@bcglorf
i have no issue with disagreement.
i have read many of hedges books,and to see his evolution over the years really should not surprise anyone.

we all have an evolution of sorts when we continue to investigate,and challenge our own preconceptions.the intelligent man or woman,will accept this new information,and change their conclusions accordingly.the hyper-partisan and/or rigid fundamentalist,will dismiss this new information because it conflicts with their dearly held preconceptions.

some people struggle with a changing landscape,and prefer to reside in their own comfort zones.

i like hedges because he challenges and criticizes power,but he also tends to speak in apocalyptic verbiage.

i also respect hedges because he does back up his opinions with actual sources.now we can disagree with his conclusions,but how he came to those conclusions,he is quite clear.

on a side note:i cannot watch or read hedges for extended periods due to the fact that what he is pointing out is so damn depressing.

but he is incredibly consistent in regards to criticizing power.

which,in my opinion,is so very vital in these times,because we see the majority of corporate media revealing a reverence and fealty to corporate power.

chris hedges has earned my respect.
but i do not demand that everyone read or listen to him.

and speaking only for myself,i refuse to dismiss a viewpoint simply because it may be on a venue of questionable intent.
i read the american conservative,though this is a website funded by pat buchanon.i do so because the american conservative produces some damn fine content,with journalists who source their material.

i may disagree with their conclusions,but i cannot ignore the quality of their work.

this is the same reason why i no longer do work for crooks and liars and the young turks and good god..SLATE.does this mean that everything they produce is utter shit?

no..of course not,but they all have taken a book out of the FOX model, and became hyper-partisan,faux outrage machines.

now let us take this video,which so happens to be on RT.
what is it that hedges is saying that is WRONG? or false? or a lie?

i have no issue with disagreement,nor skepticism,but is anything he is saying really that controversial?
what is he saying that should be dismissed?
should his words simply be dismissed due to him being on RT?

if we refuse to accept the words,or conclusions from any public personality,simply because of the media that they happen to be on,then..in my opinion..we relegate ourselves to a handful of outlets,and it diminishes the conversation.

is it any wonder or surprise that those academics that are critical of power are NEVER seen on corporate media?
that those brave and courageous journalists and academics are forced to the fringes in order to get their messages out.

we can disagree with their messages and conclusions,but for us to even have the OPTION to disagree.they need a media outlet in order to even put the word out.

do you see what i am saying?

i am probably wording this wrong,and producing more confusion than clarity,but when the corporate media controls who and what gets to be discussed,debated and argued.then THEY are the ones who set the agenda.they are the ones who set the lines of discussion and the parameters of that discussion.

and people like hedges have not been invited to the table for decades.

it appears that any journalist,or academic that is critical of power are relegated to the fringes.

you will never see noam chomsky on FOX,or MSNBC,or CNN.

but you will see them on independent media.
such as democracy now,or the real news and yes...venues like RT and aljazeera english.

i probably totally messed my point up,but it is in there somewhere.
i am just gonna stop right here,because now i am just rambling.

Liberal media control... both sides have their propaganda, just watch Fox News.

Banning what you eat? I've never seen this as a talking point for liberals

How about banning important research for curing diseases because it uses stem cells?
How does that preserve our freedom. Yet it's a common conservative talking point.
Or banning violent video games sales to kids, (parents should decide imo) conservatives did try to do that today right?

I'm still in college right now so I'm not paying taxes. I however will have no problem paying taxes, even high taxes if I feel it is helping support government programs that help our country. The idea that the upper class having lower taxes will help our economy is flawed in my opinion. By lowering taxes for the upper class you are throwing away the largest potential tax income for the country.

I understand the trickle down effect, and it is a highly debated economic theory. I however think that when you have people with hundreds of millions of dollars getting huge tax breaks it hurts the country as a whole. I just think that their taxed income would help our society more in government programs, than in a bank.

My tax code is probably not as crazy as you think if you care to look it up, income tax on money earned over 400,000 used to be over 90% In the 1960's, I also venture that our country was a lot better off back then, when the super-rich had a sense American Pride, and were not just trying to get people elected so they can pile their money up higher, while creating an illusion of everyone being better off from lower taxes. Americans should be ashamed to amass $90 billion for their families (Waltons). Greed is not good.

>> ^Mashiki:

Well lets see we can start with various forms of entertainment control. And the various flappy headed talks of control on 'violent media'. Then we can go on the 'we're going to/want to ban what you eat' mode.
You should be supporting lower taxes. Raising them doesn't do you any good, but since your tax code is a mess I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. High taxation leads to people shoveling their money elsewhere, and buying only the basics. Prosperity comes from having disposable income.

Race hatred has been and forever will be a tool in the hands of those who seek to manipulate the minds and control the actions of an uneducated mob. The world is full of countries easily manipulated by those they have given their power and will over to. Pure racism is one the least of the problems facing the planet.

Obama was not elected by thoughtful, intelligent, empowered people. He was groomed and sold to the mob by the same folks who have given us such wonderful things as media control, genetically manipulated seeds, pharmaceuticals, unreasonable taxation, endless war, famine, dictators, fascist regimes, sexual repression, corrupt prisons and law enforcement agencies, slavery, contrived and manipulated economic models, organized sports and religions, etc etc........."Goodbye, and good luck??"....Fuck you too, Olbermann.

I agree that Fox News is not so much a 'news network' as it is an 'infotainment' house - one that is predominated by a conservative point of view. But it has to be said (very loudly) that CNN, the NY Times, PBS, and MSNBC are 'infotainment' houses that are predominated by a liberal point of view. And (quite frankly) people have no right to complain about Fox News because all they are doing is following the template that was created years before they started broadcasting. CNN, TNN and others established the 'infotainment' standard before FOX showed up.

So for White House flacks to say that Fox News "isn't" a news outlet, but that CNN/MSNBC/NYT/AP/USA Today (et al) ARE news outlets smacks of a rather dystopian double standard. Basically Axelrod & the other white house cronies are just mad because Fox is the only news channel that is fact checking their bull$#!+ - and they don't like it. They're skating on some pretty thin ice. This is Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Baghdad "Bob" style attempted media control and pretty creepy that they are being so open about it.

>> ^siftbot:
A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by ZombieGuerilla.


Who saw that coming?

The lack of coverage by big media is, sadly, STRIKINGLY new when you compare it to Vietnam.

Every night The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite showed grisly footage of the atrocities going on in Vietnam. Guys with limbs blown off, body bags, dead children, the works. It's what helped end the war. Today you can go Weeks without even a single -mention- of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I listen to local CBS radio for morning traffic reports and haven't heard the word Afghanistan in at least a month.

And so thanks to the governments media control, when it comes time for Payback as it surely will, the American sheeple will once again look at each other and wonder "why do they hate us?!"

Region blocking has more to do with foreign media control issues as opposed to anything else. Allowing Pro-American content in N. Korea (or other countires) would /could result in a rather sever punishment for the viewer and increased diplomatic tensions, or *gasp* even a lawsuit.

You continue to avoid my questions... are you Jewish with some sort of mental hangup on "International Bankers".. is that why your so fixated on this? Are you calling Admiral Ward a racist conspiracy theorist because he stated such a thing?

Also.. You left out the following:
More modern theories transcend the religious overtones of the earlier theories. They purport that a clique of international banking houses which exercised financial control through ownership of the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, run by the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Morgans, and Rockefellers then bought up political control and media control to create an invisible government which usurps the Constitutional government and creates wars and depressions in order to gain more control. For more about this theory see the documentary The Money Masters

also... since you took these two small words from one statement made by an insider of the CFR that was exposing it and are subverting the topic to call him a racist.... here are some statements regarding "International Bankers" and the U.S.:

Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.
-- J.P. Morgan (American born private International Banker)

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.
-- James Madison (4th President of the United States)

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
-- Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States)

Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.
-- John Adams (2nd President of the United States)

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.
-- Napolean Bonaparte (Tyrant - attempted ruler of the world)

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
-- Henry Ford (Auto manufacturer and inventor of the assembly line)

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.
-- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (German-born Jewish International Banker that changed his last name to a British sounding name)

This country has been fighting against International and Central banking since it's initial colonization. The banking legacy is that they keep systematically establishing a central banking system which dominates the people in many ways.

Your attempt to label those of us that realize this fact as racists is pathetic and futile. Go crawl back under your rock and leave your race card at home.

I don't know.

Maybe the situation was allowed to go into play but the factors set around to point toward one factuality and one outcome that we find ourselves years later. However wide scale media control was not exercised as stated by conspiracy theorists, and this was a miss. Since as they claim this came from archives and was just recently noticed?

I wouldn't say it was a evil cabal planning these events, but there is clear indication of criminal negligence on the behalf of the CIA and the FBI not to pursue the operatives of Al Qeada once they were in the United States, given the previous attacks on the WTC and in Africa such a stance just seems illogical.

"CIA operatives reportedly monitored the movements of these two known militants when they visited the U.S. but did not notify the FBI or gain an inkling of what the hijackers were planning. However, during a 2006 Moussaoui trial cross-examination, FBI agents stated that the bureau was aware, years before the attacks in 2001, that al-Qaeda planned to use planes to destroy important buildings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks.