Thursday July 26, 2007

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) criticized the Washington Post's editorial writers today, saying their enthusiastic support for President Bush and his pursuit of war in Iraq led them to "disregard ... the facts" in evaluating the war.

"On reading the July 21 editorial 'The Phony Debate,' it became clear why The Post's editorial writers have been such eager cheerleaders for the Bush administration's flawed Iraq policies -- the two share the same disregard for the facts en route to drawing dubious conclusions," Reid wrote in a letter to the editor published Thursday.
...
The Nevada Democrat also called the Post editorial writers "disingenuous" for arguing Democrats are using Iraq to rile up voters.

"[T]he American people are sufficiently disappointed on their own," he wrote. "Three-quarters of Americans recognize that the war is going badly, three out of five support further funding only if it includes a timetable for transitioning the mission, and nearly all expect their president to work with Congress to do something to change course."

protesting the state of the country by flying the U.S. flag upside down with signs pinned to it found themselves in jail

Flag-defiling charge ends in fight, arrests | Sheriff’s Office denies allegation deputy assaulted couple | by Mike McWilliams | updated July 26, 2007 11:26 am

Asheville – A couple who said they were protesting the state of the country by flying the U.S. flag upside down with signs pinned to it found themselves in jail following a scuffle with a deputy Wednesday morning.

Mark and Deborah Kuhn were arrested on two counts of assault on a government employee, resisting arrest and a rarely used charge, desecrating an American flag, all misdemeanors. The Kuhns were released from custody Wednesday afternoon.

“This is surreal,” Deborah Kuhn, 52, said moments after her son Mark Stidham paid $1,500 bond to get the couple out of jail. ...

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

FOX NEWS labels Arlen Specter a Democrat! [2nd time they've mis-labelled a Republican who asks tough questions of Bush admin]

FOX NEWS labels Arlen Specter a Democrat! |

specter-democrat-hume.jpg How dare he grill Alberto Gonzalez like that! The longtime Republican Senator was credited with the Magic Bullet theory of the JFK assassination by the Warren commission.

I guess they really don’t like him….

global media was owned by 50 corporations ... in 2002 down to 9 ... now probably about 5 ...

The Invisible Government ... By John Pilger

In a speech in Chicago, John Pilger describes how propaganda has become such a potent force in our lives and, in the words of one of its founders, represents 'an invisible government'.

07/20/07 "ICH" -- - -The title of this talk is Freedom Next Time, which is the title of my book, and the book is meant as an antidote to the propaganda that is so often disguised as journalism. So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. ...
...
Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising.

The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over.

So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.
...
Take the invasion of Iraq. There are two studies of the BBC's reporting. One shows that the BBC gave just 2 percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent—2 percent. That is less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right. We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the work of MI-6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result.
...
... At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing as I've mentioned, perhaps a million people, including a documented 500,000 children. Almost none of this carnage was reported in the so-called mainstream media. Last year a study published by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that since the invasion of Iraq 655, 000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the invasion. Official documents show that the Blair government knew this figure to be credible. In February, Les Roberts, the author of the report, said the figure was equal to the figure for deaths in the Fordham University study of the Rwandan genocide. The media response to Robert's shocking revelation was silence. What may well be the greatest episode of organized killing for a generation, in Harold Pinter's words, "Did not happen. It didn't matter."
...
The enduring tragedy of Palestine is due in great part to the silence and compliance of the so-called liberal left. Hamas is described repeatedly as sworn to the destruction of Israel. The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe—take your pick. They all use this line as a standard disclaimer, and it is false. That Hamas has called for a ten-year ceasefire is almost never reported. Even more important, that Hamas has undergone an historic ideological shift in the last few years, which amounts to a recognition of what it calls the reality of Israel, is virtually unknown; and that Israel is sworn to the destruction of Palestine is unspeakable.

There is a pioneering study by Glasgow University on the reporting of Palestine. They interviewed young people who watch TV news in Britain. More than 90 percent thought the illegal settlers were Palestinian. The more they watched, the less they knew—Danny Schecter's famous phrase.
...
I believe a fifth estate is possible, the product of a people's movement, that monitors, deconstructs, and counters the corporate media. In every university, in every media college, in every news room, teachers of journalism, journalists themselves need to ask themselves about the part they now play in the bloodshed in the name of a bogus objectivity. ...
...
We need to make haste. Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship ...

[Bush] repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war ...

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement | Prof. Michel Chossudovsky , Globalresearch.ca | July 20, 2007

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.

In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. ...

Saturday, July 21, 2007

country whose government silences admirable experts, allows lobbyist payoffs, demeans or arrests whistle blowers, rewards loyalty ...

Kathleen Reardon| BIO | Silencing The Surgeon General -- Just Where Is The Last Straw? | Posted July 11, 2007 | 03:27 PM (EST)

At some time most of us have wondered how diabolical leaders took over countries that were considered civilized. Were the people who allowed it culpable? Well, that's what the world wonders about the U.S. How did Americans let things get so bad? Why such tolerance of deception and endless corruption?

Now we learn that the former Surgeon General was the target of self-serving, White House political machinations. The current Bush administration, Dr. Carmona told a Congressional Panel Tuesday, would not allow him during his 2002 to 2006 term to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm. He was required to mention George Bush's name three times on each page of every speech.

This is the same administration that couldn't get water to Hurricane Katrina victims for days. OK, so let's just say that was botched by Brownie. In fact, let's go with the Gonzales Huh? defense too for a moment and all the other artful and not so artful dodging of responsibility. But now we're hearing from a two time purple heart recipient, M.D. once Surgeon General that he was prevented from informing the American people of significant dangers to their health.

While not shocked, we might wonder how this happened to such a brilliant man who'd defended and served his country honorably? No doubt some of his acquiescence at the time was out of loyalty -- a positive aspect of military or any training when not the only criteria for determining worth. Dr. Carmona attributed his tolerance to not fully appreciating what he stopped short of describing as the pathological political climate in which he'd been called to serve. If Bush and Cheney can keep such a man at bay, then no wonder they're still in charge.

This is what happens to a country whose government silences admirable experts, allows lobbyist payoffs, demeans or arrests whistle blowers, rewards loyalty above all else, hires on the basis of malleability rather than competence, and does what serves the present power cabal no matter how many people are harmed, injured or even killed in the process. ...

"What is left out of the version released publicly is the explicit statement that al Qaeda is back and has operations underway,"

Experts: Unclassified Report 'Pure Pablum,' Hides Truth | July 17, 2007 12:10 PM | Brian Ross Reports:

Intelligence analysts and the former White House counterterror official describe as "pure pablum" the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate released today on terror threats to the United States.

"Nothing in here is going to surprise anybody who's been following this," said one senior U.S. intelligence official.

"It's more about what it doesn't say than what it does say," says Richard Clarke, the former White House official who is now an ABC News consultant.

"What is left out of the version released publicly is the explicit statement that al Qaeda is back and has operations underway," Clarke says.

The 2006 version of the National Intelligence Estimate claimed U.S. efforts had "seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations."

"That's no longer the case in 2007, and you have to read between the lines to understand how we have lost ground," Clarke says. ...

have volunteers check for folded cloth signs ... recommends drowning out protesters ... work with the Secret Service ...

The White House Has a Manual for Silencing Protesters and Demonstrations \ By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted July 14, 2007.

After a myriad of stories about people being excluded from events where the President is speaking, now we know that the White House had a policy manual on just how to do so.

...
In a section entitled "Preventing Demonstrators," the document says: "All Presidential events must be ticketed or accessed by a name list. This is the best method for preventing demonstrators. People who are obviously going to try to disrupt the event can be denied entrance at least to the VIP area between the stage and the main camera platform. ... It is important to have your volunteers at a checkpoint before the Magnetometers in order to stop a demonstrator from getting into the event. Look for signs they may be carrying, and if need be, have volunteers check for folded cloth signs that demonstrators may be bringing."

In another section, entitled "Preparing for Demonstrators," the document makes clear that the intention is to deprive protesters of the right to be seen or heard by the President: "As always, work with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route."

The document also recommends drowning out protesters or blocking their signs by using what it calls "rally squads." It states: "These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators. The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site." ...

Monday, July 16, 2007

find not a single story connecting the dots, explaining the larger picture: the end of a remarkable democratic experiment which started in 1776 ...

Bush's Mafia Whacks the Republic | By Robert Parry | June 20, 2007

In years to come, historians may look back on U.S. press coverage of George W. Bush’s presidency and wonder why there was not a single front-page story announcing one of the most monumental events of mankind’s modern era – the death of the American Republic and the elimination of the “unalienable rights” pledged to “posterity” by the Founders.

The historians will, of course, find stories about elements of this extraordinary event – Bush’s denial of habeas corpus rights to a fair trial, his secret prisons, his tolerance of torture, his violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, his “signing statements” overriding laws, the erosion of constitutional checks and balances.

But the historians will scroll through front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other major newspaper – as well as scan the national network news and the 24-hour cable channels – and find not a single story connecting the dots, explaining the larger picture: the end of a remarkable democratic experiment which started in 1776 and which was phased out sometime in the early 21st century.

How, these historians may ask, did the U.S. press corps miss one of history’s most important developments? Was it a case like the proverbial frog that would have jumped to safety if tossed into boiling water but was slowly cooked to death when the water was brought to a slow boil?

Or was it that journalists and politicians intuitively knew that identifying too clearly what was happening in the United States would have compelled them to action, and that action would have meant losing their jobs and livelihoods? Perhaps, too, they understood that there was little they could do to change the larger reality, so why bother? ...

Israeli Army of Cyber-Soldiers Target Our Right to Know

Israeli Army of Cyber-Soldiers Target Our Right to Know

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Now that's Hardball ...What should be routine has become extraordinary.

(July 07, 2007 -- 11:21 AM EDT) | Now that's Hardball.

A month ago, Fouad Ajami, a prominent neocon at Johns Hopkins, wrote a bizarre op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in Scooter Libby's defense. "In 'The Soldier's Creed,'" Ajami wrote, "there is a particularly compelling principle: 'I will never leave a fallen comrade.' ... [Libby] can't be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own."

Yesterday, David Shuster, guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball, took Ajami to task for comparing Libby to American troops.

Ideally, this should be routine. A marginal neocon appeared on MSNBC to talk about a column he wrote a month ago. A professional broadcaster, who knew what he was talking about, pointed out the guest's errors of fact and judgment for the benefit of the television audience. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, this is what TV shows are supposed to do.

But exchanges like the one between Shuster and Ajami are so rare, that some of us see them and can barely contain our excitement. What should be routine has become extraordinary. ...

Right-wing talk dominates thanks to multiple market failures.nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative

Right-Wingers Are on the Defensive About Talk Radio Dominance By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 29, 2007.
...
But if that were all there was to the phenomenon, a new report by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press on right-wing talk's domination of the airwaves wouldn't be causing as much chagrin among conservative commentators as it has. The report, (PDF), "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," is stirring up the right-wing squawkers because its analysis flies in the face of conventional wisdom; Right-wing talk doesn't dominate AM radio because of the magical hand of a functional free market, it dominates thanks to multiple market failures. Even worse, those failures represent a strong case for better regulation of what goes out on the public's airwaves.

The report contrasts the amount of right-wing talk -- nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative -- with a talk-radio audience that, according to Pew Research, identifies itself as follows: forty-three percent of regular talk radio listeners are conservative, while "23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." In other words, fewer than half of those listening to some of the most feverish voices on the right are themselves self-identified conservatives.
...
An analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations found that stations "owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows." In contrast, "stations controlled by group owners--those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market--were statistically more likely to air conservative talk." [i.e. large monoply / oligipoly players broadcast conservate messages !! ed.]

Meanwhile, the national trend is towards ever more concentrated media companies -- local ownership is becoming harder and harder to find in many American markets. Advocates of deregulation have long insisted that it would lead to more rather than less diverse viewpoints on the airwaves, but the opposite has occurred.

Ultimately, that speaks to one of the key issues in media reform -- and one that most observers on the right refuse to acknowledge: Radio broadcasts are only possible using tens of billions of dollars worth of public airwaves. The promises of self-regulation have proven ineffective when it comes to the public's airwaves. That's dues as much to cultural changes in the industry as anything else; those airwaves once came with a sense of responsibility -- an understanding that broadcasters were in some way holding up their end of a public trust -- that is increasingly hard to find in corporate America today. Combined with three decades of almost obsessive deregulation, that cultural shift, ultimately, is the issue that the report's authors argue is among the most important in understanding talk radio's structural imbalance:

[T]he gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. ...
..
But that's only true if one begins with the premise that the media has an important role in keeping the electorate informed. At the end of the day, that's the antithesis of right-wing talk.

2000 articles on "Whitewater" ... mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud ... despite suspicious 153% Bush surge

Election Fraud: Where’s the Outrage? Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor The Crisis Papers. July 3, 2007
...
Six and a half years and some $70 million taxpayers’ dollars later, Whitewater Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, told the House Judiciary Committee that he lacked the evidence to continue his investigation. During those six plus years, the Washington Post published over 2000 articles about “Whitewater” (Media Matters, Nexis search), but neglected to give prominent space to Starr’s virtual exoneration of the Clintons.

Now compare this extended media frenzy over what turned out to be a non-story, with another story which, if true, strikes at the very heart of our democracy. This is the substantial and unrebutted evidence that the past two presidential elections, along with the intervening congressional elections, were stolen and that, by implication, the United States has, for the past six years, been ruled by an illegitimate government.

Just last month, astonishing new evidence has come forth that in 2004 millions of Kerry votes were “switched” to Bush, and millions more “graveyard votes” were added to Bush’s total. Mainstream media coverage? Nada! Instead the source is the New Zealand website, Scoop, and subsequently other progressive websites. I will return to this remarkable report later in this essay.

As noted, the mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud. ...
...
About that new evidence:On June 13, the New Zealand based website, Scoop, published Michael Collins’ “Election 2004: The Urban Legend.” In that election, eleven million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election. Of these additional votes, eight million were for Bush, and three million were for Kerry. By comparing the 2000 and 2004 totals from five distinct geographical regions – rural, small towns, suburbs, medium cities, and big cities – Collins has discovered that Bush’s support in the rural areas was unchanged, that he lost support in the small towns, and remained essentially even in the suburbs. These regions were the locations of most of Bush’s “base,” and this net decline indicated a landslide loss in the election.How, then, did Bush win?

We are expected to believe that he did so through an astonishing and totally inexplicable “surge” of support in the medium and large cities. In those big cities, Bush's support increased from 26 percent of the vote in 2000, to 39 percent in 2004, and from 2.3 million votes in 2000, to 5.4 million in 2004 – an increase of 153 percent. This “surge” of Bush-support encompassed urban whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities, whose enthusiasm for Bush was utterly inconspicuous and unanticipated in the pre-election polling. So great was this enthusiasm, that the vote totals, in many urban precincts, exceeded the voter registration. In addition, there were apparently more than a few posthumous votes as well.

This “urban surge” took place, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney did relatively little campaigning in the cities, and that the Bush-Cheney issues (“gays, guns and God”) failed, by and large, to excite the interest of urban voters.With tongue firmly in cheek, Collins concludes,

After four years of national struggle and focus overseas, inner city Americans came to the polls in record numbers, voted more Republican than before or since, and gave George Bush the necessary votes for his victory in 2004!Is this Pattern Plausible or even Possible?
...
Read Collin's article, where you will encounter the numbers, the supporting argument, and extensive documentation. But don’t expect to find any of this it in the mainstream media.