Information Control or how to get to Orwellian governance II

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
So Ican the "principles" listed in the Declaration are the "principles" underlying the government. No where does the Declaration declare the principles underlying the government to be "undeniable truths"

It's an undeniable truth that we have certain rights. What those rights are and what rights the government should support are not an undeniable truth. There is no complete list of rights that the government should support. The declaration only lists 3 among the rights that would be undeniable. Give us the complete list of those rights if you please and show how it has never changed in 200 years. Soros is correct. The rights do change based on our world view changes.

We have a right to lfe
We have a right to liberty.
We have a right to pursue happiness.

Each of those rights encompasses more rights.

Right to life includes the right to breath.

People can now live without being able to breathe on their own. So is it a right to be on a breathing machine?

Quote:

The right to liberty includes the right to purchase and own property.

Unless the property has a public purpose greater than your right then it can be taken from you by eminent domain. So that is not an undeniable right.

Quote:

The right to pursue happiness includes the right to do that which does not deny others their rights.

Denying others their rights is VERY subjective. Are you denying other's their rights if you pollute the river upstream of them even though you own the property it passes through?

Quote:

Each of those rights encompasses more rights.

...

Each of these rights encompasses rights that have changed over time. Even you will have to admit that.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
So Ican the "principles" listed in the Declaration are the "principles" underlying the government. No where does the Declaration declare the principles underlying the government to be "undeniable truths"

It's an undeniable truth that we have certain rights. What those rights are and what rights the government should support are not an undeniable truth. There is no complete list of rights that the government should support. The declaration only lists 3 among the rights that would be undeniable. Give us the complete list of those rights if you please and show how it has never changed in 200 years. Soros is correct. The rights do change based on our world view changes.

We have a right to lfe
We have a right to liberty.
We have a right to pursue happiness.

Each of those rights encompasses more rights.

Right to life includes the right to breath.
People can now live without being able to breathe on their own. So is it a right to be on a breathing machine?

Quote:

The right to liberty includes the right to purchase and own property.
Unless the property has a public purpose greater than your right then it can be taken from you by eminent domain. So that is not an undeniable right.

Quote:

The right to pursue happiness includes the right to do that which does not deny others their rights.
Denying others their rights is VERY subjective. Are you denying other's their rights if you pollute the river upstream of them even though you own the property it passes through?

Quote:

Each of those rights encompasses more rights.

...
Each of these rights encompasses rights that have changed over time. Even you will have to admit that.

Right to life includes the right to breath without another's interference or assistance. You do not possess the right to compel others to help you breath.

The right to liberty includes the right to purchase, own, and sell property. One way our government can secure that right is by guaranteeing just compensation for property it takes for the purpose of securing the rights of its people.

The right to pursue happiness includes the right to do that which does not deny others their rights.

You asked: "Are you denying other's their rights if you pollute the river upstream of them even though you own the property it passes through?"

Owning property through which a river passes does not equate to owning that river. So if you pollute or otherwise damage a river (upstream, downstream or whatever) without the owner's permission, you are violating the rights of that river's owner.

Each of these rights encompasses more rights.

You alleged: "each of these rights encompasses rights that have changed over time." These rights have not changed overtime. What has changed overtime is how and which of these rights shall be secured by our government, and how and which of these rights shall not be secured by our government.

Basically our rights are absolute. How we choose to secure these rights is not absolute.

0 Replies

Murdoch now has the WSJ.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Murdoch now has the WSJ.

Better Murdoch than Soros.

Michael Kaufman in his biography of George Soros, page 293, quoting George Soros, wrote:

My goal is to become the conscience of the world

GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [i]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/i], wrote:

The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter II, wrote:

[O'brien said,] 'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'

0 Replies

Following the Sept 06 rightwing propaganda pundit party

Quote:

In a August 1 blog entry on Townhall.com, syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt wrote that "President Bush invited ten talk show hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today -- Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and me. This was an off-the-record conversation, and so I won't be quoting the president."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708030001?f=h_top

Probably talked about fishing.

0 Replies

Now, this one is an absolute classic.

Propaganda will, when ambitious, seek to achieve the trick of making you believe that black is obviously the favored color of god, virgins and the KKK.

Where to turn, if you are the Wall Street Journal, for a proper voice to educate the American public on how failures of media and citizens to self-censor themselves regarding critical speech about political leaders (and their policies/motives/performance) are unpatriotic.

Indeed. Who better?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010438

0 Replies

Quote:

AT&T blocks Pearl Jam's Bush slam
Anyone who was at Sunday's Pearl Jam show closing the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago would have seen the band in a political mood. Eddie Vedder invited an injured Iraq war soldier up to the stage and called on the audience to work for peace in the Middle East. And in the middle of a performance of "Daughter," Vedder sang "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home" to the tune of "Another Brick in the Wall."

But if you were at home listening to the show on the Webcast being provided by AT&T, you would have missed those lines. As the band writes on its site, the Web transmission cut out the protest lines. AT&T says its monitor did so by mistake -- what a strangely precise and politically convenient mistake!

http://machinist.salon.com/

0 Replies

I bet Cheney was involved somehow. Though I heard he was a big Pearl Jam fan.

0 Replies

Quote:

CJR http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/post_49.php

0 Replies

Judith Miller joins The Manhattan Institute. Finally, she's home. Take a peek... http://www.manhattan-institute.org/

0 Replies

Quote:

Tuesday September 11, 2007 07:10 EST

Brit Hume and the Bush administration take propaganda to a new level

Just as George Bush and Dick Cheney have done on politically important occasions, Gen. David Petraeus (along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker) last night selected Fox News' Brit Hume as the "journalist" rewarded with an exclusive "interview." Whereas Hume, in the past, at least has pretended to play the role of journalist when interviewing high Bush officials -- doing things like asking (extremely respectful) questions about sensitive areas (with no follow up) -- he dispensed entirely with the pretense here. This "interview" took government propaganda to a whole new level, and really has to be seen to be believed (the full video is here).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/11/petraeus_interview/

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Tuesday September 11, 2007 07:10 EST

Brit Hume and the Bush administration take propaganda to a new level

Just as George Bush and Dick Cheney have done on politically important occasions, Gen. David Petraeus (along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker) last night selected Fox News' Brit Hume as the "journalist" rewarded with an exclusive "interview." Whereas Hume, in the past, at least has pretended to play the role of journalist when interviewing high Bush officials -- doing things like asking (extremely respectful) questions about sensitive areas (with no follow up) -- he dispensed entirely with the pretense here. This "interview" took government propaganda to a whole new level, and really has to be seen to be believed (the full video is here).
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/11/petraeus_interview/

Malarkey!

I watched the Hume interview from start to finish. I also watch the Petraeus and Crocker testimonies and interrogations before Congress.

Hume stated his objective was to have Petraeus and Crocker present summaries of their earlier testimonies to Congress to those people who may not have watched them earlier. Petraeus and Crocker did just that. Hume occassionally asked questions for clarification. Their summaries of their testimonies were accurate.

Perhaps you would have preferred an interview like the one before Congress. Before Petraeus and Crocker testified various DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) said or implied Petraeus and Crocker were liars. More DINOs said or implied the samething after Petraeus and Crocker testified. These DINOs did this without supplying any relevant evidence to support what they said or implied.

0 Replies

i wonder how indymedia is doing, i've only checked on them once since the fbi took one of their servers years ago.

what really needs to be done though? getting professional journalist training for as many people as possible. a nation of news-gatherers, that would be fantastic. it would be like blogging is, but with far more sources.

0 Replies

Wouldn't "professional journalist training" defeat the objective I presume you have in mind.

0 Replies

uh? i don't presume to know what you presume i have in mind... what i was thinking was that people would be better equipped to get their own stories if they had pro training. i wasn't suggesting they stay on, tethered to a news agency.

and some indy journalists do have pro training. i was talking about having it for a larger more complete range of people.

0 Replies

Well- you cant really say-

Quote:

that would be fantastic.

without saying what it would be fantastic for or allowing that readers will presume what you have it mind it would be fantastic for. I just presumed you thought it would be fantastic for providing a better flow of news and increasing our freedoms. Professional training is run on strictly organised principles and doesn't seem to me to be a suitable institution for the type of anarchy I thought you had in mind.

What did you have in mind?

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush invites Freepers to White House.Last week, President Bush invited members of DC chapter of the right-wing website FreeRepublic.com, along with other conservative groups, to the White House for a picnic. According to a posting about the event on Free Republic, "President spent what seemed like two hours meeting with everyone who wanted to speak with him."

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/23/bush-invites-freepers-to-white-house/

0 Replies

Quote:

Professional training is run on strictly organised principles and doesn't seem to me to be a suitable institution for the type of anarchy I thought you had in mind.

okay, i think maybe that's just too black and white.

what i think is, you can give some people a camera, and say: "go get news."

and they will. and it will change everything.

and other people, you give them a camera, and say: "go get news." and they get absolutely nothing, because as it happens, they don't know anything.

but if you could get someone "in the know" to train them, that would be great, because they'd know a trade.

if having a few formal skills implies to you they'll be trapped mentally into doing everything in too ordered a fashion, i'm just saying to strike a balance, not go all the way off back into the corporate propaganda machine.

it sounds possible and practical to me, it's just a matter of finding people to actually do it.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

uh? i don't presume to know what you presume i have in mind... what i was thinking was that people would be better equipped to get their own stories if they had pro training. i wasn't suggesting they stay on, tethered to a news agency.

and some indy journalists do have pro training. i was talking about having it for a larger more complete range of people.

It's a tough problem. I doubt any proposed remedy would be very effective so long as the media to which most people in the US attend remains in the hands of a handful of large corporate entities. Therefore, my first move would be to forward legislation regulating monopolization of information sources.

There also seems to be a clear deficiency in educational curricula/priorities which leaves so many americans poorly informed not only as regards the world outside their borders but also as regards their own history and their understandings of the principles which underly a functioning constitutional democracy. That's a generalization, obviously, and does not apply to all americans but it has broad application and seems to me to put the system, as the founders conceived it, in serious jeopardy.

Just as one quick example, we've seen a notion growing quite uniquely on the right side of the american spectrum that an independent media is neither possible nor even necessarily desireable. Not possible because everyone is biased and not desireable because external threats (and internal threats) are so serious and potentially insidious that the state must oversee what can be openly discussed. In fact, those notions are growing because they have been cultivated and disseminated via effective marketing campaigns for a few decades now. It's difficult to imagine a more fertile environment for authoritarian control to expand.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Bush invites Freepers to White House.Last week, President Bush invited members of DC chapter of the right-wing website FreeRepublic.com, along with other conservative groups, to the White House for a picnic. According to a posting about the event on Free Republic, "President spent what seemed like two hours meeting with everyone who wanted to speak with him."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/23/bush-invites-freepers-to-white-house/

Shame on that low life Bush for spending two hours with folks that think him merely an incompetent and not a liar.

0 Replies

Information Control or how to get to Orwellian governance II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know