General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2183569

    What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

    Locked

    by jardinier ·

    [This article appeared in “The Walkley,” a publication of the Australian Journalists’ Association.]

    Google executives have given in to pressure and resigned themselves to the fact that if they are going to compete in the Chinese market, they too will have to perfect the art of censorship.

    Google will phase in its new interface [b]google.cn[/b] in coming months, abiding by the stringent content regulations imposed by China?s government. It will join Microsoft and Yahoo! in helping the government build its great firewall.

    Chinese media already operate in one of the world?s most restricted information environments. During 2005, Chinese authorities banned 79 newspapers, and two journalists were imprisoned for up to 10 years for ?publishing an unauthorised magazine that exposed local land disputes.?

    [b]Of 64 cyberspace dissidents currently in prisons around the world, 54 are in China.[/b] Authorities there have an estimated 30,000 online police monitoring news sites, blogs and chat rooms.

    Recently, Microsoft was a willing accomplice in shutting down Chinese journalist Zhao Jing?s blog, ?An Ti.? Zhao had used his blog to discuss a strike by editorial staff of the Beijing News, who were protesting the dismissal of three senior editors and their replacement by Party-friendly personnel from the News?s politically conservative parent organisation.

    Microsoft defended itself, saying it was obliged to operate within the laws of the country it was servicing. Microsoft?s Chinese web log services bar the use of the terms ?democracy? and ?human rights.?

    Another Global corporation, Yahoo!, provided personal information on one of its clients, helping the Chinese government convict a Chinese reporter for revealing state secrets.

    As Google makes itself another tool to the Chinese government?s belligerent control of information, it acknowledges the move contradicts its corporate ethics but says it has little choice.

    Until now, the Google search service had been offered from outside China, which has resulted in slower services and other access issues. This in turn has generated strong competition from the leading Mandarin search engine, Baidu.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3101188

      So far

      by rob mekel ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      for principles.

      More like if we can’t beat them, then let’s join them.

      Rob

      • #3272493

        of course

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to So far

        Google went public. It has to answer to anonymous stockholders first and foremost now, which means its “don’t be evil” motto has been sh*tcanned. Public corporations are evil by definition, where mediocrity is evil.

      • #3273525

        More Solutions Please

        by dmsjr0 ·

        In reply to So far

        Dad says, “Always have a recommendations for identified abuses.”

        Complain by all means but also make recommendations.

        In this case the worlds leaders should purchase some air time on TV, radio, and the Web and ask China with the world as a witness, why it (China) feels squelching human rights and talk of democracy is necessary for controlling its population. Then give then a reasonalbe time to reply.

        This could have been done with Iraq as well.

        Making the world aware of why a certain policy is in effect and soliciting additional recommendations for controlling a particular situation will open a forum for peace.

        It must be realized however, that sometimes culture dictates politics and not peace. Consider the results of democracy into the baltic states.

        The important thing is to work towards peace publicly using peaceful means and when the fails understand that turning up the heat will surely follow.

        • #3272192

          “a reasonable time to reply”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to More Solutions Please

          China has had 56+ years, since their communist revolution. Their 5 year plans and 7 year plans killed 65 million Chinese citizens, at least. Don’t give them another second, and don’t give corporations that bend over for rogue nations any more money. I’m making Linux fluency my top priority, right now, so I won’t have to support microsoft ever again. If the Gates Foundation can give BILLIONS to “help the poor”, they can afford to [b]compete[/b] without submitting to communism.

        • #3272118

          hot damn

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to “a reasonable time to reply”

          Welcome to the fold, brother.

        • #3271639

          “economic suicide”

          by nz_justice ·

          In reply to “a reasonable time to reply”

          Giving corporations money isn’t a bad thing, Giving American corporations money is a good thing for the USA. Microsoft pay tax, the more money/profit they make the more tax they pay, the more the US economy benefits. Trends in Asia are they buy from corporations that that are Asian, ie every Korean as a samsung phone and they drive Korean cars, and hardly any of them will buy an xbox 360 (same as most of Asia). In Japan Nintendo, Sony, Nissan, Subaru etc… are all supported buy the local economies as well as international.

          And what does anyone give the Chinese? Except grief for being commies and oppressing a few journalists and killing less than 1% there population.

          Buy not buying M$, are you punishing the Chinese for there Govs actions. The US gov ain’t that hot either. There plans kill there own citizens (soldiers in the USA army are citizens of the USA). USA soldiers are actually dying trying to force democracy on an Islamic nation. And when a flood hits the US, people play the blame game, rather then the rescue one.

          If you are running Linux you obviously have a Intel or AMD chip set, Where do you think the components are made (in the USA), no they are made in China as is every thing else. So I recommend you don’t buy AMD or Intel either, cause they also support the China firewall.

          Apparently M$ OS software isn’t that hot at running large Server base configurations, so for the Chines Firewall, do you really think it will be running on MS OS server software. Most likely not. They probably run UNIX servers and Linux Clients.

          Buy a MAC
          😉

        • #3271566

          come off it

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to “economic suicide”

          I suppose you’ve never heard of the concept of a boycott. If you boycott MS and Yahoo for their unethical actions, they might figure out that they’re losing customer base for doing things like giving up dissidents to the Chinese government.

          As for Linux being used by China — who cares? They use air, too. Are you going to stop using air? There’s no overarching corporation that you can boycott for selling air or Linux to China.

        • #3271555

          There should be

          by nz_justice ·

          In reply to come off it

          an overarching corporation that you can boycott for selling air and Linux to China. :p

          And I few TR members\guests boycotting M$ and Yahoo is probably nothing for those corps to worry about.

          Buy a Mac.

          😉

        • #3273376

          If I buy a Mac . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to There should be

          A Mac, for me, would just be the “extra computer”, a toy. It’s not up to the workhorse standards of Linux and *BSD.

        • #3273373

          You have the right

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There should be

          to boycott the air, if it’s making you angry!

          😉

      • #3273524

        More Solutions Please

        by dmsjr0 ·

        In reply to So far

        Dad says, “Always have a recommendations for identified abuses.”

        Complain by all means but also make recommendations.

        In this case the worlds leaders should purchase some air time on TV, radio, and the Web and ask China with the world as a witness, why it (China) feels squelching human rights and talk of democracy is necessary for controlling its population. Then give then a reasonalbe time to reply.

        This could have been done with Iraq as well.

        Making the world aware of why a certain policy is in effect and soliciting additional recommendations for controlling a particular situation will open a forum for peace.

        It must be realized however, that sometimes culture dictates politics and not peace. Consider the results of democracy into the baltic states.

        The important thing is to work towards peace publicly using peaceful means and when the fails understand that turning up the heat will surely follow.

    • #3101166

      Less concerned – More concerned

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      Personally, I don’t consider an Internet search engine “the press”. I consider it more like a library plus the yellow pages, both on steroids. And although “the press” can certainly write whatever they want, libraries, whether they be private or public can, and do, decide what may or may not appear on their shelves. I dare say you can find things on the Internet that you’ll never see on the shelves of your public library, at least if access is unfettered.

      I’m certainly not a proponent of the government (a government) restricting access to information found on the Internet, but I do advocate libraries doing it, along with schools and parents, and so on. Most of my concern in that regard, however, is “age appropriate” material, which is fodder for an entirely different discussion.

      But speaking of parents, isn’t that how people see governments today? Nannyism run amok has infiltrated every aspect of one’s life. I suppose different people pick and choose which issues they want their “parents” to control. How can a person be against a “parent” dictating what a person may or may not read, but all in favor of that same “parent” dictating what that same person may or may not have or do. People will be up in arms if that “parent” wants to control what goes into a person’s mind, but they demand that same “parent” control what goes into that same person’s pockets.

      China is what it is, an emerging capitalistic giant operating under the umbrella of socialism. It’s really not unlike the United States, is it? Except I’d say the emerging factors are reversed. And Google is what it is, a business ready to fill the needs of an emerging capitalistic giant of a customer.

      I’m much less concerned about China’s efforts to restrict what the Chinese people may or may not find on Google, and much more concerned with the deteriorating state of “the press” in the United States. And in many ways, there’s not much difference between what China is doing in China, and what “the press” is doing in the United States (and other parts of the world). Both are hell-bent to control and influence what people think is the truth. And both make up their own version of it.

      • #3102701

        But Max, “the Press”…

        by dmambo ·

        In reply to Less concerned – More concerned

        in the west does not control what other outlets of “the Press” put out for public consumption. NPR might be controlled by a liberal board, and the Wall Street Journal might have a slant to the right, but neither has a say in what the other publishes. It’s up to the consumer to decide what to believe in a competitive environment.

        What Google is doing is allowing themselves to be controlled from putting out all competing viewpoints. Can we blame Google? I don’t think so. They are just another company that is putting their economic well-being ahead of their corporate “mission”. Nothing new.

        So, I am more concerned with how a central government controls the media than with what any particular media outlet has as a bias. The problem is that there’s very little that we can do about it.

        But Congress has had hearings on this issue, so we’re all safe now. 😉

        • #3102646

          Conrolling the media,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to But Max, “the Press”…

          “NPR might be controlled by a liberal board, and the Wall Street Journal might have a slant to the right, but neither has a say in what the other publishes.”

          Not a “say”, but certainly influence, if for none other than competitive reasons. It is also this competition that can lead to mistakes or misrepresentation (“Dewey Defeats Truman” comes immediately to mind).

          I also see a lot of speculation and opinion headlined, and while I personally have nothing against editorializing the news, I DO have a problem with editorial being passed off AS news.

        • #3102645

          NPR is unfairly subsidized by the govt.

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to But Max, “the Press”…

          One difference between NPR and its liberal slant and the Wall Street Journal and its conservative slant is that NPR has a government subsidy and the Wall Street Journal is taxed as part of the Dow Jones corporation. I would like to see government subsidies end for NPR (and PBS) and let them compete in the free market of ideas and of capitalism. Let them do and IPO and become corporations with shareholders, and let them be taxed the same as the Wall Street Journal (owned by Dow Jones), Fox News (owned by News Corp), and NBC (owned by General Electric).

          I would suggest the UK do the same with the BBC. Repeal the special tax that subsidizes the BBC and have them do an IPO and become a corporation.

          We do not need government subsidies of media outlets.

        • #3102897

          The worst thing about NPR

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to NPR is unfairly subsidized by the govt.

          is any media that is government subsidized should have to remain neutral. People should not be allowed to abuse tax dollars to push their own political agenda.

        • #3102837

          and there

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to The worst thing about NPR

          you are right.

          As is any (ab)use of tax money to push their OWN, political or not, agenda.

          Rob

        • #3272491

          More to the point . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The worst thing about NPR

          Nobody should be able to use tax dollars to do [b]anything[/b].

        • #3272148

          I Agree

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to More to the point . . .

          I ask anybody who uses tax dollars to advance their agenda to ask yourself this question: If the same money were used to advance the [b]opposite[/b] agenda, would that be fair? If not, why, then, is it fair for [b]you[/b] to use that money to advance an agenda that is [b]opposite[/b] to the agenda of one or more citizens who have equal rights by law?

        • #3272117

          interesting

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I Agree

          That’s an interesting way to put it.

        • #3272101

          most can’t honestly answer you

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I Agree

          because they all FEEL so strongly about their agenda, and most (especially where the government is involved) rarely THINK.

          If we intentionally create a peasent class with poor education and welfare programs, how is this good for the country?

          If we ship off entry level jobs, how will the next generation of workers get started?

          If we fund art musiums but cut education, who is that helping?

          If we over tax the evil rich based on how much they make, where is the incentive to keep making more money?

          The other problem, (thanks to the poor education) people today don’t understand what their RIGHTS are today. Some even think they have a RIGHT to free health care?

          Anything that costs someone else something, you have NO RIGHT to.

        • #3271830

          I presume then that you mean

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to More to the point . . .

          tax dollars should not be spent on the war in Iraq, or the military in general, or the space program etc.

          Nor should they be used to subsidize farmers or any industry to enable them to remain competitive with other countries.

          Well of course the list is endless but I would be interested to know if there is ANY program or public service which you think should be eligible for funding by the Federal Government.

        • #3271766

          you misunderstand

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I presume then that you mean

          I didn’t say that nothing should be funded — just that nobody should be using taxes to do it. There are other ways of producing revenue. Hell, this country didn’t even have income tax for a very long time, and it managed just fine.

        • #3273367

          Humour me

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I presume then that you mean

          Tell me some ways other than tax that the US government could pursue to produce revenue.

        • #3273287

          Have you no ability to think for yourself?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I presume then that you mean

          Fees. In particular, service fees. The government already uses service fees extensively, but ends up primarily misusing them.

        • #3273223

          Service fees? Tax?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I presume then that you mean

          You’re just playing semantics.

          In Australia a large amount of Government funding comes from GST — Goods and [u]Services[/u] [b]Tax.[/b]

          So how much of its total revenue does the US Federal Government raise from service fees?

          Yes, I can think for myself, but the question was addressed to YOU as an American because I wouldn’t have a clue what means your Federal Government has for raising revenue.

        • #3272934

          not just semantics

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I presume then that you mean

          You can refuse to pay a service fee, in which case you don’t get the (full) service. If you refuse to pay a tax, men with guns come to your house and take away your freedom.

          Freedom isn’t a service, it’s a right.

          Government can call taxes “goods and services” revenue, just as in the US it calls poverty subsidies “welfare”, a protection racket “intellectual property law”, and suspension of Constitutional protections the “USA PATRIOT Act”, but that doesn’t make these poverty subsidy healthy, doesn’t make the contents of my intellect anyone else’s property, or violation of the terms of the Constitution patriotic. Quoting newspeak at me doesn’t make your point for you.

          Here’s a lesson in the English language for you:
          One voluntarily pays a service fee in exchange for something. Taxes are confiscated whether you wish it or not. Under almost any other circumstances, the sort of coercive reallocation of funds that goes on with taxation would be called “theft”.

          “[i]So how much of its total revenue does the US Federal Government raise from service fees?[/i]”
          That’s not a number that is made very easily researchable by the public. I’m sure that if it was it would cause much of the nation’s citizenry to start wondering why, with so much money being raised through fees, taxes have to be so damned high. The answer, of course, is “They don’t.” There’s a lot of very wasteful spending going on in government that could very easily be cut from budgets if only the politicians weren’t beholden to special interests that demanded all this money-burning.

          “[i]I wouldn’t have a clue what means your Federal Government has for raising revenue.[/i]”
          The same means as any other government, for the most part.

        • #3272686

          US Government Receipts

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I presume then that you mean

          In 2003, the US government total receipts from all sources was 1,798,093 million dollars. Receipts from excise taxes & other sources was 143,877 million dollars, only 8% of that total. Even eliminating all expenditures except national defense (388,870 million in 2003) would still result in a shortfall of over 63%.

          It’s amazing what you can find on Google by searching for “united states government revenue.” This link was at the very top: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html

          The data used in the first paragraph is available at http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf

        • #3103165

          ALMOST All Things Considered

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to NPR is unfairly subsidized by the govt.

          NPR would be gone in 6 months. In the realm of talk radio, NPR has not the first clue what sells, or how to sell it.

        • #3272100

          what a shame

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to ALMOST All Things Considered

          if this travisty would just go away….

          Let them pay their own bills.

          I don’t remember anything about paying for left radio in the constitution?

        • #3272189

          Finally agree.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to NPR is unfairly subsidized by the govt.

          I didn’t care about NPR’s subsidy until last night. Fareed Zakaria closed his horrible show, which was about the Dubai Ports sale, saying that the previous owner had also been foreign and that security will still be the responsibility of the Coast Guard, so we should all not care, implying that we who are even curious are necessarily racists. But I am not. I am concerned about ownership of a port by a foreign [b]government[/b], not a foreign company. I remember that a representative of the “company” Dubai Ports claimed that the government of UAE doesn’t tell them what to do, but [b]who is willing to tell me to take that on faith?[/b]

          (Added: as a government subsidized entity, NPR is effectively endorsing every message it broadcasts. My answer to Fareed Zakaria, and every other supporter of his inane, irrelevant claim that the new, tyrant who owns several US ports now is as trustworthy as a private company based in Britain: I don’t trust the UAE, and I don’t trust the government to do be a journalist. Freedom of the press means no censorship, not government subsidies for sloppy reporters who omit the [b]one most important fact[/b], then attempt to portray their conclusion as logical. Once more, I’m offended at being called “racist” by my own government, because I can tell the difference between a privately owned company and one owned by [b]the only government on Earth[/b] that legitimized the Taliban by having diplomatic relations with it. Get the hell out of my way.)
          Ban NPR and the NEA, and all subsidies to private concerns, individual or collective.

        • #3272099

          wrong

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Finally agree.

          palistine and Quait also recognised the taliban.

          (all of our allies in the mid east?)

        • #3271956

          Oh, Palestine and Kuwait

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Finally agree.

          Now, there are some enviable credentials!

        • #3272038

          What a difference a subsidy makes…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to NPR is unfairly subsidized by the govt.

          TV without subsidy:
          – Partridge Family
          – My Mother the Car
          – Survivor
          – Real People

          TV with subsidy:
          – Sesame Street
          – Cosmos
          – Dr. Who
          – Rumpole of the Bailey

          Yep, you’re right!

        • #3271658

          I’m afraid you are

          by donniebnyc666 ·

          In reply to What a difference a subsidy makes…

          casting pearls among…

        • #3271570

          What difference do you mean?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What a difference a subsidy makes…

          Which 4 programs do you favor? Why?

          Do you think 4 of them are worthy of a subsidy, via tax, which the other 4 are not? Why?

          Would it be fair if instead of the 4 you do like, the 4 programs you do not like were subsidized by a tax rather than by the voluntary payment of free people? I don’t agree with paying taxes for programs that you find enjoyable, but which are not enjoyable to me. Why do you believe you have the right to [b]take[/b] my money away from me, to seize my property and diminish my ability to pursue my happiness, then spend that money on your personal enjoyment?

        • #3273442

          ok

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What difference do you mean?

          MAX jr. 😀

          You have learned well, grasshopper! B-)

        • #3273878

          Thanks

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to ok

          But I’ll never be a Republican until the party adopts separation of church and state into its core principles. I think that disqualifies me as apprentice to Maxwell. I appreciate the compliment as it applies to economics and the right to make choices, though.

        • #3272958

          Quality of programming

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to What difference do you mean?

          I was referring more to the quality of the output, although I did stack the deck in favor of the subsidized programs. Do the broadcast networks provide good programming? Yes, but not in the recent past (although I will entertain discussion on the subject of CSI). But on average, the programs available on PBS when I watched television regularly were of higher quality than those on the broadcast networks.

          Do I like everything that NPR or PBS has ever aired? No. Do I like subsidizing people that pee on canvas and call it art? No. But I tend to view arts subsidies as part of the government’s obligation to “promote the general Welfare.” And when I consider that total elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will reduce my tax bill a whole fraction of a cent, I feel that in this case, the principal isn’t worth the principle.

        • #3272932

          fractions add up

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Quality of programming

          I suppose you’ve never heard of being “nickeled and dimed to death”. If we don’t start cutting pork from the federal budget somewhere, we’ll never cut it anywhere.

        • #3272798

          They used the word “promote”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Quality of programming

          not the word “provide”. The government’s charter extends no farther than protecting individuals’ right to [b]earn[/b] their happiness, never to give to one citizen what was taken from others. That is theft, even if the government does it.

        • #3272911

          Have you ever watched:

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to What a difference a subsidy makes…

          The Discovery Channel
          The History Channel
          Animal Planet
          BBC in America

          All of those are available on cable systems if you want to pay for them. I don’t get BBC in America because I don’t subscribe to the premium service, but that is my choice. I do get the others as part of my basic cable service.

          And as far as Sesame Street is concerned, it is just a propaganda machine for the left disguised as children’s education.

          PBS could still exist as a stock corporation if they held an IPO. It does not need a government subsidy. It can generate revenue from advertisements, like the other broadcast networks. Let the free market rule and decide whether it will exist or not.

        • #3272796

          I have

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Have you ever watched:

          And I still prefer C-SPAN & C-SPAN 2 over all other channels. Your four would be on my top 10 list, but I like to see my Congress and my Senate in action, or inaction, depending how long until the next election!

        • #3272731

          Or maybe…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I have

          …in effective action or ineffective action?

        • #3272691

          Yes, yes, yes, & yes

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Have you ever watched:

          My personal favorite networks are the History Channel (except UFO weeks), CourtTV (the forensics shows only-I hate Cops!), A&E, & Spike (love the Bond-age!)

          However, I try not to miss Mythbusters or Biker Buildoff.

          As for Sesame Street as a propoganda machine, the only overarching message I remember from the show (it’s been a year or two) was a strong push for both education and tolerance. I hadn’t been aware until now that either was a leftist value.

        • #3272670

          ahem

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Yes, yes, yes, & yes

          I’m guessing you haven’t watched recently.

        • #3088857

          At least…

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Yes, yes, yes, & yes

          You do have some good taste in TV. I have no use for Court TV or Biker Buildoff, but I do like the others (and agree about UFO weeks, once through is enough, how many times do we have to hear about Roswell or Area 51?). And Mytbusters is one of my favorites, along with Dirty Jobs (especially ones where Mike Rowe ends up in either a pile of poop or animal guts or anything smelly and rotten).

          What puzzled me about Dirty Jobs, the one about horse artificial insemination, is that they fuzzied out the stallion’s “equipment”, yet they showed the mare’s back end in its full glory as Mike prepared it for insemination. Not that I am interested in either, but if one is censored, why not the other?

          Regarding Sesame Street, I am concerned about the message it sends with Ernie and Bert in the same bed, taking baths together, etc. They seem a little too friendly, if you know what I mean.

        • #3088749

          It’s been a while

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Yes, yes, yes, & yes

          My youngest now sings bass and hasn’t been interested in Sesame St since about 1992 or 1993. I’ve watched bits of the show a couple of times since then with younger nieces/nephews, but I think Sesame Street hit its peak with “Rubber Ducky.”

          Now, Captain Planet was flat out green propoganda: industry=bad, nature=good. I often wondered if anybody involved with that show ever noted the irony in the method of delivery.

        • #3087978

          Stopped watching Sesame Street

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Have you ever watched:

          when they went from childrens songs to rapping.

          I have no problem that it was always a very diverse cast, but it always was children focuses on learning numbers and letters.

          Don’t use this to brainwash kids.

          How about Captain Planet anyone? If that wasn’t a bunch of “rubbish”, I don’t know what is. Yes, EVERY corporation in the world is intentionally trying to polute as much as they can in a deliberate attempt to poison the earth.

        • #3088633

          Stopped watching Sesame Street

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Stopped watching Sesame Street

          at age 9.

        • #3271653

          I couldn’t agree

          by donniebnyc666 ·

          In reply to NPR is unfairly subsidized by the govt.

          less. So long as NPR and PBS report news and analysis ignored and/or quashed by the mainstream, for-profit media then they are doing their job.

          The point of funding PUBLIC broadcasting with PUBLIC dollars is that it operates for the benefit of the PUBLIC. Can you honestly say that you trust Fox news to tell the truth about this administration? I certainly do not, but being a card-carrying lefty does not mean that I agree with everything on NPR, just as it does not mean I disagree with everything in the WSJ.

          However, if you ask me who I trust more, the answer has to be the news organization that is not beholden to a corporate board. The big difference between public and private broadcasting is not the point of view, but rather whose interest is served.

          Now that the other half of this country has finally caught on to this administration’s record, maybe they can reconsider where they look for news. Those of us not listening to Fox have known the truth for quite some time.

        • #3271574

          I don’t watch or listen to Fox

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I couldn’t agree

          Yet I side with Tom W. on this, because I know that Fox can be eliminated at any time by a thorough boycott. Almost everything I have ever seen on that network is inane, but it has an audience. The best thing about NPR is the absence of commercials, except that a few weeks every year they show [b]only[/b] commercials. If that network were 100% supported by contributions, it would be the greatest broadcaster in America. As it stands currently, it is just another pig at the collectivists’ trough.

        • #3271564

          agreed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I don’t watch or listen to Fox

          NPR sounds like a noble endeavor until you actually look at its practices. Suddenly, it starts smelling particularly awful.

          If you want true “public” news, without government subsidies, I recommend http://en.wikinews.org instead of the pigs at the thieves’ trough.

        • #3271565

          absurd

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I couldn’t agree

          I don’t trust either Fox or NPR, and as such I damned well shouldn’t have to pay for either one. Luckily, I don’t have to pay for Fox. Unfortunately, NPR is taking money out of [b]my pocket[/b] to pay for crap I can’t trust.

          You think you know the “truth” because you’re a card-carrying lefty. Are you aware of the fact that the Democratic party is leading the charge to challenge Roe v. Wade in South Dakota?

          Get a clue.

        • #3273441

          oh great finder of truth

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I couldn’t agree

          in an organization with an agenda?

          you delude yourself.

          Until you find a news organization without either a political or profit agenda, you will just get different lies.

          And because NPR gets a lot of the money from sponsorships, they are beholden to these sponsors.

          A truth honest intellectuals have know for quite some time.

        • #3102637

          Wall Street Journal

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to But Max, “the Press”…

          The Wall Street Journal is an interesting publication, as its news pages slant to the left, while their editorial pages slant to the right. Actually, as a result, it might tend to be one of the most balanced papers in the country, as it actually reveals both sides on many issues. However, I’ve known people who just don’t read editorial pages; and I’ve known others who don’t read anything but.

        • #3102456

          Because

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wall Street Journal

          In most papers “balance” is the merging of reporting and opinion in one article 🙂

      • #3102638

        how far do parental controls go?

        by tink! ·

        In reply to Less concerned – More concerned

        It is very apparent that we are steadily growing into a more government controlled society. Which in my opinion, is very bad. The reason it’s happening is because parents are lazy and/or afraid to discipline their children partially due to the consequences that would arise if their child were to accuse them of child abuse.

        We have such freedom of press that you can find anything and everything on the tv or internet. But because the parents are too busy or too lazy to deal with making sure their kids are only seeing what they should see, they expect the government to censor for them. Which is total B.S.

        If we start allowing our government to censor the media for us, we are opening the door to further unwanted censorship. It is [b]SO[/b] easy to take the one little step over the line of accepted boundaries, into the field of complete control.

        The American people have a real bad habit of focusing on their immediate wants and not looking ahead to the future consequences. We’re lazy that way. But how do you slap the whole country upside the head and say “Are you nuts?! Wake up and smell the coffee!”

        • #3272040

          Did it back in the 70s

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to how far do parental controls go?

          It was called an “oil crisis.” It killed the American muscle car and created the foreign car boom in the US.

          In addition to being lazy, the American people also have a very short memory. Thus we have the return of the large, gas-guzzling vehicle: the culture of the SUV (the station wagon for people who wouldn’t be caught dead driving a station wagon), the full-size full size pickup truck, and the muscle car.

          The problem here is that even a slap upside the head like 9/11 gets shaken off in a few days because nobody can agree on what it means.

        • #3272907

          Agreed

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to how far do parental controls go?

          Why do all new TVs require a parental control chip, when not everyone uses it? The government should not require such chips. The broadcasters and TV manufacturers could agree on their own to set a standard so that those who want it can pay extra for TVs to have the chip, and the broadcasters could use the same standard (if they choose) to make the chips effective. Let the market decide and regulate, not the government in this case. If there is enough demand for it, consumers will pay extra for TVs with the parental control chip.

          I have no need for a parental control chip. I don’t care what my dog or fish watch on TV, they usually watch the same shows I watch. Therefore, I should not have to pay extra for a TV with the chip, even if it adds only $5 or $10 to the cost of the TV.

          The best parental controls for TV are the on/off switch and the remote control to change the channel. We do not need the government to set standards in any way.

        • #3272685

          You have it backwards.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Agreed

          “The broadcasters and TV manufacturers could agree on their own to set a standard so that those who want it can pay extra for TVs to have the chip, and the broadcasters could use the same standard (if they choose) to make the chips effective.”

          The broadcasters and TV manufacturers should give a [b]discount[/b] to those of us who don’t want a chip! Anyway, that’s how they’ll advertise it.

          😉

    • #3101125

      Hope this rots at their souls

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      oh wait. they are liberal weenies, so they don’t HAVE souls! 😀

      “but says it has little choice” if they want to make a buck.

      But the liberal “freedom of speech” criers don’t CARE about China, they only care about politics here.

      I don’t see the UN standing up to China about this. Maybe the way the human rights board is loaded with human rights violaters has something to do with that?

      I don’t see the loser groups crying about the civil rights “violations” in the cuban prision standing up for the people of China. (our prison of course, they don’t [b]CARE[/b] about REAL abuse like in the OTHER cuban prisions)

      And some wonder how anyone with a coherent thought in their heads would refuse to take these groups seriosly? Torture where people are getting tortured and killed or torture where people are getting their feelings hurt, what a choice on which to complain about.

      Sorry, did I swing off topic? Not entirely I guess.

      • #3102705

        Cuban prisoners

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Hope this rots at their souls

        The problem with Guantanamo is that it belongs, lock, stock and ideology to someone who’s leader informs us at every opportunity of his credentials as guardian of the Free World’s interests and then proceeds to step well beyond the bounds of what I, at least, find acceptable.

        [b]Charge them or let them go.[/b]

        I [b]know[/b] that there are other regimes that torture, imprison without trial for a period of years and otherwise transgress the freedoms that we hold so dear.

        You, however, should really know better! We ask nothing other than that you be consistent in your actions.

        Amnesty International are quite happy to have a pop at anybody.

        Neil 😀

        Off-topic? I start my reply and then forget what the thread is about. For us oldies, we need the thread title at the top of the ‘Post a Reply’ page!

        • #3102900

          like I said

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Cuban prisoners

          I don’t recall AI making a fuss over cuba or China?

          I do recall them complaining because the temperature conditions were enough to make someone shiver. oh NO!

          I also notice how anything said by the administartions or the military is suspect, but one terrorist scumbag picked up on the field of battle is taken at his word.

          Like I said, I don’t give a rats a$$ what these groups say until they start going after the WORST, not the best.

          Just because we are better, we are the only ones that have to play nice. Anyone else can kill and maim as they see fit (liks Sadams son did regularly).

          What were we talking about?

        • #3102839
        • #3272683

          Actually…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to like I said

          AI makes a fuss over anything they don’t like. The liberal media in America simply don’t report it and Fox ignores it because they can’t make it into a man bites dog story.

        • #3103347

          I disagree about Amnesty International

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to Cuban prisoners

          From what I have seen and read about Amnesty International, they do not take pops at just anybody. They only take pops at countries where they know they will be safe in doing so. China has been a leader in human rights violations for years, as has other totalitarian run countries. But AI seems to only care about what the US or Great Britian does. My guess is that they refuse to say anything about China, et al, because they know that their representatives will get a “first hand” look at prisoner abuse if they ever show their faces in those countries.

          Sorry about the rant, but I am biased. I view AI as a very non-effective organization.

        • #3103146

          I disagree with you

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I disagree about Amnesty International

          I readily admit I haven’t followed their previous work, but in the 80s I had some close friends with Amnesty International. They were very involved with fighting for political prisoners in the Soviet Union and the eastern Bloc as well as in places like Iran, Iraq, El Salvador etc. I don’t believe they often get a chance to visit, usually they conduct letter writing campaigns. I recall that in some cases prisoners were let free do to the attention given to some of these cases.

          When I look on their website (www.amnesty.com) I see campaigns for a political prisoner in China, and campaigns against China, Iran, Lebanon, Ethiopia and of course Guantanamo.

          I don’t know where you get your biases, but it isn’t from reading their website, or knowing anyone who works with them. Bill O’Reilly perhaps?

          James

          James.

        • #3100944

          Not O’Reilly….

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to I disagree with you

          Oddly enough, I don’t watch Fox. My complaint with AI isnt because I am a right-winger. Its because they refuse to lift up a finger to do anything for those who aren’t in their particular ideology.

          Why do we never hear about AI making commercials against the slave trade in Sudan, or the jailing of Chinese Christians, or the treatment of Christians in general in communist, Moslem or Hindu nations? China has been the leading human rights violator in the world for decades. THAT is what they need to focus on. In a nutshell the ideology of AI is leftover rhetoric from the 60s wars of liberation. It was wrong then, and its wrong now. Terrorists are “freedom fighters” (whether communist, socialist, Muslim, or Hindu or other non-Judeo-Christian religion) but those who are prisoners because of different religious backgrounds apparently are not very valuable.

          If you want human rights for everyone, you include EVERYONE. That’s my complaint with AI. They don’t do that.

        • #3102195

          According to who?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Not O’Reilly….

          I am well aware of the campaigns AI had in the past. They fought many campaigns against communist countries – Russia and China. They are still fighting torture in China. They have fought for the Falun Gong being persecuted in China. There are 450 documents on their website on abuses in China.

          http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170132006

          They are articles on actions against perscutions of Christians in India, Eritrea, Nigeria, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Egypt.

          Have you actually been to their website and looked at what they do? Or are you getting this all third hand?

          James

        • #3102179

          Let me admit…

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to According to who?

          I will admit my information is old (I haven’t cared to look into this for a while). Much of my bias against AI stems from when I lived in Germany, where it seemed to be more anti-American and anti-British than an organization attempting solutions.

          Gotta tell you James, I’ve read other things you’ve posted and I respect your opinions. I did some searching and it proved my assertions were in error. I was an error on my part to assume lack of effort based on silence.

          My fault for reacting on emotion on the spur of the moment!

        • #3272416

          Maturity

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to According to who?

          Its a great sign of maturity to be able to admit that your perceptions need re-examining. I readily admit, I’ve had my own ideas and values challenged here. Sometimes I change my mind sometimes I don’t but I am always open to be challenged.

          James

      • #3273599

        UN or Ununited Nations

        by darthstard ·

        In reply to Hope this rots at their souls

        Jdclyde, you hav’nt forgotton, surely, what happened when the UN stood up to Bush and Blair, just before their current conquest of Iraq. A blatent abuse of UN resolutions and law, set up to level the playing field and protect us, the world citizens. As predicted back in Feb 2003, this would open a can of worms, and ruin the longterm mandate of the UN, so it’s no wonder the Chinese Govt have little to worry about, and can and will continue to abuse human rights and laugh in the face of democracy.

        “I don’t see the UN standing up to China about this. Maybe the way the human rights board is loaded with human rights violaters has something to do with that?”

        Thats a good one, lets ridicule the UN and then we can say what we like about them. Jeeze, not again. ‘Move along’.

        It seems to me that ‘google’ or any other search engine, should remain neutral, it’s a tool for everyone, as are the rest. It should be left well alone and continue to develop without any bias towards one country or another. Just as the UN should be for that matter. But now that we seem to change the rules to suit one and not the other, this just takes away all the hard work of a level playing field.

        Throw this Political Correctness into the mix, along with ‘Nannystate behavior’, limits on freedom of speech, press etc, etc, all this will do is reduce the dynamacy and vibrancy of our wonderfully diverse world of cultures, peoples and countries, to the point we will lose it all, and end up with a stifled, depressingly dull and orwellian controlled world.

        There is a difference between humour and outright insults, those with less understanding and diversity, less openmindedness and less willingness to see both sides of the coin, will end with a restricted sense of humour and a seriously short temper. Which is exactly what this whole point is about, and thats why we should’nt be reducing free speech, press, human rights etc, as this is and will just reduce good ordinary folk the world over, into just such a mess.

        If you can’t have cartoons, jokes and comedy, and you drive that out, you will ultimately, drive out the happiness and sanity of all humanity in the end.

        We all need to except each others differences and respect each others cultures and beliefs, and learn from one another, keep life vibrant. Not quell it. Just because ‘Tom’ does’nt like ‘peas & carrots’ does’nt mean ‘Dick’ must’nt either, he’s quite happy with ‘cabbage’, oh hang on, ‘Harry’ has decided thats illegal now !!!…

      • #3272146

        Democratic nations and NGOs

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Hope this rots at their souls

        That was a pathetic bout of name-calling, JD, and your point is also invalid, inasmuch as you had one.

        First, the name-calling:

        “they are liberal weenies, so they don’t HAVE souls!”

        “But the liberal “freedom of speech” criers don’t CARE about China…”

        “I don’t see the loser groups crying about the civil rights “violations”…”

        Second, the premise to which you alluded, but didn’t actually state:

        “And some wonder how anyone with a coherent thought in their heads would refuse to take these groups seriosly? Torture where people are getting tortured and killed or torture where people are getting their feelings hurt, what a choice on which to complain about.”

        The choice is not on which to complain about, but which is our primary responsibility. As a citizen of the United States, my primary responsibility is to attend to civilized, lawful behavior in my own life, then, as an active democrat (note the little “d”), to attend to same in my government at all levels, and finally, to encourage my government to sanction foreign governments that abuse the human rights I expect.

        Private charitable organizations have [b]zero[/b] influence in China and Cuba. They may occasionally be able to influence US policy. That makes them intelligent and conscientious citizens, not “liberal weenies”, “criers” and “loser groups”.

    • #3102967

      Australia’s ABC

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is not subsidised by the Government. Until fairly recently, it was funded ENTIRELY by the government.

      The corporation now publishes magazines, and runs a chain of ABC Shops selling books and audio/video recordings relating to its programming.

      It does not receive income from commercial sources or public donations besides the ABC bookshops.

      The ABC is continually accused of left-bias, and has been for as far back as I can remember, regarless of which political part was in power.

    • #3103361

      As said by that great philosopher…

      by rknrlkid ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      Cindy Lauper…Money changes everything.

      Why is anyone surprised at the actions of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc? These are FOR PROFIT corporations who only care about the bottom line. Screw human rights, we only want money.

      From everything I observe, very very few corporations care about anything but money, which is a reflection of the mentality in this country. Look at the airlines. Fire people, make employees get pay cuts, then the management awards themselves huge bonuses. That’s baloney. GM did a similar thing a number of years ago. Lining MY pocket comes before ANY principle seems to be the guiding principle of American big business.

      So, before I digress any further, I am not really surprised at the actions of Google. The only difference I can see between them and MS/Yahoo/etc is that Google had a public policy of “do no evil” or something like that, but everyone else operated on the assumption that evil was ok!

      • #3272145

        Therefore, what?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to As said by that great philosopher…

        You correctly identified a fact: corporations exist to pursue profit.

        What does that logically suggest to you? Is this important enough that the US should [b]impose[/b] an embargo? What about a boycott, initiated by private citizens? Would that be worth your time, or are you too busy pursuing your personal happiness? Do you claim the right to pursue your happiness, while expecting corporations to do otherwise?

        • #3272114

          I disagree.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Therefore, what?

          Corporations don’t exist for profits. They exist for statistics. One of the most important statistics for a corporation is market share: thus the reason Microsoft doesn’t use saner business practices. As long as market share remains high, actual profit is an afterthought. Yes, Microsoft profits a lot. No, it’s not profiting as much as it could if its business practices were focused on financial success as much as they are on market share success.

          Corporations exist to dominate industries, or at least industry niches, not to turn a profit. Turning a profit is what corporations have to do to enable them to dominate industries. Profit, to a corporation, is a means to a much more malicious end.

        • #3271980

          What the …

          by the ref ·

          In reply to I disagree.

          Corporations exist to create profits and to maximize the return to their investors. In fact it is legally the responsibility of the directors to do this ? statistics mean diddly squat other than being a means to an end. HOW they maximize profit is by increasing market share and pricing their products or services at a rate that gives the greatest sustainable return.

        • #3271957

          Maybe I should have said that profit is the rational goal of corporations.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I disagree.

          I know very little about the concerns of chief executives. I quit economics after two introductory classes, but my occasional reading of the Economist gives me no reason to believe that all corporations uniformly behave rationally. They are, after all, run by the same species that mis-manages governments, churches and other non-profit organizations, and which pollutes the air and communications cables with round-the-clock collectivist drivel. I blame the market.

        • #3273174

          Actually my point was…

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to Therefore, what?

          that two completely separate issues are being discussed that are unrelated.

          I agree with you that corporations exist to bring a profit to shareholders. And that is basically the end of discussion for that, too. That’s what corporations do.

          However, in America at least, we have somehow developed this idea that corporations should have some form of ethics that escapes the general population. You are 100% right that most expect the “right” to pursue their own (selfish) happiness, while expecting corporations to do otherwise. Few catch this contradiction.

          Can corporations behave ethically and still make a profit? Sure. In Google’s case, they set themselves up for failure with their “do no bad” motto. By doing what they are designed to do (make shareholder’s profit) they violated their own motto, making themselves look bad in the public’s eye. It’s perception, that’s all. The only real difference I have seen between them and the other big companies is the expectation they created in the public’s mind that somehow they are “differenct” and will operate under different rules. This creates a situation which invites a form of perverse humor which we have been seeing.

          The China problem, on the other hand, is a different story altogether!

        • #3273872

          “in the public’s eye”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Actually my point was…

          That’s the key. Is there anything at the opposite end of the public’s optic nerve? It appears not, but if they do grow some cognitive ability, they may make the connection between making the best search algorithms in the world available to a government that bans the words “democracy” and “human rights” in order to banish those [b]concepts[/b] from its citizens’ intellects. That’s much more genuinely Orwellian than any NSA program (that I [b]know about![/b]).

    • #3100954

      Here’s the real answer!

      by rknrlkid ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

    • #3272128

      Free Press Australia style

      by henkenm9 ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      Yes, we have a free press.
      Free to connive to keep the public uninformed.
      Free to suppress the evils inflicted on this world by Jewry.
      And when we try the Government slaps a D-notice on it.
      Tell us more about the American soldiers killed in Vietnam by New Zealand soldiers because the Americans were raping.

      • #3272041

        Racism is alive and still sick I see

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Free Press Australia style

        Jewry !
        Tosser

      • #3271949

        What is a “D-notice”?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Free Press Australia style

        ?

        • #3271836

          A ‘D ‘notice in the UK

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to What is a “D-notice”?

          Is a government recourse to ban publication of material in the national interest. It is occasionaly abused, but not in my opinion at least to supress the evils done to the world by jewry!
          Damn f**kwit.

          One of my favourite abuses of it was during the iraqi ‘supergun’ trial. The government (f’ing tories) attempted to exclude from the defense lawyers that the plaintiffs had a government license to make the parts of the gun. It was their position that it was in the national interest to send four innocent men to jail to protect the government’s reputation. Saddam now being on the bad guy list and not someone we wanted to arm for a very tidy profit.

          As for the posters ramblings he’s either stupid enough to believe crap like this or evil enough to propose it.

        • #3271769

          Either/Or, Tony?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A ‘D ‘notice in the UK

          “As for the posters ramblings he’s either stupid enough to believe crap like this or evil enough to propose it.”

          “Stupidity” is just evil with a long-term strategy.

        • #3272680

          Isn’t it the other way ’round?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Either/Or, Tony?

          Evil is just stupidity with a long-term strategy…

        • #3088750

          Nope.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Isn’t it the other way ’round?

          People don’t feign evil so they can get away with stupidity, they feign stupidity so they can do evil, and be forgiven because their errors (Chernobyl, wrongful murder conviction, whatever) is “acceptable”, as it was “only” incompetence.

        • #3088748

          Ah!

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Nope.

          .

        • #3088432

          So, why did you think it would be the other way around?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Nope.

          ?

        • #3089721

          Well…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Nope.

          When I was teaching, the classroom next to mine had a sign over the door: “Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever.”

          Your explanation fixed my ignorance.

        • #3147828

          Willful Ignorance

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Nope.

          Between the two of you (Nick and Absolutely), you’ve approached an importantly relevant point:

          Real stupidity isn’t actually evil, but willful ignorance is. When you consciously choose to be ignorant of something, or pretend such ignorance, for the sake of absolving yourself of culpability for the consequences of your own actions, you’re not less culpable. It just becomes more difficult to prove your culpability.

          Honest ignorance is another story entirely — but much of what happens in government is an exercise of willful ignorance, and falls well within a non-metaphysical definition of “evil”.

        • #3159627

          Answer Plse?

          by henkenm9 ·

          In reply to A ‘D ‘notice in the UK

          What part of my post qualfies me to be a racist?
          Why are there no questions about American soldiers raping Vietnamese girls?
          They asked for it?
          What were they doing in their own country anyway?
          Does that make me Anti- Vietnamese?
          Does that make me Anti- American?
          Why are there no questions about New Zealand soldiers committing a warcrime?
          And I admit I feel sympathy with them.
          Does that make me Anti-New Zealand?

        • #3151594

          Are you kidding?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Answer Plse?

          Do you mean to say that you really don’t get that he’s saying your use of the term “Jewry” is racist?

        • #3161192

          Are you agreeing?

          by henkenm9 ·

          In reply to Are you kidding?

          A racist is somebody who believes that he/she is a better person based on race, usually coloured people.
          The word Jewry is not racist apart from what Jews have taught you to see it as such. There are millions of Jews who are appalled by what world Jewry, better known as Zionism, is doing to this world and have been doing for centuries. And most Jews who do this are not genetically Jews. They are Khazarians and have no history with Palestine. They were hired by the Jews to do their fighting for them and when Islam pushed North the Khazarians, now Jews, moved into Europe mainly Russia and Poland. There was nothing racist in my post but plenty in ignorant minds. Another example of the ignorace and stupidity shown by professional people once they get outside their field of expertise.

        • #3146768

          I suppose you’re not a racist, then.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Are you agreeing?

          You’re just a religious bigot.

        • #3147211

          wasting time

          by henkenm9 ·

          In reply to Are you agreeing?

          I have explained already.
          It’s not my fault that you have a steelplate in font of your head.
          And you must have the last word even if you have to whisper it.
          If I come over as a bigot to you you come over to me as a loudmouthed knowall bastard.

        • #3146244

          Progress

          by henkenm9 ·

          In reply to Are you kidding?

          Thanx apotheon. You are really determined to put an anti-social tag on me but it beats racist. And you make me happy because I have achieved something. You actually reevaluated. Because you are a learner, albeit a slow one, I’ll tell you a story.
          Most people have heard of the book and film: A Bridge Too Far. Both are freely available so I will give a quick summary.
          It concerned a military operation by the Allies and was the brainchild of Fieldmarshall Montgomery. Eisenhower, who was in charge of the overall conduct of the invasion, was against it but did not want an argument with the English. One of Montgomery’s Generals said: ” Sir I think you are going a bridge too far”. The name of the campaign was ‘Operation Marketgarden’. It was a total disaster from the time the planes took off. The Dutch underground fought with the Allies. At one stage a group of Para’s was isolated from the main group. The Underground knew and heard on the ( clandestine ) radio that a German armoured car was on its way to wipe out this group. They spread the word and civilians came out of their houses to build a wall across the road, 6 feet high. They could do it in a short time because they had plenty of material. The wall consisted of the corpses of soldiers and civilians, all nationalities, men, women, teenagers, babies. The para’s escaped.
          When it was over the Germans were real vindictive towards Dutch civilians. Arnhem, where the action took place, was evacuated and the residents were told they would never be allowed back. And to punish the whole of The Netherlands, our hot water soup was cut from half a liter to a quarter liter. Tens of thousands of people were starving and dying of starvation. The Germans also increased their hunt for slavelabourerers and for Jews.
          And so it happened that in Autumn 1944, I, a skinny 12 year old with big sores on his body from lack of food, heard shooting and hied it home. Before I reached the backdoor I saw a limousine with an armed German in front of it. Inside was the father of a Jewish playmate. He was as white as a sheet. I went inside and my mother and a brother were there. There was also, but outside, a Jew running up and down frantically banging on doors. The penalty for hiding a Jew was that men would be shot on the spot; women and children off to concentration camps. Nobody would let him in. I said to my mother ” Moe, they are just around the corner”. So my mother opened the door. A few seconds later a German soldier knocked on a side window and asked my mother questions. We were lucky. this hunt was conducted by the German Army which would not have a bar of this. But they had to follow SS orders. The soldier went away. A curfew was in place. but when it was dark a car pulled up. A German soldier, the driver, opened the door for a high ranking German officer. This one berated my mother for her stupidty and took delivery of the Jew. This was all an act. It was the Dutch Underground picking him up to take him to a hiding place. He survived the war and although we lived in a small city of 15000 he never came back to say thanks. Probably too busy in his shop getting on with life.
          Do I hate Germans?
          Do I hate Jrws?
          I take a person as he comes and judge him by his behaviour. Other factors are of no account.

          So There.

          If somebody believes I am antisemitic or my post was I wish to inform you that Australia has laws against that.
          And the Israeli Parliament has passed a law that people who make anti Jewish remarks, even if they were made outside Israel, have to stand trial in Israel and is trying to make extradition treaties with other nations.
          So I think somebody should report me. I don’t want to put anyone to any troble. So here are my details.
          A.H. van Herp
          11 Vernon Ave.
          Gorokan NSW 2263
          Australia
          0243921611
          henkenm@tpg.com.au

          This subject is now closed as far as I am concerned.

        • #3147723

          Closed?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Progress

          You’re trying to say “Jewry” wasn’t used in a bigoted manner, but in that context that’s all that makes much sense. Perhaps you should explain what you mean — unless you just like being misunderstood (or understood, as the case may be). It sure as hell didn’t look like a joke.

          Tear-jerkers from sixty-plus years ago mean nothing to me if you come off like a bigot today, and your condescending attitude doesn’t help.

    • #3271982

      Freedom of the Press

      by travelby2um ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      I find this story very disturbing. In light of the fact that Google forfeited it ethics for the almighty dollar, I guess I am naive to think that some companies may actually operate with some sense of ethical governance and stamina. For Google to think it is ok to sink to the level of Microsoft is no excuse as Microsoft never had any business or humanitarian ethical governance anyway. Using excuses such as they had to implement such unethical behavior due to country law is nothing more than an easy way to set aside their corporate humanitarian responsibilities for the almighty dollar. Google had may other options they could have taken.

      More concerning however is the sad sate of affairs were by the greatest tool ever invented for the purpose of world wide, open communication, and information sharing, is being slowly but assuredly hijack and corrupted to server only the corporate agendas and the almighty dollar.

      There is nothing wrong with corporate competition or being profitable, but when it comes at the cost of human rights, it is a very short sight view.

      • #3271948

        corporate humanitarian responsibilities

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Freedom of the Press

        What are those? Are the corporations’ customers not responsible for acting as the market force that drives those corporations?

        The more I listen to leftists, the more I understand the ancient religious practice of scapegoating, and am enraged.

        • #3271835

          The firm I work for

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to corporate humanitarian responsibilities

          has a corporate social responsibilty policy, basically charitable works. For which they no doubt claim tax relief.
          Individuals within a coprporation may have morals, corporations don’t though, expecting them to, is rank stupidity.

          Is this rational rage brought through objective reasoning, or sounds like a lefty now I’m angry rage.
          LOL

          Given controlling the market is a corporate goal, then what say do customers have ?

        • #3271767

          customers have a say as voters

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The firm I work for

          Unfortunately, we as a group have a tendency to empower malicious corporations, who [b]enjoy[/b] government regulation for its tendency to inhibit entry to market of new competitors. Also, as a group, we haven’t noticed that the social agenda of regulations on business is never accomplished as advertised when the regulations were first proposed. If truth in advertising laws applied to the Congress & Senate, I suspect the fines would be enough to pay the national debt several times.

        • #3273081

          Stupid / open ended laws

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to customers have a say as voters

          There’s some legislation going through our parliament at the moment that would allow the standing government to amend any statute in the interest of national security. Any, including the 1913 parliament act which says the sitting government must call an election within five years.
          Of course they’d never amend that piece of legislation, trustworthy fellows that they are.
          We can trust successive goverments not to abuse this power as well apparently.

          I’m becoming convinced the only reason Big Ben was built was so the idiots inside could find the place.

          Course I voted for them, so who’s even more stupid ? I’m voting green next time then I don’t have to take any responsibility for the resultant screw ups.

        • #3272688

          That sounds exciting.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Stupid / open ended laws

          Maybe MP’s will vote themselves the right to listen to Blair when he calls Bush, without the trouble of obtaining a writ?

          😀

        • #3272679

          We get to pick…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to The firm I work for

          the winnah and new champeen!

          Or at least we get to think we do…

    • #3271947

      Support from an expected source

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      [From the online Christian news service, http://crosswalk.com]

      In a decision highlighting his concern for China’s persecuted Christians, Pope Benedict XVI has included in his papacy’s first selection of cardinals a Hong Kong-based bishop who has been a thorn in Beijing’s side.

      The pope announced the elevation of 15 new cardinals – the “princes” who comprise the Roman Catholic Church’s top hierarchy – including Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the 74-year-old bishop of Hong Kong who was in the late 1990s forbidden to visit the communist-ruled mainland, his country of birth, after telling a Synod of Bishops at the Vatican there was no freedom of belief in China.

      There was no immediate reaction from the Chinese government, and online versions of China’s English-language media outlets appeared to be ignoring the news on Thursday.

      Appointed as head of Hong Kong’s 230,000 Catholics in 2002, Zen has been outspoken both about the plight of Catholics in mainland China and about Beijing’s conduct towards Hong Kong, specifically its denial of full voting rights to the territory’s seven million people.

      Zen also took part in a mass protest against an attempt by the Hong Kong government, prodded by Beijing, to implement a highly unpopular anti-subversion law.

      The protests were instrumental in the subsequent resignation of Hong Kong’s chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa.

      Zen’s elevation to cardinal will focus anew a spotlight on the testy relationship between the government of the world’s most populous country and a religious institution with more than one billion adherents worldwide.

      China cut ties with the Vatican in the 1950s and established an official “patriotic” denomination that calls itself Catholic and boasts some five million members, but is shunned by Catholics obedient to the pope.

      After 1958, the official denomination began to appoint its own bishops, without approval from the Vatican.

      Roman Catholicism was driven underground and many priests have been jailed over the decades since, but an estimated eight million Catholics loyal to the Vatican continue to meet in secret.

      Because of Hong Kong’s special status – the former British colony reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, under an agreement promising the territory a measure of autonomy – the Catholic Church banned on the mainland is legal there.

      China and the Vatican have in recent years felt out the possibility of re-establishing diplomatic relations but the move has been complicated by various factors.

      Last April, China reiterated its stance, saying it would only establish ties with the Vatican if the Holy See pledged not to interfere in China’s internal affairs, a reference not just to criticism of its policies but also to the church’s universal practice of appointing bishops at the Vatican level rather than in individual countries.

      Beijing also cited as another prerequisite the severing of ties with Taiwan. China regards the island as a rebellious province, and refuses to have diplomatic ties with any nation that recognizes Taipei.

      Taiwan has around 300,000 Catholics and one cardinal, Paul Shan Kuo-his. The Vatican is its only diplomatic ally in Europe.

      Zen told reporters in Hong Kong that his elevation showed that China was a “priority” for the pope.

      China was also a priority for Pope Benedict’s predecessor, who on several occasions expressed the desire to restore diplomatic ties with Beijing.

      In 2003, Pope John Paul II named 30 new cardinals, and said a 31st would be a cardinal “in pectore” (in the heart), a term meaning the person would not be identified for his own safety, usually because he is living in a country where the church is oppressed.

      The move sparked speculation that Zen may have been the secret cardinal, not named because of the sensitivity of the situation.

      With the new pope’s decision, however, the question of the unnamed cardinal’s identity remains open. A Vatican spokesman said last year that the late pope had not revealed the name to anyone before his death.

      As a young man, one of Zen’s teachers was himself a cardinal “in pectore,” chosen by Pope John Paul II just one year after his pontificate began in 1978, and only identified publicly by the pope 12 years later as Kung Pin-mei of China.

      At the time Kung was secretly named cardinal, he was in prison. After 30 years in jail for his faith and a further ten years under house arrest, was allowed to travel to the U.S. for medical treatment in 1987, and died in 2000, aged 98.

    • #3271664

      Idealism or US culturalism?

      by mikebytes ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      While I am of the same generation as the author of this artical and I admire and respect its contents and the responses I would like to suggest that something is better than nothing. As the cliche’says, “Rome was not built in a day”. May I suggest and use repeated history to demonstrate that assimulation into the world order and values comes with time and cultural influence, not by cutting people off. Look what the US had to go through to get rid of the practice of slavery after Europe and already outlawed it. Even so the French, yes the French 🙂 and the English, threatened to take sides with the South primarily for economic reasons as they wanted the South’s cotton. But they were persauded to stay out of the fight for many reasons, not the least of which was moral pressure. Give it some time and let us infest China with freedom and watch it grow.

      • #3272678

        It’s true about Rome

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Idealism or US culturalism?

        But if we have to trade with a nation that killed 65 million of its own people in the 20th century, I’d like for our collective, national spending habits to more actively exert pressure on China to abolish all its thought-control practices and allow the people to choose socialism, or not, with all the choices openly, freely discussed. If we don’t pressure them toward freedom, I expect they’ll pressure our government toward oppression.

      • #3272676

        Cultural Influence?

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Idealism or US culturalism?

        For whatever reason, the US has essentially achieved cultural hegemony in the modern world. No matter where you go, American culture is there. In many areas, including France, this is a subject of some outrage.

        Economics is probably the greatest tool we have; economic issues eventually caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Hopefully, economic pressure can achieve the resulting freedom without the chaos accompanying the Soviet collapse.

        • #3088631

          whatever reason?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Cultural Influence?

          no competition

          Some people in France dislike McDonald’s, for example, but they either have nothing better to offer, or don’t explain adequately why real croissant are better than McMuffins, which I think should be quite easy to explain.

        • #3088449

          Big Mac and The UK

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to whatever reason?

          Closing down twenty three outlets.
          Apparently the UK is their worst performing market.
          Can’t say I’m sorry

        • #3088430

          I’m not surprised

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Big Mac and The UK

          The way I hear it, your country already has an overabundance of disgusting menu items!

          😀

          “Kids! Who wants spotted dick???”

        • #3088284

          What we are missing out on in the states

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I’m not surprised

          is the McBeer! WHAT an idea!

        • #3089557

          Great

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to What we are missing out on in the states

          Get on it jd 🙂

          Cheers, prosit, b*ttoms up,… :O 😉

          Rob

        • #3088278

          Spotted Dick

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I’m not surprised

          Unlike you not to research your subject.

          In no way can any fruit-filled pudding be a “disgusting menu item” if done even half well unless you’ve got a diet hang-up. We do have lots of disgusting menu items but I guarentee that our puddings (highly calorific hot desserts for you US sorts), done properly, do not fall into that category!

          Admittedly, spotted dick is schooldays food but I do eat a helping now and again for a real treat. Simply the thought of a helping of my Gran’s spotted disk with custard can put three pounds on…

          “Kids! Who wants spotted dick???”

          Me! Me!

          Neil :p

        • #3089717

          Only the names are disgusting.

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Spotted Dick

          For the most part, the food is delicious.

          Except haggis, of course. Both the name AND the food are disgusting. What a way to spoil a perfectly good bowl of oatmeal!

          (Yes, Neil, I know haggis is Scottish!)

        • #3089682

          Not really

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Spotted Dick

          “Unlike you not to research your subject.”

          I try to stick to topics I already know. I may Google a fact so I can post a reference before I post my opinions here, but I carry all that knowledge around with me in my squishy gray hard disk.

        • #3089828

          Quarter Pounder with cheese

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Big Mac and The UK

          Classic dialog from Pulp Fiction:

          Vincent: And you know what they call a… a… a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
          Jules: They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
          Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn’t know what the f**k a Quarter Pounder is.
          Jules: Then what do they call it?
          Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.
          Jules: A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?
          Vincent: Well, a Big Mac’s a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac.
          Jules: Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?
          Vincent: I dunno, I didn’t go into Burger King.

        • #3089563

          Australia went metric

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Quarter Pounder with cheese

          in 1966.

          As I have never been so desperately hungry as to consider entering a BigMac outlet, I have no idea what they call a Quarter Pounder now.

          However metrically it would be a 113.4 grammer.

        • #3087707

          Yabbut

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Big Mac and The UK

          Thats not necessarily a UK only trend.

          In Canada, most McDonalds are suffering. I don’t go into them much, but when I do, they are much less busy than they used to be. Not many news ones are built, despite the suburban growth in my neck of the woods. McDonalds is trying despareately to hang on to existing revenue by offering deli sandwiches and promoting “healthy” choices, but it appears to be a loosing battle.

          Burger King and Wendy’s are also suffering. Ten years ago Wendy’s bought the beloved Canadian iconic donut/coffee shop Tim Hortons. Today, as Tim Hortons are sprouting up all over the US, stock analysts are urging Wendy’s to sell it off so that Wendy’s problems dont sink Tim Hortons.

          The Pizza franchises and mmmmuffins franchieses (made with way too much fat) are also suffereing here. Me thinks we see a trend.

          James

    • #3089016

      Is anyone surprised?

      by peter warren ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      It is inevitable that so called free market, democracy champions bend to the will of tyrants in the pursuit of profit. Lets face it. For most of us, freedom means the right to do what we want in order to make money. And as long as we can make a buck, the fate of others is rationalized away with talk of capitalist ideals and the silver bullet of free markets. What we are witnessing is the wholesale surrender of our humanity on the altar of free trade and global economy.

      This is the sad state of American style capitalism and democracy in 2006. Needless to say, our founding fathers would puke at the sight of our country in the grip of greed, incompetence, arrogance and flim-flam free market faith healers.

      • #3088897

        poppycock

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Is anyone surprised?

        There’s nothing “free market” or “pure” capitalist about this. We live within a mixed economy with corporate influence run rampant due to the interference in the market economy by government. Before you start slinging blame, you should try taking an introductory course in macroeconomics so you will know the definitions of the words you’re using.

        • #3085661

          That’s My Point

          by peter warren ·

          In reply to poppycock

          You’re right. There’s nothing free market about this. That’s why we need to wake up and call our Republican “leaders” on the mountain of bs they are pumping down our throats. Or we could just do nothing and choke to death on the endless war, skyrocketing debt and criminal negligence that are the hallmarks of Bush & Co., Inc.

        • #3151587

          Or . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to That’s My Point

          . . . we could start voting our conscience instead of according to headlines. Vote for libertarian candidates rather than “conservative” candidates.

        • #3161172

          poppy illusions

          by henkenm9 ·

          In reply to poppycock

          We have to do a course in economics to listen to our conscience?

        • #3146422

          Are you even paying attention?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to poppy illusions

          What the hell does listening to one’s conscience have to do with misusing a term?

    • #2494508

      Sell your soul

      by comptutor ·

      In reply to What we take for granted — Freedom of the Press

      If you sell your soul to the devil, there’s always a payment extracted in the end… MS, Yahoo, Google and any other unfortunates who choose to sell their soul to communism will find this out, probably too late… but mark my words…. they will have to pay…

Viewing 11 reply threads