Sunday, October 9, 2011
Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/keith-olbermann-reads-the-statement-released-by-the-wall-street-protesters-2011-10-05-video
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Hideous, loathsome troll Liz Cheney argues with O'Reilly over that greeted as liberators thing
The conversation then turned to Iraq. O'Reilly played the infamous footage of Cheney saying the U.S. would be "greeted as liberators." Liz Cheney said that this had, in fact, happened.
"Here's why you're wrong," O'Reilly said. "We weren't greeted as liberators. We were greeted in a way that was tentative."
"That's not true," Cheney said. "Yes it is," he replied. He asked her if she knew how many people were present when Saddam Hussein's statue was pulled down.
***
"I don't expect you and your father to agree with me, OK?" O'Reilly concluded. "But the blood and treasure that the United States spent in Iraq has now come back to our country in a very negative way."
See Video at link above~
"Here's why you're wrong," O'Reilly said. "We weren't greeted as liberators. We were greeted in a way that was tentative."
"That's not true," Cheney said. "Yes it is," he replied. He asked her if she knew how many people were present when Saddam Hussein's statue was pulled down.
***
"I don't expect you and your father to agree with me, OK?" O'Reilly concluded. "But the blood and treasure that the United States spent in Iraq has now come back to our country in a very negative way."
See Video at link above~
Defending jobs
Sep 12th 2011, 13:37 by The Economist online
Who are the world's biggest employers?
ONE of the biggest headaches for policymakers in many rich countries has been how to create jobs during a period of fiscal austerity and anaemic growth. The private sector has been slow to generate jobs, and government-spending cuts usually end up cutting jobs. And governments employ a lot of people: in our chart of the ten biggest global employers, below, seven are government-run. America's defence department had 3.2m people on its payroll last year, equivalent to 1% of the country's population. China, the world's most populous nation and a big military spender, employs 2.3m people in its armed forces. And the number of people working for the National Health Service in England is equivalent to over 2.5% of the country's population. The three private companies are Walmart, McDonald's and Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Company, a subsidiary of which is Foxconn, a secretive electronics manufacturer. Go to link above for more...
Who are the world's biggest employers?
ONE of the biggest headaches for policymakers in many rich countries has been how to create jobs during a period of fiscal austerity and anaemic growth. The private sector has been slow to generate jobs, and government-spending cuts usually end up cutting jobs. And governments employ a lot of people: in our chart of the ten biggest global employers, below, seven are government-run. America's defence department had 3.2m people on its payroll last year, equivalent to 1% of the country's population. China, the world's most populous nation and a big military spender, employs 2.3m people in its armed forces. And the number of people working for the National Health Service in England is equivalent to over 2.5% of the country's population. The three private companies are Walmart, McDonald's and Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Company, a subsidiary of which is Foxconn, a secretive electronics manufacturer. Go to link above for more...
he Muslim World Brings Forth a Counter-Jihad
Posted on Sep 15, 2011
By Lee Smith
“Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World”
A book by Robin Wright
With the Arab Spring still unfolding, former Washington Post reporter Robin Wright’s latest book puts the popular uprisings that have swept the Arabic-speaking Middle East from North Africa and the Levant to the Persian Gulf littoral in the context of a larger movement: counter-jihad. Muslims around the world, she writes, are “increasingly rejecting extremism. The many forms of militancy—from the venomous Sunni creed of al-Qaida to the punitive Shiite theocracy in Iran—have proven costly, unproductive and ultimately unappealing.”
Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World
By Robin Wright
Simon & Schuster, 320 pages
"In other words, Osama bin Laden’s efforts produced a result contrary to his intentions. After 9/11 dragged the United States into the Middle East in force, Muslims turned not toward extremism but moderation. According to Wright’s survey of the Muslim world, bin Laden’s message was dead long before the Navy SEALs brought him down in May. “Rock the Casbah,” then, is an introduction to the Muslim world 10 years after 9/11, and the author’s purpose is partly to illuminate and partly to instruct.
From Wright’s perspective,Americans’ view of Muslims and Islam hasn’t caught up to the reality. In spite of developments in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, she argues, the past decade here in the United States was “shaped largely by fear of everything from a global clash of civilizations to a new neighborhood mosque.” more at link... above.
By Lee Smith
“Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World”
A book by Robin Wright
With the Arab Spring still unfolding, former Washington Post reporter Robin Wright’s latest book puts the popular uprisings that have swept the Arabic-speaking Middle East from North Africa and the Levant to the Persian Gulf littoral in the context of a larger movement: counter-jihad. Muslims around the world, she writes, are “increasingly rejecting extremism. The many forms of militancy—from the venomous Sunni creed of al-Qaida to the punitive Shiite theocracy in Iran—have proven costly, unproductive and ultimately unappealing.”
Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World
By Robin Wright
Simon & Schuster, 320 pages
"In other words, Osama bin Laden’s efforts produced a result contrary to his intentions. After 9/11 dragged the United States into the Middle East in force, Muslims turned not toward extremism but moderation. According to Wright’s survey of the Muslim world, bin Laden’s message was dead long before the Navy SEALs brought him down in May. “Rock the Casbah,” then, is an introduction to the Muslim world 10 years after 9/11, and the author’s purpose is partly to illuminate and partly to instruct.
From Wright’s perspective,Americans’ view of Muslims and Islam hasn’t caught up to the reality. In spite of developments in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, she argues, the past decade here in the United States was “shaped largely by fear of everything from a global clash of civilizations to a new neighborhood mosque.” more at link... above.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Fairness Doctrine
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates." more at link....
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates." more at link....
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
WikiLeaks Swept up and away (oh my!)
"The release of all the leaked embassy cables marks both the end of WikiLeaks and the beginning of an era
Sep 10th 2011 | NEW YORK | from the print edition
IF CYBERSPACE had air, it would be thick with recriminations. Thanks to a series of slips compounded by warring whistle-blowing egos, an entire trove of 251,000 purloined American diplomatic cables has been published online. The result may be fatal for WikiLeaks, as well as embarrassingly revealing governments’ misdeeds, mishaps, evasions and cover-ups. One cable has allegations that American troops executed an Iraqi family, including five small children, in 2006. (The government in Baghdad has reopened an investigation.) Another questions the long-term safety of China’s nuclear-power plans. In a third, a Bulgarian minister admits to misleading environmentalists about legislation on genetically modified crops.
Previously released cables also featured unvarnished opinions. But the new lot include the names of people who talked to American officials. In countries like China that could bring nasty consequences. Even the most ardent advocates of open government would not defend the publication (also in the cables) of the private phone numbers of foreign leaders, such as the Queen of the Netherlands (a note adds that she speaks English well). WikiLeaks had earlier worked with media allies who edited out such sensitive details, though relations have now soured." More at link above....
Sep 10th 2011 | NEW YORK | from the print edition
IF CYBERSPACE had air, it would be thick with recriminations. Thanks to a series of slips compounded by warring whistle-blowing egos, an entire trove of 251,000 purloined American diplomatic cables has been published online. The result may be fatal for WikiLeaks, as well as embarrassingly revealing governments’ misdeeds, mishaps, evasions and cover-ups. One cable has allegations that American troops executed an Iraqi family, including five small children, in 2006. (The government in Baghdad has reopened an investigation.) Another questions the long-term safety of China’s nuclear-power plans. In a third, a Bulgarian minister admits to misleading environmentalists about legislation on genetically modified crops.
Previously released cables also featured unvarnished opinions. But the new lot include the names of people who talked to American officials. In countries like China that could bring nasty consequences. Even the most ardent advocates of open government would not defend the publication (also in the cables) of the private phone numbers of foreign leaders, such as the Queen of the Netherlands (a note adds that she speaks English well). WikiLeaks had earlier worked with media allies who edited out such sensitive details, though relations have now soured." More at link above....
Monday, September 5, 2011
Federal Courts Rule it is Not Illegal to Film Police
"The First Court of Appeals has reached a decision that would allow the general public to video-tape police officers while they are working. This decision comes right after several well-known public cases have come to light involving citizens being arrested for video-taping police.
This specific case in question was Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston (and several police officers), in which a teenage Simon Gilk was arrested after videotaping Boston Police abusing a homeless man. While Mr. Gilk was not interfering with the police, he was arrested on wiretapping charges.
The ACLU had sued on his behalf, even when the charges were dropped, noting that there was a growing epidemic of citizens in the United States being arrested by police for videotaping, even when documenting police brutality and abuse.
The First Court Agreed with the ACLU that this should be legal, and wrote that: "The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
More at link above...
This specific case in question was Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston (and several police officers), in which a teenage Simon Gilk was arrested after videotaping Boston Police abusing a homeless man. While Mr. Gilk was not interfering with the police, he was arrested on wiretapping charges.
The ACLU had sued on his behalf, even when the charges were dropped, noting that there was a growing epidemic of citizens in the United States being arrested by police for videotaping, even when documenting police brutality and abuse.
The First Court Agreed with the ACLU that this should be legal, and wrote that: "The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
More at link above...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)