Who replaces FCC's Powell? It's up to

Michael Powell is quitting. Good riddance. I just sent a letter to President Bush, asking him to appoint a new chairperson who will represent the public interest, not just corporate moguls. It only takes a few minutes. You should send one, too. Go to newFCCchair
Add this to your email:
Please add a fee based on revenue to broadcast licences. Please shut down VOA and use the money towards a Fair Media. http://www.FairMedia.org

1932066047 The Benefits of Full Employment: When Markets Work for People

Buy
The Benefits of Full Employment

with Amazon

or

Buy The Benefits of Full Employment

with Powell's

Too Late for Regrets

Rice Lies

Rice is at it again. She lied about the insurgents' motives. Keerry pointed out that the US hasn't paid the former employees of the Iraqi government and that they are angry and part of the insurgenscy. Rice lied when she claimed that the insurgesnts are not attacking because they didn't get the money ( money that the US had promised to give)

A few web pages have been updated:
The promotional Items now have their own graphic and it is not linked to the Representative Press Cafe Press Shop Promote the Truth
Get the word out to your fellow citizens.
This is one of the pages that has been updated: Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives Why Lie

Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq by David Miller (Editor) Contributors include John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Edward Herman, Mark Thomas, Mark Steel, Phillip Knightley, Tim Llewelyn (BBC Middle East Correspondent), Abdul Hadi Jiad (Iraqi journalist sacked by the BBC before the war), David Cromwell and David Edwards (Media Lens), Mark Curtis, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (PR Watch, and co-authors of Weapons of Mass Deception and Toxic Sludge is Good For You), Pat Holland, Norman Solomon (columnist and director of the Institute for Public Accuracy), Nancy Snow (California State University, Fullerton, author of Propaganda Inc. and Information War), Doug Kellner (UCLA), Julian Petley, Yvonne Ridley (Aljazeera.net and author of In the Hands of the Taliban), Tim Gopsill (Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom), Faisal Bodi (UK Guardian, Aljazeera.net), Alistair Alexander (Stop the War Coalition), Greg Philo (Glasgow University Media Group), Steve Dorrill, Andy Rowell, Granville Williams and cartoonists Steve Bell, Steve Caplin and Polyp.

Rich writes, "but I can't help but wonder who the ACLU would have sided with had the Tshirt said "I'm Christian and I'm proud.""

For God sakes Rich, could you make an effort to examine your assumptions?

It literally took me 5 seconds to find this: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

Why in the world would you have something against a group that fights for citizens' civil rights?

The Smoke Eater asks, "How is is possible that if ALL LIFE came from the same single celled organism, and started at the same time, that humans have evolved so far and dogs haven't? "

Evolution doesn't actually mean that things get "more advanced", it really means that things change. Changes that increase the likelihood that a living thing will survive to create another generation is what evolution is about. Dogs can have puppies, they aren't going to just disappear automatically. If a particular dog gains a characteristic, it doesn't automatically mean that other dogs suddenly die out or even slowly die out. The others will live as long as they are able to survive and have offspring.

"Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency." What is evolution?

The media didn't make this clear although the AP sent it out: "No Alabama Air National Guard records have surfaced showing Bush did any duty there. Former commanders and other members of the 187th in 1972 and 1973 say they don't remember ever seeing Bush there"

Didn't you notice the supposedly "liberal" media didn't make this clear to the public? As far as the memos, the content did check out. Many of the claims about why the memoes were fake turned out to be wrong, including claims that the "th" superscript did not exist. The bottom line was Bush didn't show up when he did and others confirm that the content of the memoes is acurate.

You seem to think the media is "liberal". Here are two examples that should make you rethink your simplistic world view.

The "liberal" media Violating International Law refused to report the war was illegal nd they no fly zones played along with the "no fly zones" there-is-big-problem don't assume the media "would tell you" about things like this CBS Bush documents Media Should Have Probed Bigger Questions About Bush's Record

This link goes into detail: mediamatters.org "Media Matters has extensively documented the substantial and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical for as-yet-unexplained reasons, that he was grounded from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge anyway."

Rich,
Are you ever going to get around to addressing the serious points that I raised? Anyone can cover their ears and scream or run away when confronted with facts they don't like, it takes character to question what you assume and to examine what you think you know. Instead of running off on a new topic, why not at least try to understand the issues already raised? Issues that are a matter of life and death. comments

As far as evolution, I think you have fallen for the theory vs fact canard. Creationists play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory".

"...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." Evolution as Fact and Theory

Anonymous libels, "Tom your anti-semitism is showing."

Typical tactic directed at those pointing out the truth. You should be ashamed at yourself.

Anonymous plays games and asks, "What exactly does Israel have to do with ..."

Who the hell mentioned most of the things you listed?

Anonymous claims, "in Laden in his 98 Fatwa ... LIED. And said that Clinton supported the Serbians in killing Muslims."

No he didn't, you are the liar. Readers here can ascertain for themselves who the liar is by checking the source. Check the 1998 Fatwa and see if "Anonymous" is lying or telling the truth. (he is lying but check for yourself)
Readers may be shocked that people like "Anonymous" have the chutzpah to lie as they do but sadly this is how it is. As the Israeli Professor Tanya Reinhart has written, “It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have been the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians from the start.”

As far as the ugly tactic of libeling people "anti-Semitic" who tell the truth about issues related to Israel, I point to Shulamit Aloni, former Knesset member to explain what that tactic is about: "well it is a trick, we always use it"

And Anonymous' claim that the US has "pushed for peace between the Palestinians and Israel" is disgusting. The US has blocked peace and has vetoed peace agreements for decades. I can see why many readers would find this difficult to believe because these facts get suppressed in the US. To give one example, the 1976 peace offer, backed by virtually the entire world and accepted by the Palestinians. "It was opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from history." Powerful interests can suppress major facts in order to distort the history.

MEMRI is a Zionist front group. For example it pushed a bullshit translation of one of bin Laden's latest speeches in order to serve their agenda. (MEMRI wanted you to believe that bin Laden was talking about individual states of the United States!! Come on!)newshoundss-article

What Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others want has been made crystal clear. Don't give me this bullshit about what they say in private. The US has supported outrageous crimes against the people in the Middle East. Bush and others are lying about why we were attacked. When Tenet and others quote the 1998 Fatwa they omit the key part in order to suppress the motives" THIS PART: "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." That is the motives OK? NOT "in order to establish an "Islamic world"". LOOK at the fact that US officials omit the part of the sentence that mentions motives, they are manipulating the American public because they serve agendas that don't want to change the policies in the Middle East. What do Jihadists say to recruit others? They don't say "do you want to set up an "Islamic world?"" what they say is "do you want to do something about the injustices that America has caused?" Look:

A former member of an extremist Islamic organization which is part of al-Qaeda explained how the organization's recruiters operate on susceptible young men. "Someone approached me in the mosque as I was praying, and started to talk to me about injustice in the Middle East, the poverty, our impotence in the face of Israel. He made me want to listen to him - to find a solution. At first these people don't talk about violence. They concentrate on how much injustice America has caused in the world and how to get rid of this unfairness. They mention Palestine, they call on you to uphold your national dignity, to defend people, and suggest for that you must sacrifice yourself. Then your people will live after you and will always remember you." The young man, himself an Egyptian, speaking in the privacy of a quite courtyard in Cairo, believed this was the way Mohamed Atta was approached. "Al-Qaeda" by Jane Corbin p125

I'm tired of jihadists who have determined that this world is not big enough for them and me

Please! Rich, please consider researching the facts and challenging your assumptions. The jihadists have made it crystal clear that they object to specific foreign policies. This is not about the world being big enough for them and you.

I lived in NYC on 9/11 and my sister was way too close for comfort to the WTC. When I heard about the attack I knew instantly what it was about since knew the background and had been expecting an attack for years. This post is relevant: dear Josef keeping open dialog is good Please read over my web page and blog, I have posted a lot of facts that I have researched.

Sean,

The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" is diplomatic language for authorizing use of force. Those were the words used in UN Resolution 678 which did authorize war. The words were intentionally removed from the 1441 draft because Security Council members France and Russia did not want to authorize war. It is a shame that I have to do the research for you. The above facts wEre enough for you to do your own follow up if you really thought it was necessary. Read this: Law Unto Themselves and this: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 Does Not Authorize Force

Kevin writes, "You're splitting hairs and you know it. "

Kevin, I am not splitting hairs at all. These facts are glaringly obvious to anyone that takes an honest look at them.

Kevin writes, "For 12 years the UN sat on its hands while reaping millions of dollars in pay-offs for the oil-for-food program."

The oil for food program wasn't even in existence for 12 years. This is the problem with mainstream media and the general public's ignorance. It is extremely tedious to have to explain every single point to people unaware that that they don't know what they are talking about. The oil for food program was set up after 500,000 children had already died under sanctions. Children's deaths that Madeleine Albright thought were "worth it." The deaths and misery caused by the sanctions is one of the reasons bin Ladin is angry with the US.

The oil for food program was set up in late 1996. And UN oil-for-food blame is shared

By the way, the US violated International law every step of the way during the last 12 years. To suggest that the US was upholding the law is grotesque.
From the illegal no fly zones to violating the very premise of the UN sanctions! "While the sanctions were supposed to be removed when Iraq disarmed, both the Bush I and Clinton administrations repeatedly said we would not allow them to be lifted until Saddam was ousted, whether or not Iraq disarmed." That undermines the entire thing!!!!!! You can't possible think what the US has done is on the level. And by the way, how did the Ba'ath party get into power in the first place? Notice mainstream media was unwilling to report this?

Updating the T-Shirts I only make 50 cents on the shirts, the rst goes to CafePress. I just want to get the word out

Basic morality and rule of law have been violated by Bush.

In all seriousness, Rich, have you been made aware of basic facts surrounding the war on Iraq?
As a soldier you swore to uphold the Constitution. I would hope that you took that oath sincerely and take it seriously. Unfortunately I think you have been duped into betraying your oath. The cowards way out is to dismiss what I am saying without giving it thought. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and we are supposed to be as good as our word. There are creeps in the media (like Doug Harper) who lie to the public. I think you are a victim of these liars.
Please see Big Media Refuses to Report this Basic Fact: Attacking Iraq Violates International Law and The Iraq War was Illegal Mr. Kamm

Sean said...
"Let's see if I have this straight. As an example I'll say:
I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat and get some facts there, Tom. See, now that was the kind of judgment that Jesus doesn't want us to make. I did not simply disagree with Tom, I denigrated his intelligence by implying he wears a tinfoil hat - which is a common insult meaning the wearer suffers from serious delusions bordering on insanity. However accurate that description may be, it is wrong. That is where absolute morals come in. Because God says "judge not lest ye be judged", we know the hard and fast rule against judging other people - which is not the same as opining on their arguments. However, without God telling me that, I can say "judge not lest ye be judged" is simply a flawed argument. Once I declare my hostility to the directive I can go on and call Tom a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon because I am not bound by another person's flawed argument or assertion. But God has given me that directive against judging, so calling Tom a tinfoil-hat-wearing-loon would be wrong. So I won't do it. I'll simply disagree with his arguments and point out they are fatally flawed by the simple fact that the U.N. had itself threatened "serious consequences" for violations by Iraq of numerous Resolutions. Given 12 years of sanctions, there can only be one definition of "serious consequences" - yep, you guessed it. A curfew and no television for a month. No silly, that was a joke - military intervention is the only "serious consequence" available to the U.N. and the U.S.

My reply to Sean:

You said, " I'll simply disagree with his arguments and point out they are fatally flawed by the simple fact that the U.N. had itself threatened "serious consequences" for violations by Iraq of numerous Resolutions. Given 12 years of sanctions, there can only be one definition of "serious consequences" - yep, you guessed it."

Sean, you should spend less time being a wiseass and more time educating yourself about facts which you are ignorant of. The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" was the wording used in UN Resolution 678 that authorized the Gulf War. The wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" was removed from the first draft of UN Resolution 1441 so that it would not be an automatic authorization for war. The words "all necessary means" were replaced "with a much softer line that Iraq will "face serious consequences" after the Security Council has met to "consider the situation"" Resolution 1441 was written without the wording "ALL NECESSARY MEANS" (which is diplomatic language for authorizing use of force) so that it would not be an authorization for war. UN Resolution 1441 not a call for war

There is a big problem with many people who are so ignorant that they don't understand basics about current event. They sit in front of their TVs assuming that the media "would tell them" what they need to know.

The bottom line is the media hasn't been hard on Bush, in fact they have allowed him to get away with being AWOL by not reporting the basic facts or underreporting them.

For the guy under the delusion that there is evidence that Bush showed up when he was supposed to, wake up and smell the coffee:

No Alabama Air National Guard records have surfaced showing Bush did any duty there. Former commanders and other members of the 187th in 1972 and 1973 say they don't remember ever seeing Bush there. AP reports on Bush's record

Bush was AWOL

ANd like I said, many people are ignorant about the basics: No Fly Zones

The US attacked Iraq because Saddam might have given WMD to terrorists?
Such a pathetic excuse to start a war. What specious logic. Nazis were hung for doing the exact same thing. A "dagger pointed at the heart of Germany" or a "madman might give WMD to terrorists", what is the difference? Nazis hung for starting a war "to protect themselves" and US leaders are not?

Beheadings.

I am watching the History Channel and they just said that the order to deliver bin Laden's head on a silver plater was taken literally. Dry ice was ordered in order to deliver the actual head to the White House.

"One scene reveals a previously unreported fact. Before the first CIA team of secret paramilitary soldiers was sent into Afghanistan, Bush signed an intelligence order on Sept. 17, 2001, authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden and al Quaeda leaders.
Cofer Black, head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, tasked the team leader, identified only as "Gary" by Woodward, with very direct orders. "Go and find the al Quaeda and kill them. We're going to eliminate them. Get bin Laden, find him. I want his head in a box."
Gary asked Black, "You're serious?" Black responded, "Absolutely," repeating that he wanted bin Laden's head in a box. "I want to take it down and show the president."
The CIA team took Black's order literally, and after landing, Gary sent back a cable to request these items: "heavy-duty cardboard boxes and dry ice, and if possible some pikes."

Remember that many in the US love to point to the beheadings in Iraq as evidence of their savagery. What does that make us? 'Bush at War' reveals a young President's passion

Israel welcomes Germany's plan to limit Jewish immigration

 
Israel welcomes Germany's plan to limit Jewish immigration 
BERLIN, Jan. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- Israeli Ambassador to Germany ShimonStein on Friday welcomed the German government's plan to limit Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union.

    Israel holds there could not be any true Jewish refugees because Israel was the homeland of all Jews, German News Agency DPA quoted Stein as saying.

    The German government's move to restrict Jewish immigrants conforms to Israel's view, Stein said.

    Israel complained that Germany's virtually unrestricted Jewish immigration regulation has attracted many Jews to settle in Germany instead of Israel.

    The German government is seeking to draw up new rules over Jewish immigrants with Germany's 16 federal states and the country's Jewish groups.

    German Interior Minister Otto Schily earlier pledged to consultthe Central Council of Jews in Germany (CCJ), which opposes the change of the rules, in this regard.

    The interior ministry said some 190,000 Jews have settled in Germany from former Soviet Union since a regulation encouraging Jews in former Soviet Union to move to Germany took effect in 1991.

    The government is considering changing rules for Jewish immigrants as it has proven difficult to integrate some of the Jewish immigrants.

A Columbia professor writes this?!?: “Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned. Get the hell out of America. You are a disgrace and a pathetic typical Arab liar.”

The Columbia professor sent the letter to Joseph Massad who is also a professor at Columbia.

A propaganda film put out by the David Project smears critics of Israel. But the Jewish Week article "Controversial Film Roils Columbia" in researching the claims made in the David Project's film wrote, "a much different picture emerges than the one seemingly portrayed on screen"

Pressure Tactics, Intimidation

Statement in Response to the Intimidation of Columbia University
"The major strategy that these pro-Israel groups use is one that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. But the claim that criticism of Israel is an expression of anti-Semitism presupposes that Israeli actions are “Jewish” actions and that all Jews, whether Israelis or non-Israelis (and the majority of world Jews are not Israelis), are responsible for all Israeli actions and that they all have the same opinion of Israel. But this is utter anti-Semitic nonsense. Jews, whether in America, Europe, Israel, Russia, or Argentina, are, like all other groups, not uniform in their political or social opinions. There are many Israeli Jews who are critical of Israel just as there are American Jews who criticize Israeli policy. I have always made a distinction between Jews, Israelis, and Zionists in my writings and my lectures. It is those who want to claim that Jews, Israelis, and Zionists are one group (and that they think exactly alike) who are the anti-Semites. Israel in fact has no legal, moral, or political basis to represent world Jews (ten million strong) who never elected it to that position and who refuse to move to that country. "

Well Said

"Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy."
Post 9/11 Conspiracism (Democracy Now folowup)

Post 9/11 Conspiracism

dubious claims made in the book "The New Pearl Harbor"

Chip Berlet's Review of "The New Pearl Harbor"
The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks
Transcript of the the Democracy Now Program of May 25, 2004 on claims in the Griffin Book, both David Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet debate

Help Representative Press get the word out: PLEASE DONATE

I put what I think are the top three books to read on Israel and the Palestine on the new web page:Recommended Books on Israel and Palestine

Here is the first one:



The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East by David Hirst


Visit Recommended Books on Israel and Palestine to see the others.

I started to work on the The History of Israel and Palestine page. Clearly there is a need for a detailed history. I am working on the page now and will be adding to it in the coming weeks. Check it out: The History of Israel and Palestine

Steven, By May 1948, when the Jews (33%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had already stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, "Israel" was attacked by its neighbors. What the Zionists had done was an attack and it came first. (from my older page on some of the background History of Israel )