Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Accusations fly after US rushes to judgment

The JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect was just the latest victim of an increasingly sensationalist American media, writes Paul Harris in New York

Sunday September 3, 2006
The Observer


It seemed a perfect story. A 10-year-old murder case, a child victim, a dramatic confession in a faraway land and a supposed villain who looked every inch the creepy paedophile. No wonder the faces of John Mark Karr and JonBenet Ramsey were soon staring out of newspapers, magazines and TV screens across the country. The bloodshed in Iraq and the Middle East was bumped off the agenda as the US media produced saturation coverage of Karr's confession to killing JonBenet, solving one of America's most notorious crimes. But there was problem: it was not true.
Karr's exposure as a sick fantasist has prompted a bout of self-recrimination and criticism of American journalism at a time when the profession's stock is already at a pitiful low. For the Karr disaster is far from an isolated case. The New York Times is also coming under increasing fire for its coverage of an alleged rape involving students at the prestigious Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. 'The Karr and the Duke cases show a rush to judgment that has proven potentially disastrous,' says Mark Feldstein, a former CNN journalist and now director of journalism at George Washington University in Washington DC.

These stories also come after last year's obsessive coverage of teenager Natalee Holloway, who vanished on the Caribbean island of Aruba. Several suspects and an island's way of life were raked over the media coals, but the police have yet to charge anyone with murder.

It has all focused attention on exactly what press freedom means in America. On the one hand it can mean the right to go after the powerful and prevent the government from keeping information secret. On the other, modern media culture seems more likely to use its freedom to metaphorically lynch anyone accused of a crime. At the centre of the problem is the changing face of television news, and the growth of cable TV channels with 24 hours of screen time to fill. The result is a tendency to leap on simple, graphic stories and milk them. That in turn forces a story into newspapers and weekly magazines. 'It is amazing, but stories like JonBenet would not have been national issues before cable news. Now they get saturation coverage,' says Feldstein.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, GeorgeOb1, and I am certain you are familiar with the horrendous statistics issuing out of that Socialistic "nightmare" which is France. A 10% Unemployment Rate capped by a ridiculously high 48% top rate for taxation.

Marxism is dead and Socialism is dying!!!!

Bush Declares Eco-Whistleblower Law Void for EPA Employees
Stealth Repeal of Clean Water Act Protections by Invoking "Sovereign Immunity"
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Published: Sep 4, 2006 at 08:40

The Bush administration has declared itself immune from whistleblower protections for federal workers under the Clean Water Act, according to legal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result of an opinion issued by a unit within the Office of the Attorney General, federal workers will have little protection from official retaliation for reporting water pollution enforcement breakdowns, manipulations of science or cleanup failures.

Citing an "unpublished opinion of the [Attorney General's] Office of Legal Counsel," the Secretary of Labor's Administrative Review Board has ruled federal employees may no longer pursue whistleblower claims under the Clean Water Act. The opinion invoked the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity which is based on the old English legal maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong." It is an absolute defense to any legal action unless the "sovereign" consents to be sued.

The opinion and the ruling reverse nearly two decades of precedent. Approximately 170,000 federal employees working within environmental agencies are affected by the loss of whistleblower rights.

"The Bush administration is engineering the stealth repeal of whistleblower protections," stated PEER General Counsel Richard Condit, who had won several of the earlier cases applying environmental whistleblower protections to federal specialists. "The use of an unpublished opinion to change official interpretations is a giant step backward to the days of the secret Star Chamber." PEER ultimately obtained a copy of the opinion under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a more extreme position that absolutely no environmental laws protect its employees from reprisal. EPA's stance would place the provisions of all major federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, beyond the reach of federal employees seeking legal protection for good faith efforts to enforce or implement the anti-pollution provisions contained within those laws.

Congratulations on your accomplishments. I would have thought running a business would have turned you into a conservative, blatham. What went wrong?

Quote:

Conservatism is death. period. All the hippies I knew that elected not to teach, either went into law or ran their own businesses.

To clarify, being intellectual doesn't make you wrong, but I don't think it makes one automatically right either. Academia may educate you, supposedly, however you may also be insulated from reality in terms of how things actually work out here,

Where does the cow get the idea that Conservatism is Calvinism????

One of the reasons, Francis, is that a LIBERAL, the opposite of a Consrvative, would call for more government services, driving up taxes.

Quote:

War is a government service, n'est-ce pas?

People that run businesses learn first hand personal responsibility, the realities of the free market and competition, plus they usually are enlightened as to the punitive effects of too much government in the way of taxes and regulation. They usually also learn how useless and non-productive government is in comparison to the goods and services produced by businesses. There are many reasons, but these would provide a start.

I do not have any statistics, but it is my belief that business owners tend to be more conservative than the general population

The Whistle Blower Protection Act applies whether or not the whistleblower protects the environment for a living. So on the face of it, I don't see what added protections the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws would provide. Can anyone give an example of whistleblowing that's protected under environmental law, but not under the Whistleblower Protection Act?

okie wrote:

People that run businesses learn first hand personal responsibility, the realities of the free market and competition, plus they usually are enlightened as to the punitive effects of too much government in the way of taxes and regulation. They usually also learn how useless and non-productive government is in comparison to the goods and services produced by businesses. There are many reasons, but these would provide a start.

I do not have any statistics, but it is my belief that business owners tend to be more conservative than the general population

IT IS YOUR BELIEF, YOU UNSOPHISTICATED, UNABLE TO REASON LITTLE TOAD.

CONSERVATISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT LIBERALISM HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Then why is it that liberals seem to want to increase the number of people on welfare?
Why do they oppose any attempt to limit welfare and force people to take responsibility for themselves?

DO CONSERVATIVES WORK TO CLEAN THE ENVIRONMENT?

Everybody works to clean the environment,unless you are one of those fruitcakes that believes conservatives have a hidden,unlimited supply of clean water and air hidden somewhere.

What most conservatives oppose are laws that restrict how an individual or corporation uses private property,or laws that will force a company out of business.
Conservatives believe that a balance can be reached,liberals dont.

DO CONSERVATIVES WORK TO MAKE ALL MEN EQUAL?

Yes,by removing any and all racial quota systems,such as affirmative action.
Conservatives want everyone to be judged strictly on their merits and abilities,not their skin color,sex,or any other reason.

DO CONSERVATIVES SEEK LAWS TO PROTECT PEOPLE?

Yes,by wanting all people to be judged on their merit,that eliminates the need for quota's.
That then eliminates the festering anger and violence caused by people believing they were barred from a job or contract because of quota's.
Conservatives want to protect people by putting criminals in jail,not letting them loose on "work programs,furloughs,or by trying to understand criminal behavior"

YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

In POM's world there are birds and bees and cigarette trees, lemonade springs where the bluebird sings, the farmer's trees are full of fruit and the barns are full of hay, and every good and noble thing ever done was done by a leftist.

BUT LIBERALISM HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Then why is it that liberals seem to want to increase the number of people on welfare?
Why do they oppose any attempt to limit welfare and force people to take responsibility for themselves?

DO CONSERVATIVES WORK TO CLEAN THE ENVIRONMENT?

Everybody works to clean the environment,unless you are one of those fruitcakes that believes conservatives have a hidden,unlimited supply of clean water and air hidden somewhere.

What most conservatives oppose are laws that restrict how an individual or corporation uses private property,or laws that will force a company out of business.

DO CONSERVATIVES WORK TO MAKE ALL MEN EQUAL?

Yes,by removing any and all racial quota systems,such as affirmative action.
Conservatives want everyone to be judged strictly on their merits and abilities,not their skin color,sex,or any other reason.

DO CONSERVATIVES SEEK LAWS TO PROTECT PEOPLE?

Yes,by wanting all people to be judged on their merit,that eliminates the need for quota's.
That then eliminates the festering anger and violence caused by people believing they were barred from a job or contract because of quota's.
Conservatives want to protect people by putting criminals in jail,not letting them loose on "work programs,furloughs,or by trying to understand criminal behavior"

YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.