Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

blatham -- I would hope that women would be sufficiently well informed to know that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. It's bottle feeding that is linked to higher incidents of breast cancer.

0 Replies

Note, this is referring to the mainstream press, not to Fox

Quote:

Republicans, conservatives dominate network morning-show coverage of Israeli-Hezbollah conflict

Summary: The three major broadcast networks' morning programs have hosted far more commentary on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict from Republicans and conservatives than from Democrats and progressives. The shows have hosted nine solo interviews of Republicans and conservatives, but only two of progressives.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607210009

0 Replies

plainoldme

I'm with ya.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gilbert Cranberg says the DC bureau and Landay, Strobel, Walcott deserve high honors for their reports challenging the Bush administration during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq.

By Gilbert Cranberg
[email protected]

Pulitzer prizes for journalism are awarded in the year after the work is published. Curiously, the letter nominating Knight Ridder's Washington reporting for an award in 2004 began by citing a Sept. 6, 2002, story. That story, by Jonathan S. Landay, was one of a number written in 2002 by Landay, Warren P. Strobel and Bureau Chief John Walcott that challenged and debunked the administration's case for war against
Iraq.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Showcase.view&showcaseid=0043

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still waiting for evidence and documentation from Mr. Blatham. Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-

I will post again. Mr. Blatham, who has been in a snit ever since I defeated him soundly, will not respond.

No matter. This post will show that he is all bluster in his statements but has no evidence.

Again-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham can back up his statement that "conservative voices outnumber liberal voices and have done(?) for some time". If he cannot post an authoritative link that backs up his statement, I must regretfully conclude that he is indulging in wishful thinking to back up his thesis.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still waiting for evidence and documentation from Mr. Blatham. Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-

I will post again. Mr. Blatham, who has been in a snit ever since I defeated him soundly, will not respond.

Oh, my, my, my, my, my!

YOU...defeating Blatham!!!

YOU????

Is there nothing you will not do to provide a laugh in the morning?

Laughing

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still waiting for evidence and documentation from Mr. Blatham. Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-

.

Everybody sing:

It seems, I've heard that song before.

It's from an old familiar score.

0 Replies

Please ignore this chap, guys. Bernard/gatos was advised two years ago that I do not read his posts and that I have no interest in conversation with him.

0 Replies

And the reason why Mr. Blatham will not engage me is that I soundly defeated him in the past. I will do a search and replicate the interchange.

I never thought that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham would fear a challenge.

so, again:

Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-

I will post again. Mr. Blatham, who has been in a snit ever since I defeated him soundly, will not respond.

No matter. This post will show that he is all bluster in his statements but has no evidence.

Again-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham can back up his statement that "conservative voices outnumber liberal voices and have done(?) for some time". If he cannot post an authoritative link that backs up his statement, I must regretfully conclude that he is indulging in wishful thinking to back up his thesis.

0 Replies

It is always an interesting matter for internal debate whether to ignore something that is immature, ignorant and/or crass, or, to take arms against it (with apologies to Wm.). Does the less-than-intellectually-competent or socially-defective original poster then think he is the victor? Probably. But, so what? There are far too many unteachable people.

0 Replies

Plain Old Me has completely misunderstood the problem involved here.

If Plain Ol Me wishes to do some research, she can find that Mr.Blatham has, in the past. lost his equanimity to such an extent that he indulged in a violation of the rules of these threads by making puerile statements indicating that I was somewhat akin to feces.

It was then that I knew that I had defeated him!

so, again

And the reason why Mr. Blatham will not engage me is that I soundly defeated him in the past. I will do a search and replicate the interchange.

I never thought that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham would fear a challenge.

so, again:

Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-

I will post again. Mr. Blatham, who has been in a snit ever since I defeated him soundly, will not respond.

No matter. This post will show that he is all bluster in his statements but has no evidence.

Again-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham can back up his statement that "conservative voices outnumber liberal voices and have done(?) for some time". If he cannot post an authoritative link that backs up his statement, I must regretfully conclude that he is indulging in wishful thinking to back up his thesis.

0 Replies

Plain Ol Me may be interested to see how the supposedly erudite and learned Mr. Blatham descended into juvenile name calling when he could not effectively respond to my arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi revel

I mean Dipshit/Bernard. He has a long history of parasitism on these boards. What he might write does not matter.

Quite worthwhile to discuss Snow's handling of his job.

Only a person who cannot rebut another one uses such puerile language!!!

Since he is afraid of me, he attempts to use the totalitarian tactic--Stripping one of their freedom of speech. I am hopeful that the Mounties won't get wind of that!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

link

Disguising or hiding (being deceitful regarding) true costs is an information control strategy, rather obviously.

We'll recall Paul Wolfowitz's refusal to give any cost estimate for the Iraq project to Congress. Not that such estimates weren't in hand, but rather because such information released to the taxpayers wouldn't have helped the administration's political agenda.

0 Replies

And guess what won't see the light of day until after the November elections...

Quote:

When angry Democrats briefly shut down the Senate last year to protest the slow pace of a congressional investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) claimed a rare victory.

Republicans called it a stunt but promised to quickly wrap up the inquiry. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is overseeing the investigation, said his report was near completion and there was no need for the fuss.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said nine months ago that his committee was nearly done with a report on U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq. (Karin Cooper - AP)

That was nine months ago.

fukk the truth...fukk an informed citizenry...gain and keep power is the rule in place.

0 Replies

Krugman had a great column the other day:

Quote:

0 Replies

squinney

Yes, I read that too. Smack on the money.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

[
Disguising or hiding (being deceitful regarding) true costs is an information control strategy, rather obviously.

We'll recall Paul Wolfowitz's refusal to give any cost estimate for the Iraq project to Congress. Not that such estimates weren't in hand, but rather because such information released to the taxpayers wouldn't have helped the administration's political agenda.

Nonsense! The U.S. has never in its history attempted to fight a war under a preplanned budget. Moreover I'm not aware that any other country has attempted it either. The task is impossible. Wolfowitz' response was truthful and honest.

The only amazing element in this story is that any thinking person would believe otherwise. The truth is that this was merely a politically motivated and supremely hypocritical attack by people who in truth know better.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Nonsense! The U.S. has never in its history attempted to fight a war under a preplanned budget. Moreover I'm not aware that any other country has attempted it either. The task is impossible. Wolfowitz' response was truthful and honest.

I agree Blatham's specific example wasn't the best one to make his general case. Off the top of my head, though, I can think of three better examples.

(1) General Shinsake giving realistic, but in hindsight low estimate of necessary troup deployments in Iraq. His estimate was poo-poohed as outrageously high throughout the administration; shortly after making this estimate, Shinsake was no longer Bush's army chief of staff. (2) Larry Lindsey's realistic, but in hindsight low estimate of the necessary budget. This estimate, likewise, was derided as outrageously high, and shortly thereafter. Lindsey no longer presided over Bush's council of economic advisors. (3) The Bush administration, not knowing how much the war in Iraq would cost, proposed budgets for 2003 and 2004 in which the projected costs were zero -- a grossly dishonest assessment.

Nice, independent guys like myself can't be Republicans these days. And the Bush administration's Orwellian war on reality is the major reason why.

0 Replies

George OB1 wrote:

Nonsense! The U.S. has never in its history attempted to fight a war under a preplanned budget. Moreover I'm not aware that any other country has attempted it either. The task is impossible. Wolfowitz' response was truthful and honest.

The only amazing element in this story is that any thinking person would believe otherwise. The truth is that this was merely a politically motivated and supremely hypocritical attack by people who in truth know better.

end of quote>

I am waiting, with baited breath for the erudite and learned Mr. Blatham to show that the US HAS INDEED ATTEMPTED TO FIGHT A WAR UNDER A PREPLANNED BUDGET.

He won't of course, because he can't. The learned and erudite Mr. Blatham posts ridiculous items but then when brought to account by posters like George Ob1 will not give PROOF that the US has indeed attempted to fight a war under a preplanned budget.

Mr. Blatham's pusillanimity shows he is ill equipped to comment intelligently on such matters.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I agree Blatham's specific example wasn't the best one to make his general case. Off the top of my head, though, I can think of three better examples.

(1) General Shinsake giving realistic, but in hindsight low estimate of necessary troup deployments in Iraq. His estimate was poo-poohed as outrageously high throughout the administration; shortly after making this estimate, Shinsake was no longer Bush's army chief of staff. (2) Larry Lindsey's realistic, but in hindsight low estimate of the necessary budget. This estimate, likewise, was derided as outrageously high, and shortly thereafter. Lindsey no longer presided over Bush's council of economic advisors. (3) The Bush administration, not knowing how much the war in Iraq would cost, proposed budgets for 2003 and 2004 in which the projected costs were zero -- a grossly dishonest assessment.

Nice, independent guys like myself can't be Republicans these days. And the Bush administration's Orwellian war on reality is the major reason why.

Nice and independent as you may be, Thomas, I believe you have chosen rather poor "examples". In the first place the disaffection between Rumsfeld and Shinseke occured when this general decided that the Army's highest priority budget requirement was a new 80-ton artilery piece to replace their current 50-ton version. This was the favored program among the mindless Army bureaucracy Shinsecke so ably personified. (The navy saying for such senior officers is that "They wouldnt float head down.")

The 400,000 troop question was equally absurd. We could not sustain such a large-scale deployment for more than two or three years. If one faces an opponent, already practiced in wars of attrition, and avowedly ready to field an insurgency in the weake of the defeat of his main forces, then economy of force becomes the overriding strategic principle. The 20th century has taught us that such enemies who can see a political or logistic clock governing our actions will win the endurance contest. The civil disorder following the regime's fall was far less dangerous than physical or political exhaustion before the contest was won.

No one can forsee how much wars will cost. No intelligent leader would regard such discussions, or the questions and answers that accompany them as anything more than political posturing. The substance of both questions and answers is without objective meaning or merit.

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know