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".

Dear MoveOn member,

Who will lead the Democratic Party? The answer may come as soon as this weekend, when the state Democratic Party leaders gather to discuss who should chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for the next four years.1 The election for chair is rarely competitive. But this year, with the race wide open, we have the chance to elect a leader who will reconnect the Democratic Party with its constituents ?- us.

For years, the Party has been lead by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers. In the last year, grassroots 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.2 Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.

We've made it easy to contact your state Party leaders and ask them support a chair who will represent all of us OUTSIDE of the Washington beltway and engage us in a fight for a bold Democratic vision. If we get enough signatures today, we'll deliver your comments to their meeting this weekend, so please click below NOW to make your voice heard:

http://www.moveonpac.org/dncchair/

MoveOn includes Republicans, Greens, and independents. But all of us who are struggling for health care, clean air, decent jobs, and a sane foreign policy can agree on one thing: we're better off with a vibrant, populist Democratic Party that's strong enough to challenge the extreme-right Republican leadership.

Why haven't we had one? Under outgoing DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, the Party cozied up to many of the same corporate donors that fund the Republicans ?- drug companies, HMO's, media conglomerates, big banks, polluting industries. The result was watered down, play-it-safe politics that kept the money flowing but alienated traditional Democrats as well as reform-minded independents in search of vision and integrity. And so the Party lost ground.

But in 2004, something incredible happened: hundreds of thousands of small contributors gave millions and millions of dollars and changed the way politics works forever. New we have an opportunity to birth a new Democratic Party ?- a Party of the people that's funded by the people and that fights for the people. Tell your state Party leaders that you want a DNC chair who will use this new grassroots energy to catapult us to victory at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/dncchair/

The Democratic National Committee is the national backbone of the Democratic Party, and it matters who ends up as the new chair. With Democrats out of power in Washington, the new chair will play an unprecedented role as the voice of the Party. And no one will be in a better position to orchestrate a Democratic revival.

The state Party leaders ?- who play a pivotal role within the DNC ?- understand the importance of the DNC Chair. They have helped to make the election process more transparent, by inviting candidates for Chair to a public forum at their meeting. And for the first time, they are considering endorsing a candidate en masse. If they vote as a bloc, they could determine the next Chair. They represent all of us who knocked on doors, who gave money, who made phone calls ?- and it's time for us to weigh in.

The movement for change that we built during the last election is still gathering strength. We need leadership that will break the chains of corporate funding so we can fight ?- really fight ?- for a better America.

Thank you for all that you do,

?-Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team December 9, 2004

1 The Democratic National Committee is the organizational structure of the national Democratic Party. The chair is elected by the approximately 440 voting members of the DNC, who include state Party officials, elected Democrats from all levels of government, and representatives of Party caucuses like the Young Democrats of America and the National Federation of Democratic Women. The election for DNC chair will take place in February, and state Party officials control between one-quarter and one-third of the votes that are likely to be cast. This weekend, they are meeting to hear from a number of candidates for Chair. They may or may not make an endorsement at their meeting, but they have announced plans to do so at some point.

2 "The Next DNC Chair: Why You Should Care," syndicated column by Arianna Huffington, December 8, 2004. Online at: http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=748

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC www.moveonpac.org Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

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.