Context should not affect free speech | Posted by Christopher Hope on 26 Nov 2007 at 19:29
Victor Ward emails to point out that Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, seems to think free speech is OK for some, but not for others. Phillips told the BBC yesterday that asking Nick Griffin and David Irving to debate free speech at the Oxford Union was an “absolute disgrace”.
...
Yet in February last year Phillips took what appeared to be a more reasoned view when he argued that “people should be allowed to offend each other” in Britain.
Mr Phillips - then chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality - told ITV’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme: “One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is."
Context is everything (in February 2006 Phillips was discussing whether Muslims should accept that freedom of speech is central to Britishness).
But as I blogged earlier, the right to speak freely must apply to everyone - even if most sane Britons would disagree vehemently with the arguments put forward by BNP supporters and Holocaust apologists.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The fake FEMA October news conference ... was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter ...
Probe finds other DHS fake briefings | EILEEN SULLIVAN | AP News | Nov 26, 2007 12:13 EST
Probe of Fake FEMA News Conference Finds Similar Incident Happened in Another DHS Agency
The fake October news conference held by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter by asking questions during a briefing.
In January 2006, an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked a question during a news conference in San Antonio, Texas, according to an investigation by the Homeland Security Department — the parent agency of both FEMA and ICE.
The ICE public affairs official was standing with about 12 reporters but did not identify herself when she posed the question, Homeland Security's head of public affairs, J. Edward Fox, wrote in a Nov. 19 letter to the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee. The government employee was verbally reprimanded for asking the question after the news conference, Fox told Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. ...
Probe of Fake FEMA News Conference Finds Similar Incident Happened in Another DHS Agency
The fake October news conference held by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter by asking questions during a briefing.
In January 2006, an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked a question during a news conference in San Antonio, Texas, according to an investigation by the Homeland Security Department — the parent agency of both FEMA and ICE.
The ICE public affairs official was standing with about 12 reporters but did not identify herself when she posed the question, Homeland Security's head of public affairs, J. Edward Fox, wrote in a Nov. 19 letter to the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee. The government employee was verbally reprimanded for asking the question after the news conference, Fox told Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. ...
Rather Case ... could uncap the biggest media scandal ever told—or reveal Rather to be the crumpled icon ...
Dan Rather’s Last Big Story Is Himself | By Joe Hagan | Published Nov 25, 2007
...
When Dan Rather sits on a bench in Central Park to tell how his 44-year career at CBS News ended in ignominy and humiliation, he is in fact still waging a war, a bitter and personal one. And the memories of the battles that undid him are still fresh on his mind. “Monday morning, about 8:49—and I think that is the time precisely,” he says. He’s recalling January 10, 2005, when he first received the 224-page report commissioned by CBS that excoriated his infamous 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on President Bush’s National Guard service. Of that report, Rather says, “When I read through it, all I could say to myself, on each page, is, ‘What bullshit. What pure, unadulterated bullshit this whole thing is. What a setup. What a fix.’ ” He nearly spits the word fix.
...
But with much unproved, Rather’s claims have left him standing alone. CBS has already fired back, motioning to dismiss his case and calling his allegations “bizarre” and “far-fetched,” his motives purely ego-driven. In launching his attack, Rather risks what’s left of his credibility: If the case makes it to trial, it could uncap the biggest media scandal ever told—or reveal Rather to be the crumpled icon of a fading era, courting madness in the twilight of public life. ...
...
When Dan Rather sits on a bench in Central Park to tell how his 44-year career at CBS News ended in ignominy and humiliation, he is in fact still waging a war, a bitter and personal one. And the memories of the battles that undid him are still fresh on his mind. “Monday morning, about 8:49—and I think that is the time precisely,” he says. He’s recalling January 10, 2005, when he first received the 224-page report commissioned by CBS that excoriated his infamous 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on President Bush’s National Guard service. Of that report, Rather says, “When I read through it, all I could say to myself, on each page, is, ‘What bullshit. What pure, unadulterated bullshit this whole thing is. What a setup. What a fix.’ ” He nearly spits the word fix.
...
But with much unproved, Rather’s claims have left him standing alone. CBS has already fired back, motioning to dismiss his case and calling his allegations “bizarre” and “far-fetched,” his motives purely ego-driven. In launching his attack, Rather risks what’s left of his credibility: If the case makes it to trial, it could uncap the biggest media scandal ever told—or reveal Rather to be the crumpled icon of a fading era, courting madness in the twilight of public life. ...
Friday, November 23, 2007
"statements that I’ve made concerning the plight of the Palestinians" ... “I don’t think it’s possible for candidates to talk about it.
November 22, 2007 at 12:01:42 | Carter Says U.S. Politicians Can Show No Sympathy For Plight of Palestinians | by Sherwood Ross
Former President Jimmy Carter said in a published interview it is “almost inconceivable” for an American presidential candidate “to make the statements that I’ve made concerning the plight of the Palestinians or Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders with modifications, or things of that kind.”Carter said his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” presented “a point of view that the American media rarely have a chance to cover” as no politician will discuss it. “It would be amazing for me to hear any candidate for President even mention it---even begin to address these issues in a serious way.”Carter made his remarks in an interview published in the December 3rd issue of The Nation, a weekly magazine reflecting liberal opinion.The former president, credited with arranging the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, said he sees “a complete dearth of any sort of substantive debate” in the U.S. about resolution of the troubles involving Israel and its neighbors. Carter added, “For six years, now seven years, there hasn’t been a single day of substantive negotiations between Israel and either Syria or the Palestinians.” “I wanted to precipitate some movement on the peace process and also bring the issue to the forefront. In other countries, by the way---I’ve been to Ireland and England and other countries in Europe lately---there is a pretty intense debate. But over here, zero.”Asked by interviewer John Nichols if there is any way the issue can become part of the 2008 election year debate, Carter replied: “I don’t think it’s possible for candidates to talk about it. But it may be that some of the facts and some of the issues will sink into the consciousness of whoever is going to be in the White House beginning in 2009, and that they will see some responsibility and some way, some path toward a peace process.”
Former President Jimmy Carter said in a published interview it is “almost inconceivable” for an American presidential candidate “to make the statements that I’ve made concerning the plight of the Palestinians or Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders with modifications, or things of that kind.”Carter said his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” presented “a point of view that the American media rarely have a chance to cover” as no politician will discuss it. “It would be amazing for me to hear any candidate for President even mention it---even begin to address these issues in a serious way.”Carter made his remarks in an interview published in the December 3rd issue of The Nation, a weekly magazine reflecting liberal opinion.The former president, credited with arranging the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, said he sees “a complete dearth of any sort of substantive debate” in the U.S. about resolution of the troubles involving Israel and its neighbors. Carter added, “For six years, now seven years, there hasn’t been a single day of substantive negotiations between Israel and either Syria or the Palestinians.” “I wanted to precipitate some movement on the peace process and also bring the issue to the forefront. In other countries, by the way---I’ve been to Ireland and England and other countries in Europe lately---there is a pretty intense debate. But over here, zero.”Asked by interviewer John Nichols if there is any way the issue can become part of the 2008 election year debate, Carter replied: “I don’t think it’s possible for candidates to talk about it. But it may be that some of the facts and some of the issues will sink into the consciousness of whoever is going to be in the White House beginning in 2009, and that they will see some responsibility and some way, some path toward a peace process.”
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 | What is Happening to the NY Times? Not One Single Word About McClellan's Bush Bombshell
...
... And now it's being revealed by McClellan that he was instructed by his bosses--including the president and vice president--to stand before the media and voters and lie about it all as further protection against the erupting scandal.
...
But where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper. This is a huge bombshell with monumental ramifications--criminal behavior on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Card-- which could and should finally take down this corrupt, disgraceful administration. Could be the biggest political scandal since Watergate. And how is it covered by the Times? It's not. I'm starting to think this once relevant newspaper must be secretly owned by Rupert Murdoch. ...
...
... And now it's being revealed by McClellan that he was instructed by his bosses--including the president and vice president--to stand before the media and voters and lie about it all as further protection against the erupting scandal.
...
But where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper. This is a huge bombshell with monumental ramifications--criminal behavior on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Card-- which could and should finally take down this corrupt, disgraceful administration. Could be the biggest political scandal since Watergate. And how is it covered by the Times? It's not. I'm starting to think this once relevant newspaper must be secretly owned by Rupert Murdoch. ...
Monday, November 19, 2007
Haitham of Sabbah’s Blog on the banning and censoring of Pro Palestinian bloggers, including himself, on the Daily Kos ...
The daily censor at the daily kos
A disturbing post by Haitham of Sabbah’s Blog on the banning and censoring of Pro Palestinian bloggers, including himself, on the Daily Kos.
Yesterday, which marked the celebration of the Nakba, Daily Kos blew the last bridge it had with the Palestinian voices. Midday GMT, the news started coming. They first banned Umkahlil, later on they banned me, and last but not least, they banned Anna Baltzer. Why? Nobody knows. No reason is given. No warning or any notice from the ‘busy’ Kos administrators to let any of us know the circumstances under which the decision was taken and what valid reasons they gave for throwing these poisoned donuts at us. All that we heard from unofficial sources: we are associates of Shergald, again!
...
... We don’t have to have any association with anyone, not even with other banned Kos members or other groups that might also talk about the plight of Palestinians. ... The main reason is the same reason I write here in my blog, which all of you know is about presenting the truth about Palestine historically and about the daily catastrophes that result from the criminal occupation of the Zionists of my homeland. I never hid my objectives, which are to bring justice to everyone in this conflict, including Israelis. ...
A disturbing post by Haitham of Sabbah’s Blog on the banning and censoring of Pro Palestinian bloggers, including himself, on the Daily Kos.
Yesterday, which marked the celebration of the Nakba, Daily Kos blew the last bridge it had with the Palestinian voices. Midday GMT, the news started coming. They first banned Umkahlil, later on they banned me, and last but not least, they banned Anna Baltzer. Why? Nobody knows. No reason is given. No warning or any notice from the ‘busy’ Kos administrators to let any of us know the circumstances under which the decision was taken and what valid reasons they gave for throwing these poisoned donuts at us. All that we heard from unofficial sources: we are associates of Shergald, again!
...
... We don’t have to have any association with anyone, not even with other banned Kos members or other groups that might also talk about the plight of Palestinians. ... The main reason is the same reason I write here in my blog, which all of you know is about presenting the truth about Palestine historically and about the daily catastrophes that result from the criminal occupation of the Zionists of my homeland. I never hid my objectives, which are to bring justice to everyone in this conflict, including Israelis. ...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Lawyer sues Bush, state GOP over rally arrest: "politically motivated violation ... of First Amendment right of political expression"
Thu, Nov. 08, 2007 | Lawyer sues Bush, state GOP over rally arrest | Associated Press
TOPEKA - A lawyer arrested last year after holding an anti-war sign at a political rally where President Bush spoke has filed a lawsuit, claiming Bush violated his constitutional rights.
...
The lawsuit alleges that Hawver's arrest Nov. 5, 2006, at the Kansas Expocentre rally was a "politically motivated violation of my civil and constitutional rights, especially regarding my First Amendment right of political expression."
...
In his lawsuit, Hawver claimed that after he was taken outside, two men forced him to the ground and a third struck him the face. He said they told Topeka police to handcuff him and take him to jail, where he was held for 18 hours before being released on $2,500 bond.
"We have certain rights in this country," Hawver told the Topeka Capital-Journal on Tuesday. "I would be remiss and derelict if I didn't do everything I can do to preserve my rights." ...
TOPEKA - A lawyer arrested last year after holding an anti-war sign at a political rally where President Bush spoke has filed a lawsuit, claiming Bush violated his constitutional rights.
...
The lawsuit alleges that Hawver's arrest Nov. 5, 2006, at the Kansas Expocentre rally was a "politically motivated violation of my civil and constitutional rights, especially regarding my First Amendment right of political expression."
...
In his lawsuit, Hawver claimed that after he was taken outside, two men forced him to the ground and a third struck him the face. He said they told Topeka police to handcuff him and take him to jail, where he was held for 18 hours before being released on $2,500 bond.
"We have certain rights in this country," Hawver told the Topeka Capital-Journal on Tuesday. "I would be remiss and derelict if I didn't do everything I can do to preserve my rights." ...
Friday, November 02, 2007
Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it
The war on whistle-blowers | By James Sandler
U.S. officials have long retaliated against employees who speak out, burying the dangers they expose. Now, Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it.
If there is any doubt about how the Bush administration treats government whistle-blowers, consider the case of Teresa Chambers. She was hired in early 2002, with impeccable law enforcement credentials, to become chief of the United States Park Police. But after Chambers raised concerns publicly that crime was up in the nation's parks, she was rebuked by superiors and fired. When Chambers fought to regain her job through the legal system meant to protect whistle-blowers, government lawyers fought back, and associated her with terrorists. Despite a multiyear legal struggle, she is still fighting for her job.
Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton's tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security -- three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.
...
But a six-month investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in collaboration with Salon, has found that federal whistle-blowers almost never receive legal protection after they take action. Instead, they often face agency managers and White House appointees intent upon silencing them rather than addressing the problems they raise. They are left fighting for their jobs in a special administrative court system, little known to the American public, that is mired in bureaucracy and vulnerable to partisan politics. The CIR/Salon investigation reveals that the whistle-blower system -- first created by Congress decades ago and proclaimed as a cornerstone of government transparency and accountability -- has in reality enabled the punishment of employees who speak out. It has had a chilling effect, dissuading others from coming forward. The investigation examined nearly 3,600 whistle-blower cases since 1994, and included dozens of interviews and a review of confidential court documents. Whistle-blowers lose their cases, the investigation shows, nearly 97 percent of the time. Most limp away from the experience with their careers, reputations and finances in tatters.
...
... And legal precedents created by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington -- the sole appeals court that hears and interprets the law for the special whistle-blower system -- have made it virtually impossible in recent years for whistle-blowers to win their cases.
...
Joseph D. Whitson Jr. was a civilian chemist in the Air Force who spoke out about superiors falsifying drug test results. His desk was moved to a room in the basement and his job duties stripped.
Vernie Gee Sr. was an agricultural inspector who sounded the alarm about tainted meat in the U.S. food supply and inspectors taking bribes from slaughterhouses. Gee was beaten up by a plant worker during an inspection -- and then reprimanded by superiors for fighting.
George Randall Taylor, a chief of police at a Navy base in Bermuda, exposed coverups of rapes on the base. He was then forced into a psychiatric hospital.
Before Teresa Chambers was fired from the Park Police, she found used condoms on her car, and someone pepper-sprayed her office door. ...
...
Government managers and attorneys almost always argue that measures taken against whistle-blowers were justified because of bad behavior or poor performance by the employee.
...
Prior to becoming chief of the Park Police, Chambers had a distinguished 28-year career in law enforcement. She was a Republican, was eager to serve the nation in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and would be the first woman to lead the force. But her pedigree apparently would no longer matter once her public comments created political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
...
The two judges had in fact battled for more than three years over the Johns case, the court documents show, clashing over, among other things, how to address Johns' claims of anti-homosexual harassment. Discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation, but Slavet felt Johns' case underscored such a need and drafted a decision that would grant Johns' case a new hearing. But Marshall disagreed, and she used a procedural tactic to stall the case until an incoming Bush-appointed judge arrived to replace Slavet, whose term was almost over.
Slavet wrote a scathing memorandum to Marshall in response: "It is fundamentally unfair to the parties and destructive of the process to hold up these cases pending my departure and Mr. McPhie's confirmation," Slavet wrote in the memo dated Feb. 25, 2003, referring to the incoming Bush appointee, Neil McPhie. Soon after, McPhie joined the court and Slavet's term ended. Marshall and McPhie decided the Johns case that August: "Corrective Action Denied."
...
But the Bush administration has vigorously opposed stronger whistle-blower protections. In a confidential e-mail from 2006, obtained by CIR and Salon, the White House registered strong objections to a congressional committee that was reviewing a similar law to protect whistle-blowers drawn up last year, saying the "excessively overbroad definition of whistleblowing ... forbids using any common sense." And President Bush has said he will veto the new legislation moving through Congress, saying in a two-page Statement of Administration Policy that the new law would "increase the number of frivolous complaints and waste resources" and could "compromise national security." ...
U.S. officials have long retaliated against employees who speak out, burying the dangers they expose. Now, Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it.
If there is any doubt about how the Bush administration treats government whistle-blowers, consider the case of Teresa Chambers. She was hired in early 2002, with impeccable law enforcement credentials, to become chief of the United States Park Police. But after Chambers raised concerns publicly that crime was up in the nation's parks, she was rebuked by superiors and fired. When Chambers fought to regain her job through the legal system meant to protect whistle-blowers, government lawyers fought back, and associated her with terrorists. Despite a multiyear legal struggle, she is still fighting for her job.
Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton's tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security -- three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.
...
But a six-month investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in collaboration with Salon, has found that federal whistle-blowers almost never receive legal protection after they take action. Instead, they often face agency managers and White House appointees intent upon silencing them rather than addressing the problems they raise. They are left fighting for their jobs in a special administrative court system, little known to the American public, that is mired in bureaucracy and vulnerable to partisan politics. The CIR/Salon investigation reveals that the whistle-blower system -- first created by Congress decades ago and proclaimed as a cornerstone of government transparency and accountability -- has in reality enabled the punishment of employees who speak out. It has had a chilling effect, dissuading others from coming forward. The investigation examined nearly 3,600 whistle-blower cases since 1994, and included dozens of interviews and a review of confidential court documents. Whistle-blowers lose their cases, the investigation shows, nearly 97 percent of the time. Most limp away from the experience with their careers, reputations and finances in tatters.
...
... And legal precedents created by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington -- the sole appeals court that hears and interprets the law for the special whistle-blower system -- have made it virtually impossible in recent years for whistle-blowers to win their cases.
...
Joseph D. Whitson Jr. was a civilian chemist in the Air Force who spoke out about superiors falsifying drug test results. His desk was moved to a room in the basement and his job duties stripped.
Vernie Gee Sr. was an agricultural inspector who sounded the alarm about tainted meat in the U.S. food supply and inspectors taking bribes from slaughterhouses. Gee was beaten up by a plant worker during an inspection -- and then reprimanded by superiors for fighting.
George Randall Taylor, a chief of police at a Navy base in Bermuda, exposed coverups of rapes on the base. He was then forced into a psychiatric hospital.
Before Teresa Chambers was fired from the Park Police, she found used condoms on her car, and someone pepper-sprayed her office door. ...
...
Government managers and attorneys almost always argue that measures taken against whistle-blowers were justified because of bad behavior or poor performance by the employee.
...
Prior to becoming chief of the Park Police, Chambers had a distinguished 28-year career in law enforcement. She was a Republican, was eager to serve the nation in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and would be the first woman to lead the force. But her pedigree apparently would no longer matter once her public comments created political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
...
The two judges had in fact battled for more than three years over the Johns case, the court documents show, clashing over, among other things, how to address Johns' claims of anti-homosexual harassment. Discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation, but Slavet felt Johns' case underscored such a need and drafted a decision that would grant Johns' case a new hearing. But Marshall disagreed, and she used a procedural tactic to stall the case until an incoming Bush-appointed judge arrived to replace Slavet, whose term was almost over.
Slavet wrote a scathing memorandum to Marshall in response: "It is fundamentally unfair to the parties and destructive of the process to hold up these cases pending my departure and Mr. McPhie's confirmation," Slavet wrote in the memo dated Feb. 25, 2003, referring to the incoming Bush appointee, Neil McPhie. Soon after, McPhie joined the court and Slavet's term ended. Marshall and McPhie decided the Johns case that August: "Corrective Action Denied."
...
But the Bush administration has vigorously opposed stronger whistle-blower protections. In a confidential e-mail from 2006, obtained by CIR and Salon, the White House registered strong objections to a congressional committee that was reviewing a similar law to protect whistle-blowers drawn up last year, saying the "excessively overbroad definition of whistleblowing ... forbids using any common sense." And President Bush has said he will veto the new legislation moving through Congress, saying in a two-page Statement of Administration Policy that the new law would "increase the number of frivolous complaints and waste resources" and could "compromise national security." ...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ... 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper + TV
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 by Americans Oppose Media Market Concentration: Survey
WASHINGTON– More than half of Americans surveyed said it should be illegal for a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, a coalition of consumer and telecommunications advocacy groups said on Wednesday.
...
The survey found 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper and TV station in the same market. That level of support was roughly the same among the political liberals, moderates and conservatives surveyed.
“The results of this poll should come as no surprise to the FCC, since thousands have vocalized their opposition to weaker media ownership rules at public hearings held recently,” said Beth McConnell, director of the coalition. “The FCC should listen to the public and reject rule changes that would concentrate ownership even further.”
The survey also showed 70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ...
WASHINGTON– More than half of Americans surveyed said it should be illegal for a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, a coalition of consumer and telecommunications advocacy groups said on Wednesday.
...
The survey found 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper and TV station in the same market. That level of support was roughly the same among the political liberals, moderates and conservatives surveyed.
“The results of this poll should come as no surprise to the FCC, since thousands have vocalized their opposition to weaker media ownership rules at public hearings held recently,” said Beth McConnell, director of the coalition. “The FCC should listen to the public and reject rule changes that would concentrate ownership even further.”
The survey also showed 70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ...
Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf
October 31, 2007 | The Lobby, Unmasked | The Israel lobby: "We have an 'unwritten contract' with the American media"
Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):
...
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):
"The fact is, you know, we may be unhappy with the New York Times from time to time, and we at CAMERA have been, but I have to say we are fortunate. The American media is much, much more geared to understanding that there is an unwritten contract between them and us, and that is, that things should be factually accurate, and we get corrections all the time. Those corrections are very meaningful sometimes. We can prevent the repetition of serious errors. … So there is that give and take here in the States."
What is this "unwritten contract"? I'll tell you what it is: it's an agreement to censor anything and everything that offends the Lobby and its glorified, sanitized view of Israel. Here, after all, is a country that practices apartheid, imprisons children, and was founded on ethnic cleansing and bigoted religious obscurantism – and yet they present themselves to the world as a valiant little "democracy," a beleaguered outpost of "the West" in the midst of an Arab sea. It takes a lot of cosmetics to hide the true face of this dog, and that's what CAMERA is all about – prettifying an increasingly ugly reality. The Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf of a foreign power is smeared as an "anti-Semite."
When National Public Radio refused to kowtow to their demands for more favorable coverage of Israel, they mounted a vicious campaign of demonization that led to huge financial losses to the station. NPR, which CAMERA called "National Palestine Radio" – a bit of racist snark ...
...
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of "Overccoming Zionism"
September 22 / 23, 2007 | Pressure Builds on University of Michigan | Pluto Press Under Attack by Israel Lobby | By ROGER van ZWANENBERG
About three weeks ago Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the US. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism.
Since then the Executive Board of the University has considered the matter and issued a public statement. Joel's book has now been reinstated but they plan to review the ongoing relationship between Pluto and UMP in October. ...
About three weeks ago Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the US. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism.
Since then the Executive Board of the University has considered the matter and issued a public statement. Joel's book has now been reinstated but they plan to review the ongoing relationship between Pluto and UMP in October. ...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interes
Conservatism isn’t what it used to be | By Paul Craig Roberts
..
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci14sep14,1,3096423,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true
...
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead.
..
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci14sep14,1,3096423,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true
...
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress.
Despicable: Abe Foxman slams only Muslim Congressman | Posted by Cecilie Surasky Mitchell Plitnick
MN Congressman Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag, Bush to Hitler. You can agree or disagree with the statement. You can think it’s uniquely insightful and courageous or completely idiotic. In the end, the free marketplace of democracy will decide what his supporters think.
But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?
Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable. ...
MN Congressman Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag, Bush to Hitler. You can agree or disagree with the statement. You can think it’s uniquely insightful and courageous or completely idiotic. In the end, the free marketplace of democracy will decide what his supporters think.
But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?
Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable. ...
committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline ... CC'd to Cheney
Sunday, October 28, 2007 | Did GOP Operatives Expose Whistleblowers?
...This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."
...This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."
But in an email sent out today, the committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline. The committee email was sent to tipsters who had used the website form, including presumably whistleblowers themselves, and all of the recipients of the email were accidentally included in the "to:" field -- instead of concealing those addresses with a so-called blind carbon copy or "bcc:".
...
Why would a professional in the Judiciary Committee staff not use Bcc: as automatically as I do? And why would they Cc: Cheney? I don't think so. I think this is a deliberate attempt by a Republican on the Judiciary committee to derail the DOJ investigation by leaking the identities of whistleblowers to Cheney to expose them to intimidation and revenge.
Here is the list of suspects:
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th
Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th
Gallegly (R) California, 24th
Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th ...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
it appears the majority of the population is falling hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being spewed by the White House, Fox News, ...
October 30, 2007 at 15:01:04 | A Zogby Poll Shows Complacency In America Has Been Replaced By Ignorance and Stupidity | by Justanothercoverup
... MUCH MORE
When I read the results of a new Zogby Poll, my heart dropped as I realized that complacency in America has been replaced by ignorance and stupidity - and it appears the majority of the population is falling hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being spewed by the White House, Fox News, and a host of right-wing pundits. They have the most money, so their message of hate is overcoming the voice of logic and reason - and those of who are aware of the truth are obviously in the minority. I am saddened that my fellow countrymen do not have the wherewithal to seek the truth for themselves rather than believing everything they hear on the radio and TV.
Bomb Iran, majority of Americans says in new poll
Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday October 30, 2007
Despite President Bush’s perpetually abysmal approval ratings, it appears his increasingly hostile rhetoric against Iran has drummed up enough fear of a “nuclear holocost” or a World War III that a majority of Americans are in favor of a US strike against the country aimed a curtailing its apparent nuclear ambitions, a new poll shows.
The Zogby International survey shows 52 percent of Americans would support a strike on Iran, while 53 percent expect President Bush to launch such an attack before the end of his second term.... MUCH MORE
Most Gagged Person in U.S. History: "Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason ...
Brad Friedman ON 10/29/2007 5:30AM | EXCLUSIVE: FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All - and Face Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
...
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
...
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
...
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
...
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case." ...
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
...
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
...
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
...
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
...
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case." ...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
US disaster agency apologizes for fake 'reporters' ... No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person
US disaster agency apologizes for fake 'reporters' | Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:23pm | By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The main U.S. disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a news briefing on California's wildfires that no journalists attended.
...
No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person, although some camera crews arrived late to film incidental shots, officials said.
...
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House did not condone FEMA's action and would not engage in such practices.
But in 2004 the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, accused the administration of "covert propaganda" in distributing video packages about federal health programs that looked like independent news reports.
Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams lost a syndication deal for his column in 2005 and apologized after a disclosure that he accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote education legislation in his commentaries.
U.S. defense officials that year also confirmed that U.S. troops wrote articles that were planted in Iraqi newspapers in exchange for money.
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The main U.S. disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a news briefing on California's wildfires that no journalists attended.
...
No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person, although some camera crews arrived late to film incidental shots, officials said.
...
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House did not condone FEMA's action and would not engage in such practices.
But in 2004 the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, accused the administration of "covert propaganda" in distributing video packages about federal health programs that looked like independent news reports.
Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams lost a syndication deal for his column in 2005 and apologized after a disclosure that he accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote education legislation in his commentaries.
U.S. defense officials that year also confirmed that U.S. troops wrote articles that were planted in Iraqi newspapers in exchange for money.
Appeasing bullies like Dershowitz will not stop them ... The question is, do we in this country want a McCarthyite witch hunt?
Intellectual terrorism | For the sake of free speech, British organisations should confront pro-Israel bullies, not appease them. | October 25, 2007 11:00 AM
The newest and least attractive import from America, following on behind Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Friends, is the pro-Israel lobby. The latest target of this US-style campaign is the august Oxford Union.
This week, two Israeli colleagues and I were due to appear at the union to participate in an important debate on the one-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Also invited was the American Jewish scholar and outspoken critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein. At the last minute, however, the union withdrew its invitation to him, apparently intimidated by threats from various pro-Israel groups.
The Harvard Jewish lawyer and indefatigable defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, attacked the topic of the debate as well as the Oxford Union itself. In an article headlined "Oxford Union is dead", he accused it of having become "a propaganda platform for extremist views", and castigated its choice of what he termed anti-Israel and anti-semitic speakers.
Yet Dershowitz could have restored the balance as he saw it; he was the first person invited by the Oxford Union to oppose the motion but he declined due, as he put it, to "the terms of the debate and my proposed teammates". ...
...
Dershowitz and the other pro-Israel activists may rejoice at their success in derailing an important discussion. But it is of little comfort to those of us who care about freedom of speech in this country. Last May, Dershowitz interfered in British academic life when the University and College Union voted overwhelmingly to debate the merits of boycotting Israeli institutions. He teamed up with a British Jewish lawyer, Anthony Julius, and others, threatening to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone acting against Israeli universities.
In another example of these bullying tactics, the Royal Society of Medicine, one of Britain's most venerable medical institutions, came under an attack this month, unprecedented in its 200 year history. It had invited Dr Derek Summerfield, a psychiatrist (who has also documented Israelıs medical abuses against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories), to its conference on Religion, Spirituality and Mental Health. The RSM was immediately bombarded with threats from pro-Israel doctors demanding Dr Summerfield's removal on the grounds that he was Èpoliticalı and biased, and that the RSM's charitable status would be challenged if he remained. Intimidated, the RSM asked Dr Summerfield to withdraw, although they later reinstated him.
...
The power of the Israel lobby in America is legendary. It demonstrates its influence at many levels. Campus Watch is a network that monitors alleged anti-Israel activity in US academic institutions. The difficulties of promotion in the US for scholars deemed anti-Israeli are notorious. The notable Palestinian academic, Edward Said, was subjected to an unrelenting campaign by pro-Israel groups at Columbia University with threats on his life. ...
...
Such activities are familiar in the US. People there are hardened or resigned to having their freedom of expression limited by the pro-Israel lobby, and the threats of Dershowitz would cause no surprise to anyone. But Britain is different, naively innocent in the face of US-style assaults on its scholars and institutions. No wonder that those who have been attacked give in so quickly, nervous of something they do not understand. The UCU leadership, shocked and intimidated by the ferocious reaction to the boycott motion from pro-Israel groups, resorted to legal advice to extricate itself and announced in September that a call to boycott Israeli institutions would be "unlawful". The Oxford Union jettisoned one of its participants rather than stand up to the threats of its critics. The RSM tried to distance the offending speaker from its conference to protect itself from abuse.
The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations.
Truth Matters | By Charles Sullivan
10/27/07 "ICH" -- -- I have been writing political essays for a few years now. I do so as a reluctant enthusiast, not because I wanted to write on these themes; but because, it seemed to me, that professional journalists were not telling the whole story; that significant parts that would allow people to connect the dots and understand what is happening from a historical perspective, was being deliberately omitted from the official version of current events, and from history.
As propaganda, the elements that are deliberately left out of media are as important as those that are retained. It is propaganda by omission, as much as by content. What people are not told shapes their world view and influences their behavior, as surely as what they are told. Imposed ignorance and selective knowledge go hand in hand to forge public opinion and to shape cultural identity. These conditions set the stage for belligerent government and aggressive nationalism.
...
Our recent history would have been impossible without the consolidation of the media that occurred during the Clinton presidency, and has continued ever since. The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations. We no longer have reporting on local issues stemming from diverse perspectives rooted in local communities, but a monoculture of state and corporate propaganda that betrays the public trust in its pursuit of corporate profits.
...
10/27/07 "ICH" -- -- I have been writing political essays for a few years now. I do so as a reluctant enthusiast, not because I wanted to write on these themes; but because, it seemed to me, that professional journalists were not telling the whole story; that significant parts that would allow people to connect the dots and understand what is happening from a historical perspective, was being deliberately omitted from the official version of current events, and from history.
As propaganda, the elements that are deliberately left out of media are as important as those that are retained. It is propaganda by omission, as much as by content. What people are not told shapes their world view and influences their behavior, as surely as what they are told. Imposed ignorance and selective knowledge go hand in hand to forge public opinion and to shape cultural identity. These conditions set the stage for belligerent government and aggressive nationalism.
...
Our recent history would have been impossible without the consolidation of the media that occurred during the Clinton presidency, and has continued ever since. The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations. We no longer have reporting on local issues stemming from diverse perspectives rooted in local communities, but a monoculture of state and corporate propaganda that betrays the public trust in its pursuit of corporate profits.
...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," ...
Pentagon Used Independent Military Newspaper For Pro-Bush PR Campaign | Posted by Amanda Terkel at 1:00 PM on October 23, 2007.
This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress
The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")
As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.
On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:
But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...] ...
This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress
The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")
As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.
On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:
But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...] ...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul ... [covers event] ... without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex)
Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul | Sunday, October 21, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.
The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).
The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.
Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate. ...
Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.
The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).
The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.
Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate. ...
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic ... most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic | Oct 19, 6:32 PM (ET) | By PETER SVENSSON
NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) (CMCSA) actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. ...
NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) (CMCSA) actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. ...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by ... “the pressures brought by Zionist extremist groups such as ADL
10/14/2007 | Zio-Lobby Shuts Down No More Wars For Israel Conference - First Amendment Rights Violated, Boycott of Anti-American Marriott Corporation Urged
On early Saturday morning the long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by the traditional enemies of free speech, luckily thanks to the determination of the organizers of the event the conference did resume later in the day at a different location!
Organizer Mark Glenn reported that conference goers, many of whom had traveled to Southern California from halfway around the World, were shut out of the Irvine Marriott Hotel because of “the pressures brought to bear by Zionist extremist groups such as the ADL and others”.
Human Rights activist Hesham Tillawi reported that approximately fifty of the conference speakers and attendees decided to picket the sidewalks in front of the Marriott Hotel in order to protest the denial of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The protesters shouted “No More Wars For Israel” and carried hastily built signs saying “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “Freedom of Assembly is Null and Void” as passers by gave them the thumbs up and honked their horns in support! ...
On early Saturday morning the long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by the traditional enemies of free speech, luckily thanks to the determination of the organizers of the event the conference did resume later in the day at a different location!
Organizer Mark Glenn reported that conference goers, many of whom had traveled to Southern California from halfway around the World, were shut out of the Irvine Marriott Hotel because of “the pressures brought to bear by Zionist extremist groups such as the ADL and others”.
Human Rights activist Hesham Tillawi reported that approximately fifty of the conference speakers and attendees decided to picket the sidewalks in front of the Marriott Hotel in order to protest the denial of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The protesters shouted “No More Wars For Israel” and carried hastily built signs saying “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “Freedom of Assembly is Null and Void” as passers by gave them the thumbs up and honked their horns in support! ...
Friday, October 12, 2007
arvard Prof Says Google Cancelled His Talk on Israel Lobby ... pressure on management ... "That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the US"
October 08, 2007 | Harvard Prof Says Google Cancelled His Talk on Israel Lobby
At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn't say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn't appear "without someone following us...
"That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn't say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn't appear "without someone following us...
"That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
American debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being stifled by an insidious form of pre-emptive censorship.
Land of the free? | American debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being stifled by an insidious form of pre-emptive censorship. | Richard Silverstein | October 9, 2007 3:00 PM
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
...
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
...
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
...
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
...
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)