Comcast Blocks Access To Net Neutrality Meeting | by huntsu | Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM PST
[Thanks to everyone who rec'd this diary, especially since it really wasn't too much related to me. Boing Boing deserves the credit for it, but I'm happy to take the rec! Please also visit the great state blog Blue Jersey where I also post.]
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality? Well, Comcast answered the question themselves by blocking access to a Net Neutrality meeting at Harvard. (via BoingBoing)
This is pretty unbelievable--- there was an FCC hearing about Net Neutrality in Harvard yesterday where we had a booth. Comcast was PAYING PEOPLE TO FILL UP SEATS AND CHEER FOR THEM. Tons of folks, including reporters, got turned away. For people that still have a hard time wrapping their heads around what net neutrality is, this about sums up what's happening. ...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” .. about [possibly] "wrongly convicted" Democratic governor
WHNT’s Technical Glitches | Published: February 27, 2008
In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: “Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
The report presented new evidence that the charges against Mr. Siegelman may have been concocted by politically motivated Republican prosecutors — and orchestrated by Karl Rove. Unfortunately, WHNT had “technical problems” that prevented it from broadcasting a segment (the problems were resolved in time for the next part of the show) that many residents of Alabama would no doubt have found quite interesting.
After initially blaming the glitch on CBS in New York, the affiliate said it learned “upon investigation,” and following a rebuke from the network, that “the problem was on our end.” It re-broadcast the segment at 10 p.m., pitting it against the Academy Awards on rival ABC, before Daniel Day-Lewis won the best actor Oscar. As public criticism grew, it ran it again at 6 p.m. on Monday. ...
In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: “Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
The report presented new evidence that the charges against Mr. Siegelman may have been concocted by politically motivated Republican prosecutors — and orchestrated by Karl Rove. Unfortunately, WHNT had “technical problems” that prevented it from broadcasting a segment (the problems were resolved in time for the next part of the show) that many residents of Alabama would no doubt have found quite interesting.
After initially blaming the glitch on CBS in New York, the affiliate said it learned “upon investigation,” and following a rebuke from the network, that “the problem was on our end.” It re-broadcast the segment at 10 p.m., pitting it against the Academy Awards on rival ABC, before Daniel Day-Lewis won the best actor Oscar. As public criticism grew, it ran it again at 6 p.m. on Monday. ...
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
US court attacks web freedom ... trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented.
Internet Censorship: US court attacks web freedom; enjoins Wikileaks.org out of existence | By Stephen Soldz | Feb 18, 2008, 20:19
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.
Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. ...
...
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response. ...
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.
Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. ...
...
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response. ...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Bush to Congress: No Freedom Of Information Act Ombudsman [not funded !]
Feb 08, 2005 | Bush to Congress: No FOIA Ombudsman
Those that thought the President's recent signing of the recent FOIA amendments law was too good to be true were greeted Monday with the other shoe dropping. In his most recent budget proposal, the President failed to provide any funding for the FOIA Ombudsman's Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and attempts to shift the responsibilities of that office to the Department of Justice. Reaction as shown in this article was widespread and critical of the President's decision.
Readers of my blog know I stated that without providing funding for FOIA Operations, this law had minimal impact. Unfortunately it only took one month (and a full eleven months before many of the provisions of the law become effective) for me to be correct. ...
Those that thought the President's recent signing of the recent FOIA amendments law was too good to be true were greeted Monday with the other shoe dropping. In his most recent budget proposal, the President failed to provide any funding for the FOIA Ombudsman's Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and attempts to shift the responsibilities of that office to the Department of Justice. Reaction as shown in this article was widespread and critical of the President's decision.
Readers of my blog know I stated that without providing funding for FOIA Operations, this law had minimal impact. Unfortunately it only took one month (and a full eleven months before many of the provisions of the law become effective) for me to be correct. ...
Friday, February 08, 2008
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry
Headlined on 2/5/08: Our corporate-controlled (Orwellian) mass media | by Richard Clark
| http://www.opednews.com
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry In a world of objective reality, a reporter would simply say that the United States launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 under the false pretense that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and did this even after UN inspectors, completely unopposed by Saddam, had failed to find any WMD. "For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking," Pelley said in introducing the segment on the interrogation of Hussein about his WMD stockpiles. "Why did he choose war with the United States?"
...
In line with Bush's version of history, "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley asked FBI interrogator George Piro why Hussein kept pretending that he had WMD even as U.S. troops massed on Iraq's borders, when a simple announcement that the WMD was gone would have prevented the war.
Pelly never mentions the fact that Hussein's government did in fact disclose that it had eliminated its WMD. Instead Pelley presses Piro on the irrelevant question of why Hussein was hiding the fact that he had no WMD....
60 Minutes Caves to Pressure from White House on Siegelman Story
60 Minutes Caves to Pressure from White House on Siegelman Story... | February 05, 2008
Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too. I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties. Nice system of government we have here, eh? ...
Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too. I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties. Nice system of government we have here, eh? ...
[latest signing statement: not reported] in US outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. ... AP touched on the topic but avoided the main point
Editorial Pages Report the News | Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2008-02-03 16:00. Media | By David Swanson
Increasingly, all the news that's fit to print does not include the news that editorial writers deem significant. The New York Times and many other newspapers have developed the habit of writing lengthy editorials about news stories that never make it into the news section. One example of this trend is the story of last Monday's presidential signing statement. If you don't know what a signing statement is, you should consider flipping first to the editorial page to get your news.
Congressional Quarterly, which has a readership of about 8, first reported the story in an honest-to-goodness straight news report, with all the bells and whistles of pretended "objectivity." The Boston Globe did the same. The Globe's article presents its readers with the basic facts of what happened, written in the manner which people have been trained to find most credible and important. The Guardian newspaper in England did the same. But the United States outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. An Associated Press article touched on the topic but avoided the main points. A Virginian Pilot article buried the lede. And a late-coming Washington Post article missed the boat.
But editorial page writers clearly believed the public deserved to hear about the end of its representative democracy. The New York Times led the way, followed by the Roanoke Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a chain of New England newspapers, the Times Argus, the Denver Post, the Charleston Gazette, and the Las Vegas Sun. These editorials both presented the information and took an opinion on it, all of them sharing the same basic perspective: the President of the United States had just shockingly seized unconstitutional powers, effectively elimintating the legislative branch of our government.
...
Why is the Boston Globe the only newspaper willing to report this type of story as a news story? ... If you ran a story on the president's efective elimination of Congress, how would you be able to keep printing all the usual stories based on the notion that Congress still exists? ...
Increasingly, all the news that's fit to print does not include the news that editorial writers deem significant. The New York Times and many other newspapers have developed the habit of writing lengthy editorials about news stories that never make it into the news section. One example of this trend is the story of last Monday's presidential signing statement. If you don't know what a signing statement is, you should consider flipping first to the editorial page to get your news.
Congressional Quarterly, which has a readership of about 8, first reported the story in an honest-to-goodness straight news report, with all the bells and whistles of pretended "objectivity." The Boston Globe did the same. The Globe's article presents its readers with the basic facts of what happened, written in the manner which people have been trained to find most credible and important. The Guardian newspaper in England did the same. But the United States outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. An Associated Press article touched on the topic but avoided the main points. A Virginian Pilot article buried the lede. And a late-coming Washington Post article missed the boat.
But editorial page writers clearly believed the public deserved to hear about the end of its representative democracy. The New York Times led the way, followed by the Roanoke Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a chain of New England newspapers, the Times Argus, the Denver Post, the Charleston Gazette, and the Las Vegas Sun. These editorials both presented the information and took an opinion on it, all of them sharing the same basic perspective: the President of the United States had just shockingly seized unconstitutional powers, effectively elimintating the legislative branch of our government.
...
Why is the Boston Globe the only newspaper willing to report this type of story as a news story? ... If you ran a story on the president's efective elimination of Congress, how would you be able to keep printing all the usual stories based on the notion that Congress still exists? ...
wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘int’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements ... 935 lies, Bush told 259 before war
George W Bush, White House told 935 lies after September 11 | By staff writers | January 23, 2008 06:24pm | news.com.au
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
...
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
...
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
...
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
...
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard
Published on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | Not in the Script | by Sheila Casey
...
... almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.
...
If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.
It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them. ...
...
... almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.
...
If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.
It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them. ...
No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Watch an ad for the debate:
ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked.
...
What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area. ....
In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Watch an ad for the debate:
ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked.
...
What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area. ....
Thursday, January 31, 2008
presidential debate(s) sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a coal industry front group: NO QUESTIONS ON GLOBAL WARMING
Tonight’s CNN debate brought to you by the coal industry.
CNN is hosting a GOP presidential debate tonight in California and Democratic one in the state tomorrow. Both are sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a coal industry front group. In its past three ABEC-sponsored debates, there have been no questions asked on global warming. Watch an ad highlighting ABEC’s sponsorship:
...
Comments By: Top Rated | Date
1. When, oh when can we get some debates that aren’t sponsored by media giants, big business, and other special interests? Where is the League of Women Voters when we need them?
Comment by missmolly — January 30, 2008 @ 10:55 am
...
CNN is hosting a GOP presidential debate tonight in California and Democratic one in the state tomorrow. Both are sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a coal industry front group. In its past three ABEC-sponsored debates, there have been no questions asked on global warming. Watch an ad highlighting ABEC’s sponsorship:
...
Comments By: Top Rated | Date
1. When, oh when can we get some debates that aren’t sponsored by media giants, big business, and other special interests? Where is the League of Women Voters when we need them?
Comment by missmolly — January 30, 2008 @ 10:55 am
...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
One of Edwards’ biggest problems has been a relative blackout by our corporate news media ...
Under 7 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, our nation has regressed to the highest level of inequality seen since what Paul Krugman refers to as “The Long Gilded Age”. This chart explains the situation in graphic terms:
President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal contained numerous statutes that served to greatly reduce income inequality, which is denoted in the above chart as the percent of income made by the richest 10% of Americans. Beginning in the late 1930s, after several decades of the least amount of income inequality in American history, coinciding with the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history, the situation began to reverse itself with the onset of the “Reagan Revolution” in 1981. Under George Bush II, income inequality has now again attained Gilded Age proportions.
And not coincidentally, along with this rise in income inequality, we have seen a large increase in poverty under Bush the 2nd, with 5 million more Americans descending into poverty by 2004, to reach a total of 37 million, reflecting the increasing poverty rate in our country under Bush, as depicted in this graph:
...
Fighting poverty is the cornerstone of John Edwards’ campaign for President in 2008. In a previous post I discussed the fact that his plans to address this issue are far superior to those of any other presidential candidate. A recent editorial in The Nation, titled “Time to Act on Inequality”, dealt with this issue, recognizing Edwards’ leadership: ...
...
Accusations that Edwards is angry, aggressive, and confrontational
One of Edwards’ biggest problems has been a relative blackout by our corporate news media. When the media is forced to acknowledge him, as during the 3-way debate in South Carolina last week, his popularity surges. But when our corporate news media isn’t blacking him out they generally have nothing but criticism for him. These criticisms, when they don’t deal with trivia such as the price of his haircuts, generally deal with his confrontational stance towards corporate greed. One example is the Des Moines Register, which recently explained why they decided not to endorse his candidacy this year:
Oh my! Not only does he talk about economic inequality, but he prescribes aggressive measures to combat it!
And here is some more aggressive criticism of Edwards’ campaign, by Stuart Rothenberg:
So, apparently it’s inconsistent to fight for both the working class and the middle class? And railing against George Bush’s corporate agenda is going to tear our nation apart? Give me a break! Rothenberg’s claim that criticizing corporate America will hurt our economy is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic theories.
Edwards’ answer to those accusations – an inconvenient truth
Yes, corporate America fears an Edwards presidency. And yes, as Dan Balz explains:
President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal contained numerous statutes that served to greatly reduce income inequality, which is denoted in the above chart as the percent of income made by the richest 10% of Americans. Beginning in the late 1930s, after several decades of the least amount of income inequality in American history, coinciding with the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history, the situation began to reverse itself with the onset of the “Reagan Revolution” in 1981. Under George Bush II, income inequality has now again attained Gilded Age proportions.
And not coincidentally, along with this rise in income inequality, we have seen a large increase in poverty under Bush the 2nd, with 5 million more Americans descending into poverty by 2004, to reach a total of 37 million, reflecting the increasing poverty rate in our country under Bush, as depicted in this graph:
...
Fighting poverty is the cornerstone of John Edwards’ campaign for President in 2008. In a previous post I discussed the fact that his plans to address this issue are far superior to those of any other presidential candidate. A recent editorial in The Nation, titled “Time to Act on Inequality”, dealt with this issue, recognizing Edwards’ leadership: ...
...
Accusations that Edwards is angry, aggressive, and confrontational
One of Edwards’ biggest problems has been a relative blackout by our corporate news media. When the media is forced to acknowledge him, as during the 3-way debate in South Carolina last week, his popularity surges. But when our corporate news media isn’t blacking him out they generally have nothing but criticism for him. These criticisms, when they don’t deal with trivia such as the price of his haircuts, generally deal with his confrontational stance towards corporate greed. One example is the Des Moines Register, which recently explained why they decided not to endorse his candidacy this year:
But Edwards is more combative this time around. He is no longer content to talk about economic inequity – he prescribes an aggressive effort to root out special interests in Washington, D.C.
"It is time to give these entrenched interests, that are standing against America, hell," Edwards told thousands of Iowa Democrats this month at the state party's fall fundraiser in Des Moines. "That's the only way we're going to win this fight."
"It is time to give these entrenched interests, that are standing against America, hell," Edwards told thousands of Iowa Democrats this month at the state party's fall fundraiser in Des Moines. "That's the only way we're going to win this fight."
Oh my! Not only does he talk about economic inequality, but he prescribes aggressive measures to combat it!
And here is some more aggressive criticism of Edwards’ campaign, by Stuart Rothenberg:
If Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare…Edwards portrays himself as a fighter for the middle class, but his message is decidedly working class and left….
Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business. Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble.
Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business. Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble.
So, apparently it’s inconsistent to fight for both the working class and the middle class? And railing against George Bush’s corporate agenda is going to tear our nation apart? Give me a break! Rothenberg’s claim that criticizing corporate America will hurt our economy is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic theories.
Edwards’ answer to those accusations – an inconvenient truth
Yes, corporate America fears an Edwards presidency. And yes, as Dan Balz explains:
The enemy he sees is corporate America and corporate greed. His message seeks not to unite America but to finish what he describes as "an epic struggle" against forces that are, literally, killing America – destroying jobs, holding down wages, putting ordinary Americans out of work or denying them medical care. "You need somebody in the arena who will never back down," he says. ...
Monday, January 21, 2008
American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the “free and open election process,” ...
The Great American Election Charade | by Ernest Partridge | January 16, 2008
...
The more the American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the “free and open election process,” the longer that public will believe that each new Chief Executive is the legitimate "people's choice." And that persisting public belief suits the powers that be in the military-industrial-corporate-media complex (MICMC) just fine.
...
(As numerous polls have disclosed, John Edwards is potentially the strongest Democratic candidate against the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is the weakest. Yet Edwards, who finished second in the Iowa caucuses, has vanished from the pages of the mainstream media, from the columns of the punditocracy, and even from the press conferences of The Democratic Leadership Council – the Republican wing of the Democratic party).
...
...
The more the American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the “free and open election process,” the longer that public will believe that each new Chief Executive is the legitimate "people's choice." And that persisting public belief suits the powers that be in the military-industrial-corporate-media complex (MICMC) just fine.
...
(As numerous polls have disclosed, John Edwards is potentially the strongest Democratic candidate against the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is the weakest. Yet Edwards, who finished second in the Iowa caucuses, has vanished from the pages of the mainstream media, from the columns of the punditocracy, and even from the press conferences of The Democratic Leadership Council – the Republican wing of the Democratic party).
...
At long last, more and more ordinary Americans are getting the message that they have been lied to, that they can no longer trust the mainstream media, that their public treasury has been looted, that their children’s and grandchildren’s future has been mortgaged, and that they are living under the darkening shadow of despotism.
Still the establishment MICMC rolls on in its arguably pre-determined course, “populism” and the public be damned. Matt Taibbi on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” last Friday summed it up perfectly:
The [campaign] theme for awhile was that the voters were sick and tired of being told by the media who was going to be their nominee. But it seems to have come full circle now, and it looks like we may end up getting the same people we were going to get in the first place: [McCain and Clinton]....
Seventy percent of the country wants to withdraw from Iraq, and we get two pro-war candidates. If that doesn’t tell you how f****d-up the system is, I don’t know what does. ...
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Edwards: claim[s] inadequate and unfair press coverage ... [study] indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just a fraction of the coverage
January 17, 2008 | Edwards takes aim at media
WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Edwards' campaign is launching a full-on assault on the media for what they claim is inadequate and unfair press coverage of the former North Carolina senator's presidential bid.
"For the better part of a year the media has focused on two celebrity candidates,” Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis said Thursday. “And they continue to act as if there were only two candidates in the race, even after John Edwards beat Senator Clinton in Iowa and poll after poll show competitive races in Nevada, South Carolina and other key states."
On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It also includes recent statistics from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just a fraction of the news coverage allotted to his two rivals.
The campaign has even produced a Web video, "What about John Edwards?", that scrolls through several clips of media pundits discussing only Clinton and Obama, and ends with the results of a focus group that suggested Edwards won the most recent debate in Las Vegas.
And on Wednesday, Edwards' spokesman Eric Schultz sent out an e-mail that suggested the senator's low poll numbers nationally are directly linked to his limited media coverage.
The candidate himself has brought up the issue repeatedly on the trail of late, and on Thursday one town-hall supporter urged the crowd to directly complain to media outlets about the lack of coverage. Edwards said he agreed, and that it was time to speak out.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Edwards' campaign is launching a full-on assault on the media for what they claim is inadequate and unfair press coverage of the former North Carolina senator's presidential bid.
"For the better part of a year the media has focused on two celebrity candidates,” Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis said Thursday. “And they continue to act as if there were only two candidates in the race, even after John Edwards beat Senator Clinton in Iowa and poll after poll show competitive races in Nevada, South Carolina and other key states."
On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It also includes recent statistics from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just a fraction of the news coverage allotted to his two rivals.
The campaign has even produced a Web video, "What about John Edwards?", that scrolls through several clips of media pundits discussing only Clinton and Obama, and ends with the results of a focus group that suggested Edwards won the most recent debate in Las Vegas.
And on Wednesday, Edwards' spokesman Eric Schultz sent out an e-mail that suggested the senator's low poll numbers nationally are directly linked to his limited media coverage.
The candidate himself has brought up the issue repeatedly on the trail of late, and on Thursday one town-hall supporter urged the crowd to directly complain to media outlets about the lack of coverage. Edwards said he agreed, and that it was time to speak out.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates ... with more than $60M in presidential election
Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates | AP | By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer | January 8, 2008
“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.
The group indicates it will spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it put out in the last presidential cycle.
WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. ...
...
Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.
On the Republican side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- emerging as an unexpected front-runner after winning the Iowa caucuses -- has used populist themes in his effort to woo independent voters, blasting bonus pay for corporate chief executives and the effect of unfettered globalization on workers. ...
“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.
The group indicates it will spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it put out in the last presidential cycle.
WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. ...
...
Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.
On the Republican side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- emerging as an unexpected front-runner after winning the Iowa caucuses -- has used populist themes in his effort to woo independent voters, blasting bonus pay for corporate chief executives and the effect of unfettered globalization on workers. ...
Iran: US media has increasingly become a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, perpetuating and ventilating the fears ...
The Iran Fixation | How the American Media Enables Bush | By Ayesha Ijaz KhanY
...
To the contrary, US media has increasingly become a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, perpetuating and ventilating the fears which prevent a population from thinking rationally about important issues. I happened to be in New York a few months ago when President Ahmedinijad arrived to address the United Nations General Assembly. The day he landed, local press ran shocking headlines in the newspapers. "Tehran Thug Comes To Town," read one; "Terror Has Landed," said another. It was the kind of diction one expects from a grade school bully, not intellectually honest analysis of issues with global ramifications.
Dismissing some of the local papers as tabloids, I picked up a copy of The New Yorker magazine, only to find on its cover a demeaning representation of President Ahmedinijad sitting on the toilet, pants down, playing footsie with the man in the next stall. Surely, for the American audience, it was a take on the Republican Senator from Idaho who had recently been caught doing just that with an undercover cop at an airport bathroom and a jibe simultaneously at Ahmedinijad, who had denied in his speech at Columbia University that homosexuality existed in Iran.
But to many American Muslims it was flagrant cultural insensitivity to caricaturize a head of state in such a way, and also a reminder that Iran was being demeaned through its President only so the attack could soon be justified. It reminded Muslims of the early nineties when Saddam toilet paper had taken America by storm, only to be followed by operation Desert Storm. That is how the propaganda machine works. First you degrade and then you attack. ...
...
But what would have happened if the Iranians sat tight and did not offer their version? What will happen in months to come? Will the Bush administration continue to find excuses to throw America into another unjustifiable war? Will the American media just sit on the sidelines and watch while that happens? Is their obligation to the people of the United States or to the Bush administration?
Ayesha Ijaz Khan is a London-based lawyer and writer and can be contacted via her website www.ayeshaijazkhan.com
...
To the contrary, US media has increasingly become a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, perpetuating and ventilating the fears which prevent a population from thinking rationally about important issues. I happened to be in New York a few months ago when President Ahmedinijad arrived to address the United Nations General Assembly. The day he landed, local press ran shocking headlines in the newspapers. "Tehran Thug Comes To Town," read one; "Terror Has Landed," said another. It was the kind of diction one expects from a grade school bully, not intellectually honest analysis of issues with global ramifications.
Dismissing some of the local papers as tabloids, I picked up a copy of The New Yorker magazine, only to find on its cover a demeaning representation of President Ahmedinijad sitting on the toilet, pants down, playing footsie with the man in the next stall. Surely, for the American audience, it was a take on the Republican Senator from Idaho who had recently been caught doing just that with an undercover cop at an airport bathroom and a jibe simultaneously at Ahmedinijad, who had denied in his speech at Columbia University that homosexuality existed in Iran.
But to many American Muslims it was flagrant cultural insensitivity to caricaturize a head of state in such a way, and also a reminder that Iran was being demeaned through its President only so the attack could soon be justified. It reminded Muslims of the early nineties when Saddam toilet paper had taken America by storm, only to be followed by operation Desert Storm. That is how the propaganda machine works. First you degrade and then you attack. ...
...
But what would have happened if the Iranians sat tight and did not offer their version? What will happen in months to come? Will the Bush administration continue to find excuses to throw America into another unjustifiable war? Will the American media just sit on the sidelines and watch while that happens? Is their obligation to the people of the United States or to the Bush administration?
Ayesha Ijaz Khan is a London-based lawyer and writer and can be contacted via her website www.ayeshaijazkhan.com
The Polls You Won’t Hear Much About ... John Edwards is by far the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election
The Polls You Won’t Hear Much About | By: Phoenix Woman Monday January 14, 2008 6:00 pm
...
Here are the current Rasmussen head-to-head match-ups for the various Republican candidates against the Democrats:
2) John Edwards is by far the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election. ...
3) Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. ...
4) Barack Obama is in between Edwards and Hillary Clinton in strength in the general election. ...
...
The upshot of all this: If Hillary's the Democratic nominee, we could very easily lose to any likely GOP nominee. If Obama's the nominee, he does OK so long as he doesn't face McCain. But if Edwards is the nominee, we're sitting pretty. Which, I suspect, is one reason why Big Media hates John Edwards so much and does everything it can to destroy him. (Speaking of which: KingOneEye at DailyKos pointed out this morning how the NYT is ignoring a key result of its own poll on the race -- namely, that as more people get to know him, Edwards' favorability rating keeps going up.)
........................................................... [Supporting background] ........................
U.S. corporate elite fear candidate Edwards | Reuters | Friday January 11 2008 | By Kevin Drawbaugh
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.
In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class."
He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists." ...
...
Here are the current Rasmussen head-to-head match-ups for the various Republican candidates against the Democrats:
A few things should be immediately apparent:
1) McCain is by far the GOP's strongest candidate in the general election. ...2) John Edwards is by far the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election. ...
3) Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. ...
4) Barack Obama is in between Edwards and Hillary Clinton in strength in the general election. ...
...
The upshot of all this: If Hillary's the Democratic nominee, we could very easily lose to any likely GOP nominee. If Obama's the nominee, he does OK so long as he doesn't face McCain. But if Edwards is the nominee, we're sitting pretty. Which, I suspect, is one reason why Big Media hates John Edwards so much and does everything it can to destroy him. (Speaking of which: KingOneEye at DailyKos pointed out this morning how the NYT is ignoring a key result of its own poll on the race -- namely, that as more people get to know him, Edwards' favorability rating keeps going up.)
........................................................... [Supporting background] ........................
John Edwards is pi$$ing off all the right people.
But he hates John Edwards even more because John Edwards has spoken out publicly against the monopolization of America's media outlets into the hands of a small number of plutocrats like Murdoch. Murdoch's media empire fired back, calling Edwards a hypocrite, leaking confidential information, all in an attempt to smear John Edwards to avoid talking about the real issues.
Just look at the bile and vitriol spilling from these New York Post headlines. Two of the most savage attacks were directed as much as Nataline Sarkisyan and Elizabeth Edwards' as they were at Edwards.
Of course, Rupert Murdoch isn't the only right-wing corporatist to go after John Edwards with personal attacks.
Take the far-right Washington Times, for example. In the view of the editorial pages, Edwards is a "widely scorned" "sanctimonius hypocrite." All in all, the Times says, "Mr. Edwards's rank hypocrisy is boundless." On the bright side, he's "well-coifed" but "not ready for prime time." ...
U.S. corporate elite fear candidate Edwards | Reuters | Friday January 11 2008 | By Kevin Drawbaugh
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.
In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class."
He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists." ...
Iran boats: Iran says "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat."
U.S.: Voices on Recording May Not Have Been From Iranian Speedboats | Chilling Threat Could Have Come From the Shore or Another Ship, Navy Says | By MARTHA RADDATZ and JONATHAN KARL | Jan. 10, 2008
...
The Iranians have denied using the threatening language and are saying U.S.-released video is fabricated. Today, the Iranian government aired its own video of the event on state-run TV there. On the audio, the voice that the Iranians say is the communication from their vessel can be heard identifying itself to the American ship, "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat." ...
...
The Iranians have denied using the threatening language and are saying U.S.-released video is fabricated. Today, the Iranian government aired its own video of the event on state-run TV there. On the audio, the voice that the Iranians say is the communication from their vessel can be heard identifying itself to the American ship, "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat." ...
Iran boats: result was a decision to play it up as a major incident. ... decision on its content was made by top officials of DoD
January 16, 2008 | How the Pentagon Planted a False Story | by Gareth Porter
Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.
...
Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would "explode" in "a few seconds." Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.
...
With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.
...
At 9 a.m., Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers," but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode." She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away."
...
A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHF channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command, and Navy leadership in the field." ...
...
. As an official at 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers – often referred to as "Filipino Monkey" – frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.
One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the Strait with the Royal Navy is, "Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you."
By Jan. 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell. ...
Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.
...
Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would "explode" in "a few seconds." Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.
...
With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.
...
At 9 a.m., Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers," but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode." She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away."
...
A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHF channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command, and Navy leadership in the field." ...
...
. As an official at 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers – often referred to as "Filipino Monkey" – frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.
One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the Strait with the Royal Navy is, "Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you."
By Jan. 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell. ...
Monday, January 07, 2008
According to Hockenberry, Zucker said "that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine."
Jewish NBC News programming head censors root cause of 9/11 | Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:43 pm
...
Former "Dateline" reporter blasts NBC (Reuters)
By Paul J. GoughWed Jan 2, 9:06 AM ET
A former "Dateline NBC" correspondent claims that in the aftermath of September 11, the network diverted him from reporting on al Qaeda and instead wanted him to ride along with the country's "forgotten heroes," firefighters.
John Hockenberry, who was laid off from "Dateline" in early 2005, wrote in this month's Technology Review that on the Sunday after the September 2001 attacks he was pitching stories on the origins of al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. He claimed that then-NBC programming chief Jeff Zucker, who came into a meeting Hockenberry was having with "Dateline" executive producer David Corvo, said "Dateline" should instead focus on the firefighters and perhaps ride along with them a la "Cops," the Fox reality series.
According to Hockenberry, Zucker said "that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine." NBC News wasn't impressed by this or any of Hockenberry's other claims.
"It's unfortunate that John Hockenberry seems to be so far out of touch with reality," an NBC spokesperson said. "The comments are so utterly absurd, we will have no further comment." ...
...
Another bombshell is Hockenberry's claims that General Electric, NBC's parent company, discouraged him from talking to the Bin Laden family about their estranged family member. Hockenberry asked GE, which does business with the Bin Laden family company, to help him get in contact with them. Instead, a PR executive called Hockenberry's hotel room in Saudi Arabia and read a statement about how GE didn't see its "valuable business relationship" with the Bin Laden Group as having anything to do with "Dateline."
In another instance, Hockenberry claimed a story he did about a Weather Underground member wouldn't appear on the Sunday edition of "Dateline" unless its lead-out, the 1960s family drama "American Dreams," did a show about "protesters or something." And for another story on the abuse of mentally ill inmates, Hockenberry was told by a producer that video of a fatal attack on a prisoner by guards wasn't enough.
...
Former "Dateline" reporter blasts NBC (Reuters)
By Paul J. GoughWed Jan 2, 9:06 AM ET
A former "Dateline NBC" correspondent claims that in the aftermath of September 11, the network diverted him from reporting on al Qaeda and instead wanted him to ride along with the country's "forgotten heroes," firefighters.
John Hockenberry, who was laid off from "Dateline" in early 2005, wrote in this month's Technology Review that on the Sunday after the September 2001 attacks he was pitching stories on the origins of al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. He claimed that then-NBC programming chief Jeff Zucker, who came into a meeting Hockenberry was having with "Dateline" executive producer David Corvo, said "Dateline" should instead focus on the firefighters and perhaps ride along with them a la "Cops," the Fox reality series.
According to Hockenberry, Zucker said "that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine." NBC News wasn't impressed by this or any of Hockenberry's other claims.
"It's unfortunate that John Hockenberry seems to be so far out of touch with reality," an NBC spokesperson said. "The comments are so utterly absurd, we will have no further comment." ...
...
Another bombshell is Hockenberry's claims that General Electric, NBC's parent company, discouraged him from talking to the Bin Laden family about their estranged family member. Hockenberry asked GE, which does business with the Bin Laden family company, to help him get in contact with them. Instead, a PR executive called Hockenberry's hotel room in Saudi Arabia and read a statement about how GE didn't see its "valuable business relationship" with the Bin Laden Group as having anything to do with "Dateline."
In another instance, Hockenberry claimed a story he did about a Weather Underground member wouldn't appear on the Sunday edition of "Dateline" unless its lead-out, the 1960s family drama "American Dreams," did a show about "protesters or something." And for another story on the abuse of mentally ill inmates, Hockenberry was told by a producer that video of a fatal attack on a prisoner by guards wasn't enough.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Obama site includes ad for "Israel Lobby" ... The ad was withdrawn. Its placement was “unintentional.”
December 3, 2007 Issue | Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative | The Lobby Strikes Back | A new book riles the AIPAC crowd, but makes it to the bestseller list anyway. |
by Scott McConnell
One prism through which to gauge the impact of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy is a September incident involving Barack Obama. His campaign had placed small ads in various spots around the Internet, designed to drive readers to its website. One turned up on Amazon’s page for the Walt and Mearsheimer book. A vigilant watchdog at the New York Sun spotted it and contacted the campaign: Did Obama support Walt and Mearsheimer?
The answer came within hours. The ad was withdrawn. Its placement was “unintentional.” The senator, his campaign made clear, understood that key arguments of the book were “wrong,” but had definitely not read the work himself. In short, Walt and Mearsheimer had reached a pinnacle of notoriety.
Though The Israel Lobby was on the way to best-sellerdom and has become perhaps the most discussed policy book of the year, the presidential candidate touted as the most fresh-thinking and intellectually curious in the race hastened to make clear he had not been corrupted by the toxic text.
...
In their book’s introduction, Walt and Mearsheimer summarize the consequences of this power. In an election year, American politicians will differ radically on domestic issues, social issues, immigration, China, Darfur, and virtually any other topic. But all will “go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country—Israel—as well as their determination to maintain unyielding support for the Jewish state.” The authors find this remarkable and deserving of analysis, which they provided first in a paper, posted last year on Harvard’s Kennedy School website and published in the London Review of Books, and now expanded into a book.
...
It is obvious that The Israel Lobby, both the article and the book, would be extremely unwelcome to those pleased with the status quo. Under the current arrangement, the United States gives Israel $3-4 billion in aid and grants a year—about $500 per Israeli and several orders of magnitude more than aid to citizens of any other country. Israel is the only American aid recipient not required to account for how the money is spent. Washington uses its Security Council veto to shield Israel from critical UN resolutions and periodically issues bland statements lamenting the continued expansion of Israeli settlements on the Palestinian land the Jewish state has occupied since 1967. When Israel violates U.S. law, as it did in Lebanon by using American-made cluster bombs against civilian targets, a low-level official may issue a mild complaint. These fundamentals of the relationship go unchallenged by 95 percent of American politicians holding or running for national office. ....
...
This last area is easily the most disputed point between Walt and Mearsheimer and those reviewers who sought to answer their book rather than smear it. The Israel lobby, the two assert, helped drive the United States into Baghdad. It couldn’t have done it by itself—that required 9/11 and Bush and Cheney. But, argue Mearsheimer and Walt, “absent the lobby’s influence, there almost certainly would not have been a war. The lobby was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a war that is a strategic disaster for the United States.” ...
... But such facts, intriguing as they are, don’t entirely speak for themselves. And whatever enhanced political clout Christian Zionism brought to the lobby, it did not include access and influence to inner decision-making sanctums of the Pentagon and White House or the ability to start a war.
That required the neoconservatives. ...
...
Neoconservatism is something far more than advocacy of the interests of a foreign country. It is a full-blown ideological system, which shapes the way people interpret events and view their own society and its relation to the world. Yes, its foreign-policy views are strongly pro-Israel. The main shapers of neoconservatism would readily argue that their foreign-policy positions were good for Israel, while those they opposed imperiled the Jewish state. No one who has spent time with major neocons would doubt the centrality of Israel to their worldview or their attachment to the no-compromise-with-Arabs parts of the Israeli political spectrum. ...
...
At least there has been the blogosphere. One wouldn’t know it from the major American newspapers or magazine reviews, but a fresh breeze is beginning to blow. The Israel Lobby did receive more attention on the serious blogs than any other book this year. M.J. Rosenberg, the director of policy analysis for Israel Policy Forum and a prominent “two-state solution” advocate, describes the influence of the book as enormous: “Capitol Hill staffers are talking about the book, everybody is arguing about it, people are intrigued. … it has opened up discussion.” ...
by Scott McConnell
One prism through which to gauge the impact of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy is a September incident involving Barack Obama. His campaign had placed small ads in various spots around the Internet, designed to drive readers to its website. One turned up on Amazon’s page for the Walt and Mearsheimer book. A vigilant watchdog at the New York Sun spotted it and contacted the campaign: Did Obama support Walt and Mearsheimer?
The answer came within hours. The ad was withdrawn. Its placement was “unintentional.” The senator, his campaign made clear, understood that key arguments of the book were “wrong,” but had definitely not read the work himself. In short, Walt and Mearsheimer had reached a pinnacle of notoriety.
Though The Israel Lobby was on the way to best-sellerdom and has become perhaps the most discussed policy book of the year, the presidential candidate touted as the most fresh-thinking and intellectually curious in the race hastened to make clear he had not been corrupted by the toxic text.
...
In their book’s introduction, Walt and Mearsheimer summarize the consequences of this power. In an election year, American politicians will differ radically on domestic issues, social issues, immigration, China, Darfur, and virtually any other topic. But all will “go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country—Israel—as well as their determination to maintain unyielding support for the Jewish state.” The authors find this remarkable and deserving of analysis, which they provided first in a paper, posted last year on Harvard’s Kennedy School website and published in the London Review of Books, and now expanded into a book.
...
It is obvious that The Israel Lobby, both the article and the book, would be extremely unwelcome to those pleased with the status quo. Under the current arrangement, the United States gives Israel $3-4 billion in aid and grants a year—about $500 per Israeli and several orders of magnitude more than aid to citizens of any other country. Israel is the only American aid recipient not required to account for how the money is spent. Washington uses its Security Council veto to shield Israel from critical UN resolutions and periodically issues bland statements lamenting the continued expansion of Israeli settlements on the Palestinian land the Jewish state has occupied since 1967. When Israel violates U.S. law, as it did in Lebanon by using American-made cluster bombs against civilian targets, a low-level official may issue a mild complaint. These fundamentals of the relationship go unchallenged by 95 percent of American politicians holding or running for national office. ....
...
This last area is easily the most disputed point between Walt and Mearsheimer and those reviewers who sought to answer their book rather than smear it. The Israel lobby, the two assert, helped drive the United States into Baghdad. It couldn’t have done it by itself—that required 9/11 and Bush and Cheney. But, argue Mearsheimer and Walt, “absent the lobby’s influence, there almost certainly would not have been a war. The lobby was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a war that is a strategic disaster for the United States.” ...
... But such facts, intriguing as they are, don’t entirely speak for themselves. And whatever enhanced political clout Christian Zionism brought to the lobby, it did not include access and influence to inner decision-making sanctums of the Pentagon and White House or the ability to start a war.
That required the neoconservatives. ...
...
Neoconservatism is something far more than advocacy of the interests of a foreign country. It is a full-blown ideological system, which shapes the way people interpret events and view their own society and its relation to the world. Yes, its foreign-policy views are strongly pro-Israel. The main shapers of neoconservatism would readily argue that their foreign-policy positions were good for Israel, while those they opposed imperiled the Jewish state. No one who has spent time with major neocons would doubt the centrality of Israel to their worldview or their attachment to the no-compromise-with-Arabs parts of the Israeli political spectrum. ...
...
At least there has been the blogosphere. One wouldn’t know it from the major American newspapers or magazine reviews, but a fresh breeze is beginning to blow. The Israel Lobby did receive more attention on the serious blogs than any other book this year. M.J. Rosenberg, the director of policy analysis for Israel Policy Forum and a prominent “two-state solution” advocate, describes the influence of the book as enormous: “Capitol Hill staffers are talking about the book, everybody is arguing about it, people are intrigued. … it has opened up discussion.” ...
Friday, December 07, 2007
corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election: questions guided back to candidates of choice, more time to speak ... see "Talk Clock"
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 | Corporate Media Has Decided The 2008 Election For Us
No need to think for yourself, the MSM will continue to narrow the candidacy field until we're left with the next president.
It's already become clear that the corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election; here's how they're doing it:
* "Popular" candidates are placed toward the center of the stage. The few true liberals and true conservatives are positioned on the outskirts.
The majority of questions, though distributed somewhat evenly, are always guided back to the candidates of choice.
The "popular" candidates are given far more time to speak than all other candidates.
The proof is in the minutes, folks. And Senator Dodd's "Talk Clock" says it all:
No need to think for yourself, the MSM will continue to narrow the candidacy field until we're left with the next president.
It's already become clear that the corporate media is deciding the 2008 presidential election; here's how they're doing it:
* "Popular" candidates are placed toward the center of the stage. The few true liberals and true conservatives are positioned on the outskirts.
The majority of questions, though distributed somewhat evenly, are always guided back to the candidates of choice.
The "popular" candidates are given far more time to speak than all other candidates.
The proof is in the minutes, folks. And Senator Dodd's "Talk Clock" says it all:
Thursday, December 06, 2007
NIE concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program ... sinks CNN 2-hour special: "We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear"
Posted: Wed., Dec. 5, 2007, 8:00pm PT | Intel report sinks CNN Iran special | Two-hour 'Nuclear' was slated for Dec. 12 | By BRIAN LOWRY
HOLLYWOOD -- The latest National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago has claimed one casualty: CNN has postponed speculative documentary "We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear."
The two-hour spec, which was slated for Dec. 12 under the "CNN Presents" banner, was "set partially in the future," featuring a what-if scenario as former government officials -- playing fictional cabinet members -- debate how to deal with the Iranian threat. ...
HOLLYWOOD -- The latest National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago has claimed one casualty: CNN has postponed speculative documentary "We Were Warned -- Iran Goes Nuclear."
The two-hour spec, which was slated for Dec. 12 under the "CNN Presents" banner, was "set partially in the future," featuring a what-if scenario as former government officials -- playing fictional cabinet members -- debate how to deal with the Iranian threat. ...
What's Really Wrong With the MSM [Main Stream Media]?
the liberal media | posted December 6, 2007 (December 24, 2007 issue) | What's Really Wrong With the MSM [Main Stream Media]? | Eric Alterman
Of course, far more is wrong with the mainstream media than can be described, or even enumerated, in one column. But let's give it a shot, using only items that have come up since my last column, all of which speak to the issue of why its members have forfeited our collective trust.
1. Its members consistently defer to conservative Republican Presidents with a history of deliberate deception, allowing them to define their terms. "One of the reasons for not [calling chaos in Iraq a civil war] was ...
2. Its members invite Republican Congressmen, known to be not merely unreliable but delusional, to lie about Democratic Congressmen. When challenged, they reply that they cannot be bothered to discern the truth: Time's Joe Klein, a pundit who terms the Democratic Party "a party with absolutely no redeeming social value," ...
3. Its members invite conservative Republican individuals known to be insane, unbalanced and unconcerned with the truth to lie about Democratic presidential candidates on the front page of their newspapers and when confronted respond that it is not their job to determine the truth. The Washington Post's Perry Bacon published a recent front-page article giving voice to right-wing paranoids, racists and assorted hatemongers who insist that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim ...
4. Its corporations fire, and then buy the silence of, their own reporters in order to hide the truth, when it involves the draft records of certain conservative Republican Presidents. ... After the book's publication, CBS paid Mapes an undisclosed sum to settle her lawsuit against the company and required her to sign a confidentiality agreement covering the deal. ...
5. Its members are so in thrall to the powerful conservative Republican figures they cover that they make up excuses for their self-serving behavior. ... the reason Senate minority leader Trent Lott was resigning: "I think that this is a true 'wants to spend more time with his family' case." Halperin was apparently unaware that Lott--whose politically connected brother-in-law was recently indicted on bribery charges--himself failed to offer this lamest of excuses and also that his resignation came just in time to avoid the enactment of a tough new ethics law ...
6. Its members ignore the substance of politics and instead focus obsessively on atmospherics, leaving voters clueless about the politicians for whom they are expected to vote. ... "We should examine a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance," ... [then] published two pieces on the Time website that focused exclusively on the various campaigns, with nary a substance-related syllable ...
Of course, far more is wrong with the mainstream media than can be described, or even enumerated, in one column. But let's give it a shot, using only items that have come up since my last column, all of which speak to the issue of why its members have forfeited our collective trust.
1. Its members consistently defer to conservative Republican Presidents with a history of deliberate deception, allowing them to define their terms. "One of the reasons for not [calling chaos in Iraq a civil war] was ...
2. Its members invite Republican Congressmen, known to be not merely unreliable but delusional, to lie about Democratic Congressmen. When challenged, they reply that they cannot be bothered to discern the truth: Time's Joe Klein, a pundit who terms the Democratic Party "a party with absolutely no redeeming social value," ...
3. Its members invite conservative Republican individuals known to be insane, unbalanced and unconcerned with the truth to lie about Democratic presidential candidates on the front page of their newspapers and when confronted respond that it is not their job to determine the truth. The Washington Post's Perry Bacon published a recent front-page article giving voice to right-wing paranoids, racists and assorted hatemongers who insist that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim ...
4. Its corporations fire, and then buy the silence of, their own reporters in order to hide the truth, when it involves the draft records of certain conservative Republican Presidents. ... After the book's publication, CBS paid Mapes an undisclosed sum to settle her lawsuit against the company and required her to sign a confidentiality agreement covering the deal. ...
5. Its members are so in thrall to the powerful conservative Republican figures they cover that they make up excuses for their self-serving behavior. ... the reason Senate minority leader Trent Lott was resigning: "I think that this is a true 'wants to spend more time with his family' case." Halperin was apparently unaware that Lott--whose politically connected brother-in-law was recently indicted on bribery charges--himself failed to offer this lamest of excuses and also that his resignation came just in time to avoid the enactment of a tough new ethics law ...
6. Its members ignore the substance of politics and instead focus obsessively on atmospherics, leaving voters clueless about the politicians for whom they are expected to vote. ... "We should examine a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance," ... [then] published two pieces on the Time website that focused exclusively on the various campaigns, with nary a substance-related syllable ...
Monday, November 26, 2007
right to speak freely must apply to everyone - even if most sane Britons would disagree vehemently with Holocaust apologists
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)