Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media
by Eric Klinenberg
Metropolitan Books. 352 pp. $26

By Michael Shudson

American democracy is lost unless citizen Davids do battle against the corporate media Goliaths. We have heard this rallying cry before, and we hear it again in Eric Klinenberg's Fighting for Air. But Klinenberg, a sociologist at New York University, has humanized and dramatized the argument by writing a book based on extensive original reporting. It is an investigative work, not a rant; it is both intellectually serious and politically passionate, and so it challenges readers like me who have never been much impressed with the claim that media concentration is destroying the Republic.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2007/1/Schudson.asp

George Soros and his gang:

Quote:

I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.

Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.

My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.

These are not normal times.

Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it.

As relevant as soup is to nuts. And you know better than to omit your source.

[In his 1995 book page145 Soros on Soros]
I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

[In his 2000 book page 337 Open Society]
Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.

[Washington Post page A03 of November 11, 2003]
Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.

[2003 edition of his book page 15 The Alchemy of Finance]
My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.

[On June 10, 2004 to the Associated Press]
These are not normal times.

[In his 2004 book page 159 The Bubble of American Supremacy ]
the principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

My post on Soros is relevant to the topic of the first sentence: "American democracy is lost unless citizen Davids do battle against the corporate media Goliaths." It reveals George Soros's thinking. His thinking and his wealth are a major $influence$ on the "media Goliaths."

Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."
A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.

"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers." [Ed.: Ouch!]

Under McAuliffe's leadership, the message said, the party coddled the same corporate donors that fund Republicans to bring in money at the expense of vision and integrity.

"In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

Financial contributors
The San Francisco Foundation Community Initiative Funds, a 501(c)(3) organization affiliated with the San Francisco Foundation, began serving as a fiscal sponsor for MoveOn in 2000, providing a channel through which individuals can make directed, tax-exempt donations to support its work. In 2001, SFFCIF's IRS Form 990 (available from GuideStar.org) show that it provided MoveOn with $17,698 in funding.
Iraq Peace Fund, an effort of the Tides Foundation
Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund
MoveOn's spending as an advocacy group is listed at Open Secrets: Advocacy Group Spending ("data is based on records released by the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, October 23, 2006").
According to the March 10, 2004, Washington Post, "The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee." [15]

"MoveOn.org is a huge threat and has hurt the President. Every action makes a difference."[3]

I never knew you were mangling Parser's quote so much, Ican. How intellectually dishonest of you.

Cycloptichorn

During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party--headed by a group of leftist billionaires--was able to contribute more than $300 million to the Democrat war chest, and through its independent media campaigns, to effectively shape the Democrats' message. Despite their defeat at the polls, Shadow Party leaders were intoxicated by their achievement. On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed the Shadow Party group MoveOn PAC, boasted to his members, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it."

Whom does Pariser mean exactly when he says "we?" Who bought the Democratic Party in 2004, and what use do they plan to make of it? The following pages provide the answers to these questions. They reveal the radical network that now steers the Democratic Party and shapes its policies. They recount the history of this network and describe its players, tactics, and goals. These goals are informed by a fundamental hostility to American institutions--even to the idea of America's sovereignty as a nation.

Psssht, okie: they are financed totally by commies and Muslims terrorists.

Ah, you are the other one.

You can't change truth, dys.

Hey Walter - what's your sig line say?

something about "I will hear the second part - men hear both parts"?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I never knew you were mangling Parser's quote so much, Ican. How intellectually dishonest of you.

Cycloptichorn

I too did not know I was mangling Pariser's quote.

Here's the same quote (emphasized in context) from another source--"The Shadow Party", pages xii and xiii, by David Horowitz and Richard Poe:

Quote:

During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party--headed by a group of leftist billionaires--was able to contribute more than $300 million to the Democrat war chest, and through its independent media campaigns, to effectively shape the Democrats' message. Despite their defeat at the polls, Shadow Party leaders were intoxicated by their achievement. On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed the Shadow Party group MoveOn PAC, boasted to his members, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it."

Whom does Pariser mean exactly when he says "we?" Who bought the Democratic Party in 2004, and what use do they plan to make of it? The following pages provide the answers to these questions. They reveal the radical network that now steers the Democratic Party and shapes its policies. They recount the history of this network and describe its players, tactics, and goals. These goals are informed by a fundamental hostility to American institutions--even to the idea of America's sovereignty as a nation.

I continue to not know I was "mangling that quote." The subsequently provided explanation--posted by blatham from "the e-mail where that quote sits... "--of the meaning of that quote appears to be after the fact spin.

I did not know I was "mangling that quote", because I was not "mangling that quote".

ican, just curious, how much of Moveon.org's money might come from foreign sources? Perhaps not directly, but channeled through intermediaries?

...
Horowitz. That figures. Expand your information horizons, ican. He's no less an idiotic idealogue and propagandist than when he was a Marxist. And he certainly hasn't gained any respect for the truth since then.
...

blatham wrote:

...
Horowitz. That figures. Expand your information horizons, ican. He's no less an idiotic idealogue and propagandist than when he was a Marxist. And he certainly hasn't gained any respect for the truth since then.
...

Apparently, easy for you to say but difficult for you to prove.

blatham wrote:

...
Horowitz. That figures. Expand your information horizons, ican. He's no less an idiotic idealogue and propagandist than when he was a Marxist. And he certainly hasn't gained any respect for the truth since then.
...

Apparently, easy for you to say but difficult for you to prove.