2
   

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 09:36 pm
blatham wrote:
Meinn gott un himmel! (phonetic spelling with complete disregard for meaning...always loved the sound of this expression) I'm cavorting with the enemy. I resolve to shower twice this AM.


Goddamit Bernie, I give you a break every now and then. I am not your enemy! Neither is Thomas!

The war budget questions to Wolfowitz (and others) were anything but requests for information. They were obvious and sectarian attempts to score politicaL points and news headlines, deserving only of contempt. The various administration officials were absolutely right to ignore them.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 09:36 pm
blatham wrote:
Meinn gott un himmel! (phonetic spelling with complete disregard for meaning...always loved the sound of this expression) I'm cavorting with the enemy. I resolve to shower twice this AM.


Goddamit Bernie, I give you a break every now and then. I am not your enemy! Neither is Thomas!

The war budget questions to Wolfowitz (and others) were anything but requests for information. They were obvious and sectarian attempts to score politicaL points and news headlines, deserving only of contempt. The various administration officials were absolutely right to ignore them.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 10:26 pm
I must really warn both GeorgeOb1 and Thomas. Both of you are intelligent and very well informed people who can write well but never get a Mountie angry. Even though Mr. Blatham who is now an expat from Canada appears to me to have learned little about the USA( He thinks Irving Kristol was a Trotskyite and therefore should not have received a medal from President Bush even though Kristol abandoned the idiot left wing hippies forty years ago).

It is amazing to me that, although Mr. Blatham is certainly erudite and learned about things Canadian, he knows very little about US conditions and traditions.


However, I do not wish to be too hard on Immigrants. Perhaps if Mr. Blatham will enroll in an Americanization course, there is still hope for him! He blithely talks about a DOD which is incapable admitting error. He has never served in the Military as I have and knows NOTHING about the operation of the DOD except what he may read in the New York Times and/or the Nation Magazine( formerly known as Pravda West).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 08:21 am
Quote:
Goddamit Bernie, I give you a break every now and then. I am not your enemy! Neither is Thomas!

The war budget questions to Wolfowitz (and others) were anything but requests for information. They were obvious and sectarian attempts to score politicaL points and news headlines, deserving only of contempt. The various administration officials were absolutely right to ignore them.


Everyone is my enemy! Either you are me, or you are not. I remain resolute.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 04:50 pm
Quote:
The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in ''Without Precedent'' that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks...

Commission members backed off, Kean and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings. The editorials said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 05:49 pm
Bernard,

Bernie an I only rarely agree about political matters. Thomas, I suspect is somewhere between us, Despite this there has never been any anger among us of which I am aware. The reason is mutual respect and friendship - not a bad concept for you to consider. I would never directly acknowledge being influenced by bernie's views on political and social issues, but I do consider them seriously and have indeed been influenc ed by them. That is how one learns.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 07:22 am
Quote:
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

www.nswbc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- August 3, 2006
Contact: Sibel Edmonds, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, [email protected]

GOP SENATORS SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Bill Eliminates Government's Burden to Prove Damage in Prosecuting Whistleblowers

Alexandria, VA---Senators Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Conrad Burns, R-MT, support implementation of Official Secret's Act, S.3774, introduced yesterday by Senator Christopher Bond, R-MO, to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Bond's bill seeks to enable the Executive Branch in prosecuting individuals engaged in disclosure of government secrets. According to the release issued by Senator Bond's office, the legislation seeks to unify current law and ease the government's burden in prosecuting and punishing leakers by eliminating the need to prove that damage to the national security has or will result from a disclosure. According to the new release by Secrecy News reports, the new Bond bill is identical to the controversial anti-leak legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby in the FY 2001 Intelligence Authorization Act that was vetoed by President Clinton in November 2000. The bill was called the "Official Secrets Act," after the U.K.'s repressive criminal secrecy statutes.



The United States has never had a statute generally criminalizing leaks or the publication of sensitive information. Despite consideration at a number of moments in our history, concern for the First Amendment and the principle that the press acts as an important check on government abuse has thwarted all previous efforts to pass such legislation. According to Professor William Weaver, NSWBC Senior Advisor, "Such legislation is subject to a double standard in its application. For example, much information is leaked to the press with the approval of administrators. These sorts of leaks are an unofficial channel for shoring up administration positions and to influence public opinion. On the other hand, unauthorized leaks would be prosecuted when they undermine administration positions or embarrass the executive branch or reveal illegal agency activity. So whether or not a person is prosecuted depends on whether or not the leak is popular or unpopular with the administration in power at the time of the leak. If the statute were to be applied evenhandedly, the jails would be full of administrators and presidential advisors."

Rather than a genuine effort to enhance national security, this legislation is designed to deter legitimate whistleblowing. The result is that the statute would create an "Official Secrets Act" similar to that found in Great Britain. But, obviously, Great Britain does not have a First Amendment and we do. The government has consistently failed in its burden to prove that recent leaks of national security information somehow harmed the United States. Rather, these disclosures have encouraged public discussion on issues of executive abuses that this administration has tried very hard to cover up. Justice Brandeis wrote: "those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government." Current law already protects against disclosure of specific types of sensitive information, like the design of a nuclear warhead or a covert agent's identities. Legislation that places the First Amendment entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch, such as Bond's Bill, is unconstitutional on its face. The Nation's Founders chose not to implement an Official Secret's Act on our public servants and there is no need for such a law now.

GAP Legal Director, Tom Devine, stated: "This is a bill to protect the bureaucracy, not America's security. It is about covering up government abuses of power that only can be sustained through secrecy. It is about canceling freedom of speech when it counts, by criminalizing whistleblowers who make unclassified disclosures. Most whistleblowers who would be targeted are those exposing cover-ups of the government's own security breaches."

On June 29, 2006, The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), issued its list of Twelve Senators and Representatives, its Whistleblowers' Dirty Dozen, who by their action or inaction, have stood against real investigations, hearings, and legislation dealing with government whistleblowers who have exposed waste, fraud, abuse, and or criminal activities within government agencies. Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA, made the list. "Senator Santorum is on our list due to being very consistent in his stand against whistleblowers' protection and his strong support for unchecked and excessive government secrecy. His strong support of this new repressive bill, which takes away congress' right to know in order to exercise its oversight authority, goes a long way to demonstrate why he is an incumbent candidate unfit to represent our people and their interest and rights guaranteed under the constitution. Mr. Santorum acts as an extension of the executive branch that seeks to override the Separation of Powers and expand its power; not as an elected senator who has been vested with authority and a position to serve his constituents," stated Sibel Edmonds, NSWBC Founder and Director.





National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation's security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation's borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org
# # # #

© Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Information in this release may be freely distributed and published provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/Bond-Alert.htm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 07:26 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Bernard,

Bernie an I only rarely agree about political matters. Thomas, I suspect is somewhere between us, Despite this there has never been any anger among us of which I am aware. The reason is mutual respect and friendship - not a bad concept for you to consider. I would never directly acknowledge being influenced by bernie's views on political and social issues, but I do consider them seriously and have indeed been influenc ed by them. That is how one learns.


Strings softly rising in the background...then, Streisand.

People, people who love people...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 12:26 pm
Actually I've always found that song to be painfully cloying. In fact everything Streisand dooes affects me that way. For background I'd prefer an organ rendition of kamenoi Ostrow.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 05:46 pm
For those of you who haven't bumped into this story yet...

A parody belittling Al Gore's film on global warming recently arrived on YouTube. It fit the mold of offerings there...amateurish looking as if done by some young fella on his Mac. But as the WSJ revealed a couple of days ago, it wasn't really what it appeared. It was actually produced by DCI Group, a Republican lobby and PR firm whose clients include Exxon.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710851-115.stm
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 01:48 am
GeorgeOb1- I am afraid that Mr. Blatham is afraid to respond to my posts. He is entirely in his right to do so, but I find it curious that he allows someone to urniate on his shoes without responding. I will continue to urniate on his shoes when he posts ridiculous garbage.

What you do not mention, George Ob1, is that B. Latham did not grow up in the USA. He is a Canadian and, because of that, fatally biased against the US and US traditions.

I suggest he might feel more at home on a Canadian web site but I am afraid that he is of such a negatively morose nature that he will continue to libel the USA.

And I will continue to urinate on his shoes--to Okie's everlasting delight, I am sure!!!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 12:01 pm
blatham wrote:
For those of you who haven't bumped into this story yet...

A parody belittling Al Gore's film on global warming recently arrived on YouTube. It fit the mold of offerings there...amateurish looking as if done by some young fella on his Mac. But as the WSJ revealed a couple of days ago, it wasn't really what it appeared. It was actually produced by DCI Group, a Republican lobby and PR firm whose clients include Exxon.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710851-115.stm

You mean the far-left Wall Street Journal? Don't believe them, they're part of those librul mainstream media.

Seriously though, I am not surprised at all about what your article says. My father works in the pharmaceutical industry, where he started out as a small comany's chief of marketing. According to him, things like this have been a common marketing strategy for decades: Companies place content that promotes their products, but that viewers can't distinguish from genuine reporting. He is in no position to know if political organizations did that too, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Marketing agencies who are smart when working for the pharmaceutical industry won't turn dumb when they work for political lobbyists. So, content placement is not new.

What is new in your picture is a change towards a less Orwellian landscape. Back in the 20th century, there was no way at all you could advance your political views through content placement in magazines and TV shows -- but DCI and the likes already could. Now, YouTube, Google Video and friends have dramatically leveled the playing field: You, the average citizen with a computer, can be your own political lobbyist now. Just fire up your Apple and upload. Sure, political lobbyists can still place content there and camouflage it for the casual viewer's eyes. But now they to adapt to the environment created by grassrootspeople like you and play by the same rules as you do. The oligopolies in the marketplace of ideas have been weakened. And this makes political lobbying today distinctly less Orwellian, more democratic, and freer, than it was just 10 years ago.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 04:03 pm
thomas

No, this isn't surprising in the marketing sense. Those folks can be quite creative as the annual TV ad awards always demonstrate.

But this instance has the further elements, relevant to this discussion, of covert authorship, covert ties to the Republican Party and covert ties to the energy industry.

As regards your other point, this modern media world clearly presents some positives re information flow, but that isn't the whole story and may not even be the most significant part of the story in terms of actual real-world consequences.

For example, let's say that the modern American citizen now has access to 1000 X the information sources which were available 20 years ago (of course, it is much much more than that considering TV stations and the internet alone).

But how much more informed are they? Are they more informed at all?

So what accounts for this huge incongruence? And if such an incongruence is so, can we rationally make the claim that more information sources must produce a better informed citizenry? If not, or if we have to add serious caveats to any such a seemingly intutitive relationship, what might those caveats be?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 04:15 pm
to thomas and george particularly... a seriously delicious piece on Hofstadter here... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06tanenhaus.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Aug, 2006 12:25 am
The Mounted Policeman says:

So what accounts for this huge incongruence? And if such an incongruence is so, can we rationally make the claim that more information sources must produce a better informed citizenry?

end of quote

Can we rationally make the claim that more information sources must produce a better informed citizenry?

Of course, all we need to do is to persuade Mr. Blatham to list the information sources he regularly uses. Then, those who have the intellectual mastery of issues Mr. Blotham possesses can indeed aspire to be truly better informed.

I know it is a lot to ask, but I do wish that Mr. Blatham would favor us with his wisdom!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Aug, 2006 12:43 am
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Aug, 2006 03:02 am
blatham wrote:
For example, let's say that the modern American citizen now has access to 1000 X the information sources which were available 20 years ago (of course, it is much much more than that considering TV stations and the internet alone).

But how much more informed are they? Are they more informed at all?

Speaking strictly for myself, I find that the internet has greatly enriched the quality and quantity of information I get. It's much faster than libraries (which I'm still a partisan of), and much more useful than TV, which is mediocre whenever it isn't an all-out insult of my intelligence.

But that wasn't the point I was arguing in my last post. My point was that the internet democratizes propaganda-spreading by removing an oligopoly from the marketplace of ideas. In other words, my point was about the supply side of that market; it wasn't about its demand side, which may or may not have changed much.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Aug, 2006 03:08 am
Your point is very well taken, Mr. Thomas. I watch very little Television except the news and had formerly been a Library maven. I find that, rarely, I do like to wander in the stacks to pull out one book and then another and to sample the magazines. However, the internet, as you say has "greatly enriched the quality and quantity of the information".

I really don't think I could go back to the old days when CBS, NBC and ABC ruled the roost and when the written media was dominated by the New York Times, The Washington Post and Time Magazine.

Then you got only ONE viewpoint!!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Aug, 2006 04:11 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
For example, let's say that the modern American citizen now has access to 1000 X the information sources which were available 20 years ago (of course, it is much much more than that considering TV stations and the internet alone).

But how much more informed are they? Are they more informed at all?

Speaking strictly for myself, I find that the internet has greatly enriched the quality and quantity of information I get. It's much faster than libraries (which I'm still a partisan of), and much more useful than TV, which is mediocre whenever it isn't an all-out insult of my intelligence.

But that wasn't the point I was arguing in my last post. My point was that the internet democratizes propaganda-spreading by removing an oligopoly from the marketplace of ideas. In other words, my point was about the supply side of that market; it wasn't about its demand side, which may or may not have changed much.


thomas

Yes, I understand that. Though I'm somewhat embarrassed to say it, I've not previously thought about that non-correspondence element above.

My preference for maximal information sources arises out of a liberty principle (sources ought not to be restricted) and the utilitarian principle (political liberty and progress in ideas are more likely to thrive given maximal information sources).

But clearly, other factors can arise to thwart the end that these principles (and you and I) seek to achieve or advance. I don't have to hand the wonderful study on media I've referened a few times recently (the one where researchers found, for example, that PBS viewers were most likely to hold views on Iraq which were factually correct and the more they watched PBS, the more accurate their views would become...while in contrast, viewers of Fox would be most likely to have ideas that were factually incorrect and that got worse they more they watched Fox) so if you haven't seen that study, let me know and I'll link it again.

This all seems to present a significant problem for you and me and Mill as regards desired ends.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 05:54 am
Quote:
Clear Channel Lobbies for Media Ownership Rules Change
Ron Orol
The Deal
August 7, 2006

Despite the certainty of another high-profile battle with opponents of media consolidation, Clear Channel Communications Inc. has quietly floated a plan that would allow the radio giant and other station owners to boost their holdings in the largest U.S. markets.

Clear Channel is considering filing a formal petition with the Federal Communications Commission seeking to raise the caps limiting how many stations one company can own in the largest individual U.S. markets, according to sources close to the company.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1154682263147
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 12:49:06