Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 On Aug 22, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote: > Well, yes. True. Some is loaded with more propaganda than others. I > think that Fox News has far more " false or misleading propaganda " than > say Maddow, or Jon . I agree. I'm done with Olbermann, he's lost a lot of his credibility, but I believe Maddow, whatever her own views, tries to get the story right and to be fair, and she doesn't have to go into histrionics to do it. And Jon dishes out a lot of wisdom with the laughs. Sometimes he's too silly for me, but we all need to laugh sometimes! I don't have cable TV now but I catch him on YouTube or HuffPost occasionally. > A bit confused by this because the implication is that there are > corporate controlled leftists in Congress. There are perhaps a handful > of people in Congress that could be considered leftists, some more > that might be considered liberal - but liberalism is basically just > another strategy for solidifying corporate control. I agree. Liberal corporatists may have different spending priorities than conservative corporatists, but they all want big business to be the main partners of government -- as opposed to the little guy, individual citizens. Not to take the side of left vs right, but there really isn't much of a left in U.S. politics anymore at all, despite what folks on Fox News will tell you (they think Obama is a socialist, for pete's sake, whereas in fact he's very, very centrist and all too wedded to Wall Street and corporate power) as the whole country shifted to the right in the 80s and 90s. And corporations just don't fund real lefties -- say, a Ralph Nader? though some would just call him a populist -- but they do fund mainstream/centrist liberals. From at least Clinton's time on, they learned to go to Wall Street for funding just like the Republicans do. > I see stuff challenging the system in fundamental ways in truly > leftwing/progressive sources. Certainly znet.org, or counterpunch, and > plenty of others challenge basic capitalistic assumptions (obviously > to varying degrees depending on the authors). The Realnews network is > pretty good - and it is viewer supported. Counterpunch is great. They are honest. I don't think they're right about everything (no one with a strong viewpoint is going to get everything right) but I believe they are honest. Truthout.org is very good. They definitely don't have corporate funding, they're hanging on my a thread. > But I don't think that there are corporate funded leftist sites or > newspapers - that would be enough to make me suspicious of them > immediately. I agree, though I wouldn't put it past some clever PR folks to think of a way to fake this to give their company street cred, but this is something you see much more of on the right, funding front groups that are meant to sound very " patriotic " and grass-roots, but they're largely corporate, with a few dupes for window-dressing. There are websites that track this sort of thing. PRwatch.org, maplight.org to track corporate contributions and votes, etc, come to mind. Jeanmarie > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 ah - I can see how you wouldn't like Olbermann - he definitely has his 'schtick', and it can be annoying, but I do like him. Overall, I find him less respectful of power than either or Maddow, actually. I also admit to an affection for Colbert. Perhaps part of that is an admiration of his with - I find his spontaneous wit to be quite impressive at times. Lordy, lordy, we seem to agree about a lot of stuff.... > > On Aug 22, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote: > > > Well, yes. True. Some is loaded with more propaganda than others. I > > think that Fox News has far more " false or misleading propaganda " > than > > say Maddow, or Jon . > > I agree. I'm done with Olbermann, he's lost a lot of his credibility, > but I believe Maddow, whatever her own views, tries to get the > story right and to be fair, and she doesn't have to go into > histrionics to do it. And Jon dishes out a lot of wisdom with > the laughs. Sometimes he's too silly for me, but we all need to laugh > sometimes! I don't have cable TV now but I catch him on YouTube or > HuffPost occasionally. > > > A bit confused by this because the implication is that there are > > corporate controlled leftists in Congress. There are perhaps a > handful > > of people in Congress that could be considered leftists, some more > > that might be considered liberal - but liberalism is basically just > > another strategy for solidifying corporate control. > > I agree. Liberal corporatists may have different spending priorities > than conservative corporatists, but they all want big business to be > the main partners of government -- as opposed to the little guy, > individual citizens. Not to take the side of left vs right, but there > really isn't much of a left in U.S. politics anymore at all, despite > what folks on Fox News will tell you (they think Obama is a socialist, > for pete's sake, whereas in fact he's very, very centrist and all too > wedded to Wall Street and corporate power) as the whole country > shifted to the right in the 80s and 90s. And corporations just don't > fund real lefties -- say, a Ralph Nader? though some would just call > him a populist -- but they do fund mainstream/centrist liberals. From > at least Clinton's time on, they learned to go to Wall Street for > funding just like the Republicans do. > > > I see stuff challenging the system in fundamental ways in truly > > leftwing/progressive sources. Certainly znet.org, or counterpunch, > and > > plenty of others challenge basic capitalistic assumptions (obviously > > to varying degrees depending on the authors). The Realnews network > is > > pretty good - and it is viewer supported. > > Counterpunch is great. They are honest. I don't think they're right > about everything (no one with a strong viewpoint is going to get > everything right) but I believe they are honest. Truthout.org is very > good. They definitely don't have corporate funding, they're hanging on > my a thread. > > > But I don't think that there are corporate funded leftist sites or > > newspapers - that would be enough to make me suspicious of them > > immediately. > > I agree, though I wouldn't put it past some clever PR folks to think > of a way to fake this to give their company street cred, but this is > something you see much more of on the right, funding front groups that > are meant to sound very " patriotic " and grass-roots, but they're > largely corporate, with a few dupes for window-dressing. There are > websites that track this sort of thing. PRwatch.org, maplight.org to > track corporate contributions and votes, etc, come to mind. > Jeanmarie > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 > > > A bit confused by this because the implication is that there are > > corporate controlled leftists in Congress. There are perhaps a handful > > of people in Congress that could be considered leftists, some more > > that might be considered liberal - but liberalism is basically just > > another strategy for solidifying corporate control. > > I agree. Liberal corporatists may have different spending priorities > than conservative corporatists, but they all want big business to be > the main partners of government -- as opposed to the little guy, > individual citizens. Not to take the side of left vs right, but there > really isn't much of a left in U.S. politics anymore at all, despite > what folks on Fox News will tell you (they think Obama is a socialist, > for pete's sake, whereas in fact he's very, very centrist and all too > wedded to Wall Street and corporate power) as the whole country > shifted to the right in the 80s and 90s. And corporations just don't > fund real lefties -- say, a Ralph Nader? though some would just call > him a populist -- but they do fund mainstream/centrist liberals. From > at least Clinton's time on, they learned to go to Wall Street for > funding just like the Republicans do. Actually, the oligarchs (who are corporatists) have historically funded communism and communist leaders and manipulated US presidents and policy to allow communist leaders to come to power because communism concentrates capital and power into the hands of a few leaders. (Not to mention these leaders brutally murdered millions of their citizens.) It is much easier for the oligarchs to control a few folks at the top than it is for them to control dispersed power and capital. That is one of the main reasons that I think it's critical to restore the Constitution in so far as I understand that it leaves the bulk of power with the states and citizens and limits the power of the Federal government. (I'm not saying I think the Constitution is perfect, though.) As long as we keep concentrating power into the hands of a few at the top by allowing them to pass legislation that dictates just about every aspect of our lives from what lightbulbs we can use to making it illegal to hurt someone's feelings on the Internet and a million other controls on our lives in between, then we will be under oligarchic control. What is little known, I think, is that the same relatively small group of oligarchs control/influence both left and right at the highest levels. If there are no true lefties at those levels it's most likely because their rivals were funded by the oligarchs or they were smeared in some way before rising to the top. This is the same reason Ron got so little media coverage during the Presidential campaign - they simply can't control him, so best to ensure a media blackout. Now that the race is over, he gets a helluva lot more media coverage. Suze Fisher " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. " ~Albert Schweitzer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Love that Albert Schweitzer quotation. Ron in fact got tons of media coverage, far more than his actual vote-getting could account for. There was a lot of genuine excitement about him, that possibly someone actually different could get some notice. Reporters love an underdog story, and anyone that's different. I think it was the Republican National Committee that kept him out of some of the debates (or tried to? hard to remember a year ago), because when he did appear he made the rest of them look ridiculous. It wasn't for lack of media coverage. I have a lot of respect for him. He's also way off base on some critical issues, close to being a global warming denier. But we certainly could do worse. I haven't seen much about him at all recently. Jeanmarie On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Suze Fisher wrote: > What is little known, I think, is that the same relatively small > group of > oligarchs control/influence both left and right at the highest > levels. If > there are no true lefties at those levels it's most likely because > their > rivals were funded by the oligarchs or they were smeared in some way > before > rising to the top. This is the same reason Ron got so little > media > coverage during the Presidential campaign - they simply can't > control him, > so best to ensure a media blackout. Now that the race is over, he > gets a > helluva lot more media coverage. > > Suze Fisher > > " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the > sight. " > ~Albert Schweitzer > . > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 > Ron in fact got tons of media coverage, far more than his actual > vote-getting could account for. Not from an objective perspective. His media coverage was actually measured in units of time on the air and/or amount of print space, IIRC, and compared to that of the other candidates. According to that study, he got a mere fraction of what the other candidates got during the primary campaign. There was a lot of genuine excitement > about him, that possibly someone actually different could get some > notice. Reporters love an underdog story, and anyone that's different. Sure, but as you said in your last post, they don't make the final decisions on how much coverage they give to what story. > I think it was the Republican National Committee that kept him out of > some of the debates (or tried to? hard to remember a year ago), > because when he did appear he made the rest of them look ridiculous. Yes, but most visibly, the media did a blackout, especially after he made the other candidates look ridiculous. > It wasn't for lack of media coverage. I have a lot of respect for him. > He's also way off base on some critical issues, close to being a > global warming denier. But we certainly could do worse. I haven't seen > much about him at all recently. Sigh...well, the term " global warming denier " insinuates that someone who doesn't necessarily believe the " global warming is anthropogenic " propaganda is akin to a Holocaust denier. In the meantime, Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank from his shares in a carbon trading firm that will make him substantially wealthier than he already is once the " cap and trade " bill is passed. There are literally *thousands* of scientists who disagree with the global warming is anthropogenic campaign, which, IMO, is a politically-based campaign, not a scientifically-based one. According to monetary historian Gause, even the master thief Henry son spent $3 million of his OWN money each year for several years to promote the idea that global warming is anthropogenic. I'm sure he just did that out of concern for us little people and there's nothing in it for him. He just strikes me as that kinda guy... Suze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Sorry, Suze, science isn't the same as a popularity contest or religious beliefs, which don't have to be supported by anything more than fervent wishful thinking. Propaganda characterizes the right-wing anti-scientific propaganda funded by the oil and gas industries. For a very good blog on climate science by climate scientists, see http://climateprogress.org/ and http://www.realclimate.org/. The leading scientific bodies of the U.S. and every other country that I'm aware of (at least 20 others) have long since reached a general consensus as to the causes and risks of climate change (it's not just about warming). The body of knowledge is constantly expanding and evidence continues to pile up. Until you come up to speed on this, there isn't really any point in discussing it further. I put a lot of other useful references in a recent post. BTW, I started out on the " denier " side of the debate until I realized in about 2005 that I hadn't actually read anything by scientists themselves, only right-wing and libertarian sources, for many years and hadn't really reconsidered my position since I arrived at it. So I put aside my preconceptions and opened my eyes. Happy reading. Jeanmarie On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Suze Fisher wrote: > > Ron in fact got tons of media coverage, far more than his > actual > > vote-getting could account for. > > Not from an objective perspective. His media coverage was actually > measured > in units of time on the air and/or amount of print space, IIRC, and > compared > to that of the other candidates. According to that study, he got a > mere > fraction of what the other candidates got during the primary campaign. > > There was a lot of genuine excitement > > about him, that possibly someone actually different could get some > > notice. Reporters love an underdog story, and anyone that's > different. > > Sure, but as you said in your last post, they don't make the final > decisions > on how much coverage they give to what story. > > > I think it was the Republican National Committee that kept him out > of > > some of the debates (or tried to? hard to remember a year ago), > > because when he did appear he made the rest of them look ridiculous. > > Yes, but most visibly, the media did a blackout, especially after he > made > the other candidates look ridiculous. > > > It wasn't for lack of media coverage. I have a lot of respect for > him. > > He's also way off base on some critical issues, close to being a > > global warming denier. But we certainly could do worse. I haven't > seen > > much about him at all recently. > > Sigh...well, the term " global warming denier " insinuates that > someone who > doesn't necessarily believe the " global warming is anthropogenic " > propaganda > is akin to a Holocaust denier. > > In the meantime, Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank from > his shares > in a carbon trading firm that will make him substantially wealthier > than he > already is once the " cap and trade " bill is passed. > > There are literally *thousands* of scientists who disagree with the > global > warming is anthropogenic campaign, which, IMO, is a politically-based > campaign, not a scientifically-based one. According to monetary > historian > Gause, even the master thief Henry son spent $3 million > of his > OWN money each year for several years to promote the idea that global > warming is anthropogenic. I'm sure he just did that out of concern > for us > little people and there's nothing in it for him. He just strikes me > as that > kinda guy... > > Suze > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 > Sorry, Suze, science isn't the same as a popularity contest or > religious beliefs, which don't have to be supported by anything more > than fervent wishful thinking. I agree, although I think it's somewhat denigrating to those with religious beliefs to say they are only supported by fervent wishful thinking. That said, I completely agree that science - real science, in any event, isn't a popularity contest. However, as most of us on this board know, data is constantly being manipulated or selectively interpreted in order to conform to the commands or wishes of an industry sponsor or political campaign. The Lipid Hypothesis is a prime case in point. Propaganda characterizes the right-wing > anti-scientific propaganda funded by the oil and gas industries. But when you go up one level (again) you'll see that the ruling oligarchs who own large portions of industries that would benefit from denying anthropogenic global warming, are also the ones that would benefit richly from the population being persuaded that anthropogenic global warming IS a major player as compared to natural causes. Remember, it's about the consolidation of power and wealth vertically upward from us to them. One of the most effective ways this has been accomplished historically by ruling classes or oligarchs is to garner significant control over a population by proxy through its governing body - preferably a centralized government. Legislation controlling every aspects of our " carbon footprint " would accomplish this. For instance, a population believing that THEY are largely responsible for global warming and fearful of the consequences is much easier to control with such draconian legislation like " cap and trade " . We will be taxed on just about everything we do. Guess where at least half of our tax dollars go? The privately owned Fed - the main seat of the ruling oligarchs. We are already living in a near police state, brought on by stealth to a great degree since the corporate media doesn't report it, like they don't report the trillions being siphoned from us to the Fed banksters. How much worse will it get when every aspect of our lives is regulated in relation to its carbon output? Will there be a tax on breathing one day? Anyway, the point is...things are not always as they seem. These guys are not dumb - they are very crafty in shaping public opinion and when you think you understand their very simple move on the chessboard, they come up from behind with a brilliantly complex one that is not what you expected and that accomplishes their goal. For a > very good blog on climate science by climate scientists, see > http://climateprogress.org/ and > http://www.realclimate.org/. The leading scientific bodies of the U.S. > and every other country that I'm aware of (at least 20 others) have > long since reached a general consensus as to the causes and risks of > climate change (it's not just about warming). Yes, and the leading scientific bodies of the US and other countries have also long since reached general consensus that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease. The body of knowledge is > constantly expanding and evidence continues to pile up. Until you come > up to speed on this, there isn't really any point in discussing it > further. Huh, well, I don't claim to have spent countless hours researching this subject, but I do claim to have heard enough data, read enough on it and heard enough interviews with climate-related scientists, as well as looking at the question " who benefits " to be quite skeptical. By the way, the first time I heard that global warming is largely due to natural causes was at a lecture at a WAPF conference about 3-4 years ago. The lecture was by the " Carbon Farmers of America " , who are a grassroots group of grass farmers who make a compelling argument that restoration of the Great Plains and other grasslands could reduce global warming significantly (the grasslands act as a carbon sink). Some of the data the lecturer presented showed man-made causes to be just a fraction of natural causes of global warming. At the time I was a proponent of the global warming is man made theory, so this was news to me that it could be anything else. I put a lot of other useful references in a recent post. BTW, > I started out on the " denier " side of the debate until I realized in > about 2005 that I hadn't actually read anything by scientists > themselves, only right-wing and libertarian sources, for many years > and hadn't really reconsidered my position since I arrived at it. So I > put aside my preconceptions and opened my eyes. Happy reading. That's about a reverse mirror image of my experience - I started out as a global warming believer and somewhat ardently clung to that till I started reading some scientific literature on it as well as becoming aware of the fact that some of the biggest promoters would benefit financially from the paradigm. I'm pretty good at not clinging to preconceptions these days, and do try to be self aware about it. I don't have time to look further at the global warming/cooling issue right now as I barely have enough time to work on my vaccine lecture which is my #1 priority. That and other demands are the reason I tried resisting getting caught up in this thread in the first place. Suze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.