Dan Rather Article About US Press

[Mark Heide]

Here it is for everyone to read. An example to prove that I'm still sane!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2029634.stm

Thanks Brad

Mark

[brad]

you can listen to alex jones over the internet (or download it) with no commercials.

much better than tv.

waiting for your post on patriot act part 2 which hasnt been passed yet but has been leaked (i believe bill moyers on pbs was the one it was leaked to). heh

[Jimbo]

Mark, quoting Dan rather falls far short of proving your sanity.

[Mark Heide]

Jimbo,

I know what to do! I'll go outside and march down the street waving my American flag. That should prove I'm sane.

Mark

[Jimbo]

Mark,

I never meant to impune your sanity, just suggesting that quoting Dan Rather was heading in the wrong direction. I have no doubt that you are patriotic but believe you may be risking your life marching down the wrong street. Heh, I thought you were one of the 55 Americans on their way to Iraq by way of Turkey then Syria to become a human shield. What happened to that trip?

[Mark Heide]

Jimbo,

I missed the boat. Here's a link for you:

http://www.uruklink.net/jumhuriya/

If you send an email to this publication, let's see if you get a visit from the CIA.

Good Luck

Mark

[MMMMMM]

I suppose the fact that a parallel article could never have appeared in Pravda didn't figure into your thinking.

Doesn't the degree of state-censorship--or even self-censorship--mean anything to you when you make your comparisons? Or do you think that 100% censorship (USSR government) is the same as say 10% censorship (self-censorship and US-government-pressure combined) because, after all, they're both censorship?

[hudini36]

They have no need to visit. once you get there, however, you will rightfully be under constant surveillance. It's interesting that the radical right wing labels anyone that questions the first strike policy anti-American, even though it equates to the foreign policy of Tojo Japan.

[Mark Heide]

M,

The degree of censorship is only relative to your ideology. In a democratic and capitalist system you, as a US citizen, could view the former Pravda from the cold war era as 100% censorship. The citizens of a socialist society do not view it that way. Their press reflects the views of a collective society working together. The Russians did not grow up in a society built on materialism and getting rich, so their society is going to easily see US citizens as materialistic and greedy.

The only other analogy I can give you is from a religious point of view. There was a story recently in the news about a muslim woman in Africa that was sentanced to death by stoning. Well, this country consists of two religious groups which are the muslims and christians. Of course the christians rebelled against the muslims. But, for the muslims it is written in holy law that this women must be stoned to death for her crime(which was having a baby without being married). I seriously doubt that you could convince any of these muslims to spare her life, because if they did, they would be the ones defying holy law.

So degrees of censorship or even self-censorship can only be measured by your ideology.

Mark

[adios]

I don't even know how to respond to a post like this. Censorship involves overt acts to suppress information that the censors find objectionable or harmful that people would like to otherwise have. It isn't about what information people want to have in lieu of something else.

"But, for the muslims it is written in holy law that this women must be stoned to death for her crime(which was having a baby without being married). I seriously doubt that you could convince any of these muslims to spare her life, because if they did, they would be the ones defying holy law."

I can't be certain of this but if you posed this question to those practicing Islam in this country, at least 75% would have condemmed this incident.

[nicky g]

Mark: I have no love for Fox and CNN but be serious. In the USSR you could be killed for speaking your mind, and millions were. That rarely happens in the US and Western world these days (though it happens lots in Westen-sponsored regimes). It just isn't the same thing. There is a big problem with the mainstream media dissemintating misinformation and skewed versions of what's going on, but that is a different problem. You can still state the truth as you see it; you'll just have a hard time getting a lot of people to read it.
I agree with Tom that the vast majority of Msulims do not believe sharia entails the execution of adulterers.

[MMMMMM]

Mark Heide: "The degree of censorship is only relative to your ideology. In a democratic and capitalist system you, as a US citizen, could view the former Pravda from the cold war era as 100% censorship. The citizens of a socialist society do not view it that way. Their press reflects the views of a collective society working together."

This is utter horseshit: their press reflected the iron control of a totalitarian government...with no dissidence permitted. It didn't reflect the views of the people because the people weren't allowed to express alternate views.

Mark Heide: "So degrees of censorship or even self-censorship can only be measured by your ideology."

Or by the government arresting and executing you for opening your mouth. How's THAT for an alternate ideology?

What planet do you live on, anyway?

[brad]

i think chomsky described it best by saying that in totolatarian regimes where force is used the government has no need to decieve the people - dissenters are sent to work camps or killed.

whereas in a democracy or republic the need for persuasion or whatever you call it is paramount.

[MMMMMM]

I think that's a superficial and subtly deceptive statement by Chomsky, and I'm surprised you don't seem to be aware of this. He's apparently equating the goals of totalitarian governments with the goals of democratic-style governments. Why is this not surprising, coming from Chomsky?

[brad]

well take for example gun confiscation.

in any dictatorship the thug in power says turn in your guns and sends the military around to pick them up and kill anyone who resists.

here in US especially CA note how different it is even though in california some guns have been banned and the state has 'asked' owners to turn them in.

in other words here in US we have to be tricked into giving up our guns, incrementalism, etc.

im sure youll agree that the purpose of power is more power.

do you think the word democracy is the opposite of tyranny?

[MMMMMM]

I think there's a helluva difference between Condoleeza Rice imploring the news media not to run the full recent bin-Laden tape (due to fears it contained hidden trigger-phrases for sleeper cells--and Fox News ran the full tape anyway)--and newspaper editors knowing they will be shot if they print anti-Saddam views.

Voting in a multiparty system is also a helluva lot different than being able to vote only "YES" or "NO" for one candidate: Saddam.

While I agree there are slippages away from our Constitutionally protected liberties, we're still a LONG way from totalitarianism.

Those who argue in many instances of the equivalence of such things fail to take into account the vast differences in relative degree--in other words, they're being quite stupid, or else knowingly using false arguments for insidious or subversive purposes. Anyone who thinks total censorship at the point of a gun is identical to inherent media bias can't think straight, or at least, is thinking with their emotions instead of their intellect.

That said I do agree we need to be quite vigilant about protecting our Constitutional rights and liberties.

[brad]

see youre already more propagandized than u realize.

do u really believe it is a tape of bin laden?

do u realize earlier 'bin laden' tapes have been proven to be fakes?

who do u think benefits from this?

p.s. i bought a gun just so if guns are confiscated i can kill someone a la alexander Solzynetzyn's Gulag Archipeligo

[MMMMMM]

What's THAT got to do with the discussion? The bin-Laden tape example I used to point up the differences between government requests and government censorship at gunpoint. Whether the tape is real or not has zero bearing on the point under discussion.

As far as the tape being propaganda, al-Jazeera was the FIRST to say it was unmistakably bin-Laden's voice. But so what?

I really think you just like to argue for the sake of debate rather than to try to arrive at the truth. That's a waste of time in my book.

[brad]

no my point is that you accepted it so deeply you didnt even think to question it and thats how it works here.

false paradigm, etc.

btw, do u own guns? will u turn them in if requested? will u go to a camp?

[MMMMMM]

No, you PRESUMED that's what I thought. OBVIOUSLY the tape might not be real--and it's SO obvious, why even mention it?

I never said the tape was real--I only spoke of the difference between a government request and a government request at gunpoint.

[brad]

'think there's a helluva difference between Condoleeza Rice imploring the news media not to run the full recent bin-Laden tape '

youre right its implicit but not really i guess i was wrong but uknow what i mean.

a better example. israel announced it would rescind its policy of refraining from sending death squads to its allies (like US ) soil.

was that reported? why not? im sure it wasnt because reporters were told not to run it. but still it wasnt run.

[Jimbo]

brad if it wasn't reported how did you hear about it? Is this the same as if a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear it did it make any noise? For what it is worth I saw the death squad article on the network news and heard it on radio as well.

brad are you going to be like Barney Fife and have the bullets in your shirt pocket? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

well first of all im only allowed one bullet.

but really dont u think it should have been frontline news that a foreign country was sending death squads into our country (with the apparant blessing of our government)?

also you are better informed than most so i would figure most people havent heard of it.

lastly i dont think its fair of u to use such logic on someone only allowed to carry one bullet.

[IrishHand]

He's apparently equating the goals of totalitarian governments with the goals of democratic-style governments.
He should - governments generally do some combination of what's best for them personally and what's best for their country (or portions of it). Whether it's the vilest dictator or the most benevolent Prime Minister, they're still going to fall into that gross generalization. You seem to think that totalitatian governments have as their political mission the service of Satan, the murder of innocents, the violation of all 'civilized' norms, etc. Totalitarian governments do what they think is best - for whom is debatable, as noted above, but they're still acting in a manner consistent with "governing" in the general sense. Our government is no different. No matter what the issue, domestically or internationally, we're making decisions for someone's benefit. In our case, that someone is guaranteed to be American (one or more). That's the nature of the beast - countries will act in the best interests of some portion of its constituents.

I like to think that the ideal form of government is one wherein the government - no matter how they came to power or remain there (frankly, it's irrelevant to what they do and accomplish while in power) - acts more and more for the benefit of the many than the few. Of course, how you define "benefit" is problematic - as are other aspects of pure "utilitarianism."

Condemning a government because it's "communist" or "socialist" or "capitalist" or any other "ist" is pointless and short-sighted. Regardless of the label, a government should be considered on its merits.

Why is this not surprising, coming from Chomsky?
Because he's a very bright guy.

[MMMMMM]

M: "He's apparently equating the goals of totalitarian governments with the goals of democratic-style governments."

IrishHand: "He should - governments generally do some combination of what's best for them personally and what's best for their country (or portions of it)."

North Korea stockpiled two years' worth of food and fuel for its military at the same time as 2 million of its own people starved to death--what do you make of that?

Totalitarian regimes put their own interests ahead of the interests of their people to a far greater degree than do freely elected governments--if you can't see this you are indeed living on a different planet from me.

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

I agree, with reservations about the percentage you indicate. But, I was referring to a particular group of muslims. Here's a link to the article and it should make the story clearer (I had my facts about the story mixed up a bit, but the premise of my argument remains the same):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1939566.stm

Mark

[Mark Heide]

I am not going to argue this subject any longer.

IrishHand's post above explains my point better than I could have.

Good Luck

Mark

[IrishHand]

I suspect many people live on a different planet from you, but that's besides the point.

We'll assume that what you're saying is true and that the North Korean government stored two years worth of food and fuel while 2 million North Koreans starved. I don't have the faintest idea why they did that, but I can make some guesses. First of all, North Korea is incredibly isolated economically - due in no small measure to US policies (reminds me a lot of pre-Dec 7, 1941 Japan, although not on the same scale of course - see Toland's excellent The Rising Sun). Given this isolation and the effect it would have on a highly populated country, the leaders must make tough choices with scarce resources. Clearly, a strong military is a necessity for a number of reasons - and apparently they felt this necessity required the sacrifice of some of their citizens. Consider the possible result of the alternative decision - their people are fed while the military loses some of its power, or at the very least, is rendered incredibly vulnerable to a complete blockade and/or more severe economic sanctions. An ancillary benefit of starving their citizens is the potential increase in food aid from foreign governments. Again, this is all pure guesswork - I haven't studied the country in any real detail - but its not as though it doesn't make sense from the perspective of their leadership.

As a comparison, Nazi Germany imposed progressively harsher conditions (rationing, etc) on its people in order to assist their re-armament in the early- to mid-30s. Germans suffered incredible privations for many years - and many of them did so willingly (the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland were extremely popular events in Germany at that time and most Germans probably felt their sacrifices up 'til then were more than worth it). As a result of their continued sacrifices, their nation nearly conquered all of Europe and a significant portion of Russia. If they'd been able to beat Russia, giving them the Greater Reich that was Hitler's ultimate goal, Germans would likely have enjoyed a standard of life far above that of any other nation's for several years. (This assumes of course that a 1942 Germany, victorious over Russia and able to reap it's vast resources while no longer fighing a 2-front war would have been able to knock Great Britain out of the war in a fairly timely fashion, leaving Hitler free to pursue his long-term domestic policies.) Now - his means and methods were certainly reprehensible in the extreme in many instances, but it cannot be rationally argued that Hitler wasn't acting in what he truly believed was in the best interests of his nation.

Totalitarian regimes put their own interests ahead of the interests of their people to a far greater degree than do freely elected governments
I believe that they might act in the interests of a smaller proportion of their populace than do most elected governments, but I don't think the difference is nearly as stark as you'd like it to be. Ultimately, it all comes down to the individual government. There are some elected governments that do better jobs at acting in the interests of the majority of their people, while others act generally in the interests of a smaller portion - almost always the wealthy that support the government or the government itself. Yes, there are a ton of countries who are far worse than the US on this account, but there are also many more that far surpass this country.