SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ron who wrote (68209)5/18/2006 10:01:19 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362905
 
Oil Drum's take on it...

Yesterday Treehugger (via Think Progress) noted that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is releasing two new 60-second ads aimed at countering scientific claims about global warming. This is, of course, timed to coincide with the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's movie about global warming.

Today, Treehugger reports that they finally got around to watching the ads, and then they write:

we thought we would look at them to see if they could be parodied, but they cannot, they are already parodies. It is as if they hired Jon Stewart to put them together, because they are truly the funniest thing we have seen in weeks.
I couldn't agree more (and apparently, neither can Gristmill.) I have to say that my personal favorite scene—featured in both ads—is when they show a shot of absurdly over-neoned Times Square at night while the voice-over explains how we need fossil fuels to "light up our lives". Oh yeah, this is good stuff. Go take a look.
And let us know if you've actually seen these ads on TV. The CEI website says they'll be airing in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006. I'd be curious to know which cities those are.
theoildrum.com



To: Ron who wrote (68209)5/18/2006 10:55:28 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 362905
 
What has become of Americans?
Imagine knocking on America's door and being told, "Americans don't live here any longer. They have gone away." But isn't that what we are hearing, that Americans have gone away? Alan Shore told us so on ABC's "Boston Legal" on March 14:

"When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true, I expected the American people to rise up. They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorist suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people even seem to notice.

The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest. Stop for a second and try to fathom that. At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you're wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This! In the United States of America."

Readers tell me that Americans don't live here any more. They ask what responsible American citizenry would put up with the trashing of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, with wars based on deception, and with pathological liars in control of their government? One reader recently wrote that he believes that "no element of the U.S. government has been left untainted" by the lies and manipulations that have driven away accountability. So-called leaders, he wrote, "talk a great story of American pride and patriotism," but in their hands patriotism is merely a device for "cynical manipulation and fraud."

The Bush regime acknowledges that 30,000 Iraqi civilians, largely women and children, have been killed as a result of Bush's invasion. Others who have looked at civilian casualties with greater attention have come up with numbers three to six times as large. The Johns Hopkins study accounted for 98,000 civilian deaths. Patrick Cockburn, using more sophisticated statistical analysis, concluded that 180,000 Iraqis died as a result of Bush's invasion. The former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi says that Iraqi sectarian violence alone is claiming 50-60 deaths per day, or 18,000-22,000 annually, a figure that could quickly worsen. Some were killed by "smart bombs" that weren't very smart and dropped on hospitals, schools, and weddings. Others were mistaken for resistance fighters and killed. Still others were killed by spooked, trigger-happy U.S. troops.

Now comes a report in the online edition of Time magazine that U.S. Marines went on a rampage in the village of Haditha and deliberately slaughtered 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes. The Iraqis were still in their bed clothes, and 10 of the 15 were women and children.

The Marines turned in a false report that the civilians were killed by an insurgent bomb. But the evidence of wanton carnage was too powerful. Pressed by Time's collection of evidence, U.S. military officials in Baghdad opened an investigation. Time reports that "according to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which will conduct a criminal investigation." [Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha? By Tim McGirk, Mar. 19, 2006]
Related article
The Downing Street Memos: piecing together the political puzzle
If this story is true, under Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush's leadership, proud and honorable U.S. Marines have degenerated into the Waffen SS. Those of us raised on John Wayne war movies find this very hard to take.

A fish rots from the head. Clearly, deception in the Oval Office is corrupting the U.S. military. One reader reported that on March 19 his local PBS station aired a program which discussed the deaths of two young American soldiers in friendly fire incidents similar to Pat Tillman's death. In each case, he reports, "elements within the military falsified reports and attempted to shift blame to either enemy combatants or allied (Polish) forces."

The neocons have yet to tell us the real reason for their assault on Iraq, which has so far produced 20,000 dead, maimed, and wounded U.S. soldiers, between 30,000 and 180,000 (and rising) dead Iraqis, and demoralized U.S. Marines to the point that they commit atrocities on women and children.

Would real Americans accept these blows for the sake of an undeclared agenda? Perhaps it is true that Americans don't live here any longer.
counterthink.org



To: Ron who wrote (68209)5/18/2006 11:00:05 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362905
 
Actually, meant to post you this: Bush Administration Censors Scientists In Order to Promote A Distorted, Politically Motivated Scientific View
Posted Saturday, August 07, 2004 by Mike Adams
Print this article Permalink: counterthink.org
Key concepts: Bush administration, censorship and sugar industry.
The Bush administration has gone to great lengths to influence the voice of the scientific community. In a clear case of politics attempting to direct science, the U.S. government has now imposed limits on which scientists can speak to the World Health Organization. The new rules require scientists to get permission from the Health and Human Services Department before they can speak to the WHO. Of this scientific censorship effort, Congressman Henry Waxman has said, "This is a raw attempt to exert control over scientists and scientific evidence in the area of international health." But what's the story behind this story? What's really going on here?

This censorship stems from the fact that commercial interests of corporations closely allied with the Bush administration no longer parallel the interests of international health, and rather than adhering to the fundamental laws of international health and wellness that would require changes in the marketing and production of foods and beverages in the United States, the Bush administration is attempting to erect sort of a Berlin wall to prevent communication between the World Health Organization and U.S. scientists.

As a concrete example of why this is in the interest of the Bush administration, let's examine the role of the sugar industry in the recent attempt by the World Health Organization to adopt a new position that would instruct member countries and their populations to limit the consumption of added sugars. This attempt to limit added sugars in the human diet stood at odds with the commercial and financial interests of the big sugar industry in the United States -- as well as soft drink manufacturers, candy bar companies, and other manufacturers of junk foods.

As it turns out, these organizations have strong financial and political ties to the Bush administration. The sugar industry, for example, donated heavily to the Bush administration during the 2000 presidential campaign, and Big Sugar continues to spend far more money funding Republican candidates than Democratic ones.

What this all comes down to, by the way, is political censorship of the scientific voice of America. The Bush administration, in its unprecedented desire to win at all costs and exercise power and control over the U.S. population, will seemingly stoop to any dirty tactic in order to achieve its political goals. This includes censoring scientists who don't reflect the Bush administration's distorted views on issues regarding health and wellness.

It's easy to imagine that this also has ramifications in the pharmaceutical industry as well. Any scientist who doesn't agree with the Bush administration's views on pharmaceuticals -- and the administration is, of course, closely allied with pharmaceutical companies -- will be prevented from attending international conferences or communicating with the World Health Organization.
counterthink.org

The bottom line is that if you thought the war with Iraq was the outer limit of the abuses of power the Bush administration is willing to pursue in its quest for control, think again. As it turns out, it will also suppress scientific truth in order to make sure that only its own distorted pseudo-scientific views ever see the light of day.