The only reason I voted for Obama is because I knew he wouldn't be as bad as the pasty old white guy. They're both having their strings pulled by the same people, but at least Obama is trying to resist those strings a little bit. McCain would just go charging down the same path as Bush without a second thought.

I'll tell you exactly what we need to get change in this country:

1. Multiple stage elections. The two party system is just two sides of the same coin. And yes, that coin is purchased with money. Multiple stage elections would give people the chance to vote for who they really want without fear that they are throwing their vote away.

2. Public election financing. Every politician must have the exact same amount of money to spend on their campaign, and they must be able to enter office without being beholden to anybody.

3. Independent media. As far as I'm concerned, the corporate oligarchy has destroyed the free press in this country. The internet is starting to give voice to journalists who dare to speak against corporate interests, but the problem would be solved completely if it was illegal for one person or corporation to own more than one news outlet.

My main point is that money runs our current system of government, and that must change if we ever want to see a government that actually works for the people.

If noone stands up for journalistic credibility, we're all doomed.

Does this insight include all of the left-wring, liberally-biased networks (you know, all the other ones that aren't those rascals at Fox) who have no integrity and do nothing but spread Obamaganda day and night?

Olbyloon should be grateful for the free press, not the other way around.

So much for our vaunted "free press" - as if it ever existed in the first place.

And who remembers The Office of Special Plans? Or Karen Kwiatkowski telling about the day that a group of Israeli generals strutted into the Pentagon as if they owned the place, banged on Doug Feith's door, and demanded to know who he was talking to?

Bushco got away with murder and robbed us blind on his way out the door.

And not a fucking thing will ever be done about it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Nothin' new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts


True. Signed by our 2nd president, Adams. Lincoln also had his own version of this during war time where he locked up 17,000 people for speaking against his administration (most of which were part of the free press).

Disgusting.

Where's the free press when even the MSM is being locked up?

What right do the police have to lock people up for not following their utter whims? It's the opposite of freedom. How is this not tyranny?

>> ^ziggystardust:
Obama is giving Blackberry so much free press.


your right, he should alteast get a cut or some other backhander for mentiong a thing that exists

Obama is giving Blackberry so much free press.

Glenn Greenwald on Salon had this to say:

"This is actually so dumb that it hurts... The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether you’re free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited...

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged."

> zombieater
I agree with you zombi and that's just the thing, privatized news as it stands today is completely consumed with making profits rather than actually fulfilling their role in a democracy by informing the public. In my opinion the responsibility of gathering and reporting news should never be given to those that are more concerned with the profit it might make rather than its societal impact. Most definitely the role should never be given to anyone who would purposely manipulate or obscure facts to push a preexisting agenda. Does that mean socializing it? I'm not sure, the government surely can't be trusted as they would most certainly use it to promote their own agendas and biases. On the other hand it might be the only solution to escape problem. Obviously no program is going to be perfect but many do actually work. Our police and firemen are socialized and while far from being perfect they most certainly are doing more good than harm. Our criminal justice system is most certainly flawed but if lawyers were held to the same ethical standards that current journalists are imagine how much worse it would be. As for doctors I believe that having a free press is no less important to the human condition than the care of ones health. They are both integral to having a happy and healthy democracy.
It's frustrating that we as a society can agree on things such as a standardized alphabet, or laws for the sake of maintaining order, or anything else that is imperative to maintaining a society yet something as important as the press falls to the wayside.
bah!...

^He grew up in a time when information always had a physical form, and that mode of thinking just doesn't work in the internet age.


Before teh interwebz, this was still ok in the physical world, no? Like if somebody steals documents and then turns them over to a newspaper? The theif can be charged, but the newspaper is in the clear if they had nothing to do with the theft. It's the duty of the free press to report the news.

Helen Thomas: "No matter how many more people we kill?"

Dana Perino: "I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements. It is an honor and a priviledge to be in a briefing room, and to suggest that we at the United States are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive."

It's not a "privilege" you nazi-fucker, the right to a free press is the goddamned first amendment.

Attempting to dodge a pertinent question about casualties by pretending it's an insult to the country that there was an assumption that in wars innocent people are killed is just deplorable.

If you're uncomfortable talking about civilian deaths during wartime, either don't start the war, or don't take a job as the spokesperson for the leader who's running that war.

*news

"Though I'll disagree that the reasons for the Iraq war were intentionally dubious"

I merely stated that the reasons going into Iraq were wrong, mostly because the administration over sold the threat and under sold the actual cost of going into Iraq. I felt like it was fear mongering more then anything else, riding of the events of 9/11, with threats like "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud". There was such flimsy connections drawn between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But the greatest mistake was the lack of concrete planning for actions after the nation was conquered, that to me is the biggest mistake of the entire campaign in Iraq. ORHA was given a month to figure out how to run a nation, the CPA hired fresh grad students who brought technological know how to a country that could not afford the solutions they pushed forward. The dismantling of the Iraq military forces and de-Baathization. It all seems like dangerous adventurism.

Democratization of the Middle East

This is one factor I really supported with regards to going into Iraq, the region as a whole is full of autocratic and despotic rulers. However Bush's promises never materalized into anything concrete, mostly because they didn't understand the situation on the ground, when Palestine held elections Hamas ended up winning, the new president of Iran, Sadr in Iraq, polling results in Egypt and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US supports democracy but only on its own terms.

All the talk behind democracy faded after that, and I ultimately believe it was Saudi Arabia and Egypt who killed it, both nations that do not want to see any kind of democracy occurring anytime soon because of the strangle hold they have on power and money withing their respective nations. One of them happens to be the worlds largest oil supplier as well. The largest failing point was when the US sold billion dollars worth of arms to states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and so on after concerns over Iran.

The following is a comment I left on Dag's profile a while back regarding Democracy struggles in the Middle East in relation to autocratic rule, citing Israel as democratic nation in the Middle East.

I don't know the issue is rather merky when it comes to autocratic rule and Middle Eastern states, I mean for example Kuwait has a parliamentary democracy, and all decisions taken by the Amir have to abide by rulings made by the parliament and the cabinet, all positions that are elected. Women's rights and voting power has been factored in since early 2002 or so.

However politically the country is stagnant, its full of nepotism and corruption, its democratic nature while loved by the populace as it gives me a semblance of influence and most of all free press has seen the country degrade to alot of political infighting and hand wringing when it comes to making decisions with regards to developing the nation and reaching that common cited goal of becoming a "business hub".

Now compare that with nations like UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Saudia Arabia, they all have varying degress of autocratic rule far and above those of Kuwait. However when it comes to economic development, Kuwait is lagging far behind especially when you look at a place like Dubai that doesn't nearly have the same kind of oil wealth that Kuwait has, yet it beating Kuwait year on year with rapid economic growth and development. This is all while at the same time both Dubai and Bahrain are shedding restrictive control over the population via religious doctrine.

This has lead many to ask whether democracy is right for the Middle East as a whole or is it better to be ruled by influential western educated heads of State, Emirs, and Princes? This is a NY Times article on that very issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/middleeast/06kuwait.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/United%20Arab%20Emirates

I agree Israel's democracy is good, but I also feel that it runs too aggressive because of a cornered rat symptom. Let's not forget that their economic prosperity has alot to do with American economic assistance and leanancy with regards to weapons sales and investment. Its true that actions of the state get questioned but I feel its always after the fact, look at the US, how many statues has the administration broken and other then a change of faces will anything really change? The greatest damage done is not that it was committed but that it gives someone else afterwards more room to do more damage. There is little actual accountability.

My personal wish is for Middle Eastern states to unshackle themselves from religious control, which is not there because Islam wishes it so but because its a great political control apparatus, especially in Saudi Arabia. A secular state with respect to religious freedom like the one I saw in Turkey set up by Ahmed Kamal is very admirable to me, but in all I think the population as a whole in the Middle East is not educated enough on civic rights and responsibility, too reliant on age old tribal control and influence that still manifests itself in the political process.

Biological Weapons

I agree that not many would willing go down that path, the costs of development and more so actual deployment require a national industrial project to be effective enough.

I believe the threat is more based around acquired biological weapons from poorly secured sources like those in Russia. However even then we are looking at small contained actions like those in Japan Subway system by that cult.

With regards to Iraq possessing WMD and Bioweapons I find the case was always put forward not because they possibly existed, but because they had the knowledge. I think is the same reason people high up in the US fear Iran, because nuclear development and weaponization is within their grasp, even if they are not working towards that goal. Its the knowledge that scares them.

Ha Russian TV, there's not exactly free press over there. Sound like propaganda indeed.
Russia has even been attacking Gori on that map Mink posted. That's outside South-Ossetia
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-34965520080812

I don't know the issue is rather merky when it comes to autocratic rule and Middle Eastern states, I mean for example Kuwait has a parliamentary democracy, and all decisions taken by the Amir have to abide by rulings made by the parliament and the cabinet, all positions that are elected. Women's rights and voting power has been factored in since early 2002 or so.

However politically the country is stagnant, its full of nepotism and corruption, its democratic nature while loved by the populace as it gives me a semblance of influence and most of all free press has seen the country degrade to alot of political infighting and hand wringing when it comes to making decisions with regards to developing the nation and reaching that common cited goal of becoming a "business hub".

Now compare that with nations like UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Saudia Arabia, they all have varying degress of autocratic rule far and above those of Kuwait. However when it comes to economic development, Kuwait is lagging far behind especially when you look at a place like Dubai that doesn't nearly have the same kind of oil wealth that Kuwait has, yet it beating Kuwait year on year with rapid economic growth and development. This is all while at the same time both Dubai and Bahrain are shedding restrictive control over the population via religious doctrine.

This has lead many to ask whether democracy is right for the Middle East as a whole or is it better to be ruled by influential western educated heads of State, Emirs, and Princes? This is a NY Times article on that very issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/middleeast/06kuwait.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/United%20Arab%20Emirates

I agree Israel's democracy is good, but I also feel that it runs too aggressive because of a cornered rat symptom. Let's not forget that their economic prosperity has alot to do with American economic assistance and leanancy with regards to weapons sales and investment. Its true that actions of the state get questioned but I feel its always after the fact, look at the US, how many statues has the administration broken and other then a change of faces will anything really change? The greatest damage done is not that it was committed but that it gives someone else afterwards more room to do more damage. There is little actual accountability.

My personal wish is for Middle Eastern states to unshackle themselves from religious control, which is not there because Islam wishes it so but because its a great political control apparatus, especially in Saudi Arabia. A secular state with respect to religious freedom like the one I saw in Turkey set up by Ahmed Kamal is very admirable to me, but in all I think the population as a whole in the Middle East is not educated enough on civic rights and responsibility, too reliant on age old tribal control and influence that still manifests itself in the political process.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Well the heads of State of a country like Israel can (and often do) get tossed out if the people turn against them.

Can the same be said for Kuwait? I'll grant you that it's a benevolent regime at the moment - but power corrupts absolutely.

I disagree strongly with the policies of Israel - but I support their system of government.



In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
But is a government based on fear mongering really a democracy?

What is wrong with Kuwait's democracy? Its backward but its one of the few states in the Middle East that actually allows women to vote.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^ Say what you will about Israel - but at least there is a semblance of democracy at play. The same cannot be said for SA, Kuwait or others.

The American media does seem to have a fascination with supporting Palestine over Israel. Dunno why. And the 60 Minutes interview gave Ahmadinejad more free press in American than anything that came before.