"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." ~ John Maynard Keynes
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to “reinvent” journalism, and that’s a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC’s policy staff fears this new reality.
“There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism,” the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue. (Read more from washingtontimes.com)
The Army has detained a 22-year-old soldier in Baghdad in connection with the leak of a military video that shows Apache helicopters gunning down unarmed men in Iraq, including two journalists, defense officials said Monday.
Army Spc. Bradley Manning of Potomac, Md., now being held in Kuwait pending the results of an investigation, was the third suspected leaker known to have been apprehended under the Obama administration. (Read more from myantiwar.org)
I thought this article was sensationalism until I listened to the interview. Where the hell do you find people like this? And how the hell to they rise to such positions of power? The crooks are in charge.
I suspect this guy’s mandate is not to pass the propaganda legislation, but just to introduce the idea to the public as a possibility, to begin a discussion.
Cass Sunstein, who wrote a white paper calling for “conspiracy theories” to be banned, wants to legally force Americans to “do what’s best for our society” and dilute their own free speech.
. . . .
In a set of proposals designed to counter “dangerous” ideas, Sunstein suggested that the government could, “ban conspiracy theorizing,” or “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories”.
So-called “conspiracy theories that Sunstein said could be subject to government censorship included beliefs held by the vast majority of Americans, such as the notion that the JFK assassination occurred as part of a wider plot.
In his white paper, Sunstein also cited the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government censorship.
“If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, that would be great, but if we can’t get voluntary arrangements maybe we should ask Congress to hold hearings.”
“The word voluntary is a little complicated. Sometimes people don’t do what’s best for society.”
THE editor of a journal which publishes controversial medical ideas claims he has been told that he will be fired unless he agrees to make the journal peer-reviewed.
“Medical Hypotheses is the last of the non-peer-reviewed journals in the mainstream scientific literature,” says Bruce Charlton, the editor facing the ultimatum. “They are going to sack me on 11 May unless I unconditionally accept the changes to the journal.”
Elsevier, which also publishes New Scientist, is demanding the changes after it withdrew two controversial papers that Medical Hypotheses published last year, one of them questioning whether HIV causes AIDS. Following an internal review, Elsevier ordered Charlton to introduce peer review and to devote extra attention to potentially controversial articles.
Charlton says that peer review would undermine the spirit of the journal, which is to challenge prevailing dogma. At present, Charlton alone decides what to publish.
Rob Heller, a spokesman for Elsevier, says the company has acted ethically towards Charlton but, “as owner of the journal, we have every right and obligation to make the final decision on the editorial policies of the journal”. (Read more from newscientist.com)
IJ fighting a mandate to register with the government before becoming a “grassroots lobbyist.”
At least 36 states have laws requiring people who engage in this kind of activity to register with the government. In Washington, which has one of the most extensive regulations affecting citizen political participation in the nation, if you spend above an artificially low government-imposed cap to urge your fellow citizens to contact government officials, you are forced to register with the government and report your name, address, business, and occupation, the names and addresses of anyone with whom you are working to spread your message, and the names and addresses of each person who contributes as little as $25 to your efforts.
In other words, in Washington, if you speak too much about politics, the government wants to know about it. Moreover, the government does not merely collect this information—it makes it available to anyone with access to the Internet. Your name, address, business and occupation are provided to the world because you dared to exercise your fundamental First Amendment rights.
The Institute for Justice to file suit against the members ofWashingtons Public Disclosure Commission. Many Cultures, One Message et al. v. Clements seeks to vindicate the fundamental right of all Americans to engage in political activity without governmental interference.
There’s been a lot of buzz about this on the internet. I think some of the reporting overstates what these stolen emails reveal. They don’t show a coordinated conspiracy to lie about global warming. They do, however reveal many scientists’ bias against opposing views, as well as their pettiness.
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was “tempted to beat” up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday. (Read more from wsj.com)
This celebratory, told-you-so video by climate skeptics is probably premature, but it is funny:
This examination of the latest theories about the J.F.K. assassination & cover-up was shown once in November, 2003 and quickly suppressed, due mainly to outrage and threat of a lawsuit by family and former associates of L.B.J. who is targeted in the documentary as being a lead conspirator in the Kennedy assassination plot and other murders as well.
Unbelievable! Expect more crap like this as government takes more control of healthcare.
Outraged that the federal government placed a gag order on healthcare companies concerning cuts in Medicare, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to condemn this muzzling of free speech and to demand that the gag order be lifted.
. . . .
We did some research into this inexcusable tactic on the part of the government and discovered that the powerful Senator who directed the Medicare agency to impose the gag order is none other than Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Montana. (Read more from examiner.com)
“President Barack Obama sent a letter July 29 to Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham informing them that he would work with Congress to ensure legislation is passed that would block the release of any photographs and videos depicting U.S. Soldiers abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan captured after 9/11.” (Read more from pubrecord.org)
Ron Paul is certainly getting more mainstream media attention than he did when he ran for President, but the censors are still at work.
Justin Miller deserves credit for his Atlantic article pointing out how Gallup and Rasmussen polling agencies are ignoring Ron Paul as a potential 2012 candidate. They list Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour, but no Ron Paul. Justin Miller makes the rather obvious case for Ron Paul’s consideration.
Rasmussen: “In a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, it’s close to a three-way tie when GOP voters are asked whom they would vote for � from among a list of six prominent Republicans – in the 2012 party primary in their state: 25% say Romney, while 24% say Palin and 22% opt for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
After that, GOP primary voters list former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (14%), while Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty each received one percent (1%) of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate.”
(What a convenient list of establishment candidates.)
Kudos to Justin Miller, but I feel he should have at least acknowledged the widespread censorship and slander Ron Paul faced during his presidential campaign. I detailed much of it here: Censoring Ron Paul – Why the rEVOLution will not be televised, back when I was a fledgling blogger. I saved my own copies of only some (not all) of the offending coverage. Unfortunately, some of the most glaring examples have been removed by the news sources.
***
Lets not be surprised that Rasmussen is ignoring Ron Paul now. They even did so DURING the election:
(click for saved web page)
And this poll was AFTER Ron Paul’s 6-million-dollar money bomb.
USA Today cover story / photos / candidate-profiles covered four of the five candidates still in race at the time. The excluded candidate was . . . (drum roll) . . . Ron Paul.
MSNBC debate bias
Romney: 21 minutes, 11 seconds (12 answers and asked 1 question)
McCain: 16 minutes even (12 answers and asked 1 question)
Giuliani: 13 minutes and 50 seconds (10 answers and asked 1 question)
Huckabee: 12 minutes and 11 seconds (8 answers and asked 1 question)
Paul: 6 minutes and 31 seconds (5 answers and asked 1 question)
In a staggering display of selective perception, NY Times columnist Bob Herbert laments the GOP’s militancy, completely ignoring Ron Paul’s presence. This is especially asinine, as Herbert’s own beliefs most closely resemble Paul’s. Herbert mentions all GOP presidential candidates in his column except . . . (surprise, surprise) . . . Ron Paul.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to “reinvent” journalism, and that’s a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC’s policy staff fears this new reality.
(Read more from washingtontimes.com)
