-Caveat Lector-
Hey, what do you mean "Down Under" ...The magnetic North Pole of earth is
the geometric South pole, so that makes us up and US down, does it not?
:)
Peter
We are about to go on a Journey. All Aboard
http://sites.netscape.net/gsussnzl/homepage
----- Original Message -----
From: Alamaine Ratliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 2:16 PM
Subject: [CTRL] Down Under There Media Coverage ...
> -Caveat Lector-
>
>
> From http://www.newaus.com.au/upfront.html
>
> {{<Begin>}}
> Rupert Murdoch's Australian savages Republicans over test ban
> By Gerard Jackson
> No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999
> Cameron Forbes
> The refusal of the US Senate to ratify the International Comprehensive
Nuclear
> Test Ban Treaty outraged Australian left-wing US-based journalists,
causing
> them to vent their anger on the Republicans, never a difficult task. The
worst
> of the lot, as expected, was The Australian's Washington-based Cameron
Forbes.
> A particularly nasty piece of left-wing work who never seeems to miss a
chance
> to blame the Republicans for whatever is supposed to plague the US.
>
> Letting himself go, the self-righteous and dishonest Forbes accused the
> Republicans of sending the world into "a mad nuclear arms race," of
creating an
> "apocalyptic vision," of causing India, China, Russia, North Korea and
Pakistan
> to conduct "further weapons test." But what could one expect, argued
Forbes,
> when the likes of Jesse Helmes, a man who "makes teenagers look like
> troglodytes", are nestling in the Senate. (Rupert Murdoch's Australian,
Ban the
> bomb? Over Jesse's [Helmes] dead body, 15/10)
>
> That those who opposed Clinton's test ban treaty could possibly have any
sound
> or honourable objections was summarily dismissed by Forbes who described
them
> ". . . as people who do not want disarmament. They love the bomb - in the
name
> of US security and superiority." Why it is morally indefensible to defend
US
> security and maintain its military superiority is something that the
socialist
> Forbes chose not to share with his readers. After all, it was this
military
> superiority that kept Soviet barbarism at bay for more than 50 years. Is
that
> why Forbes hates it so?
>
> In another sickening example of selective quoting Forbes parroted the
left-wing
> Chris Paine, a representative of the NRDC (Natural Resources Defence
Council),
> which Forbes tried to pass off as just "an influential lobby group." This
is
> absolutely false. The NRDC is a hardcore socialist green organisation that
has
> condemned economic growth, synthetic fuels, genetic engineering and
nuclear
> power, etc. It has done everything within its power to sabotage economic
> development. During the Cold War it supported Soviet initiatives,
condemned
> American defence spending and demanded a nuclear freeze by the US - but
not by
> the Soviets.
>
> It is fanatical and completely unprincipled. It provoked the alar scare,
> claiming that its own experiments with mice proved that the chemical would
> cause cancer in humans. Competent scientists extrapolated the NRDC's tests
to
> humans and found that a person would have to eat 27,000 apples a day for
70
> years to produce the kinds of tumours that massive doses produced in the
NRDC's
> mice! It was later found that using the NRDC's own research, a mouse fed
with
> half the maximum dose - equivalent to a man eating 14,000 apples a day for
70
> years - produced no tumours. A fact that the NRDC did not report. As this
kind
> of behaviour is the equivalent of what passes for journalistic ethics on
> Murdoch's Australian, it's no wonder Forbes didn't notice. So it comes as
no
> surprise that he grossly misled his readers about the nature of this
vicious
> scaremongering outfit whose own founder resigned from it out of disgust
because
> of the direction it had taken. Another fact, like so many others, that the
> fearlessly honest Forbes neglected to mention.
>
> Having quoted the extreme leftwing Paine, Forbes then quoted Joe Biden, a
> leading left-wing Democratic Senator who described the Republicans
principled
> rejection of Clinton's handiwork "as the US's worst mistake in his 27
years in
> politics". And what do we know of Biden? Nothing good, as one would expect
of
> someone respected by Forbes.
>
> It was Biden who took to the Senate floor in September 1998 and
ferociously
> argued that allowing America to defend itself against a nuclear missile
attack
> by building an anti-missile system "will destroy the Anti-Ballistic
Missile
> Treaty", completely ignoring the fact that Russia is working on such a
system.
> Moreover, according to this great American patriot, such a defence system
would
> force China and Russia to adopt a nuclear "launch-on-warning" strategy
which
> would bring "nuclear war closer". What Biden and his left-wing
Congressional
> ilk did was resurrect the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. And yet
this
> is exactly what Forbes had the nauseating nerve to accuse Republicans of
doing.
> What a sickening hypocrite.
>
> The truth is that Biden has a shocking record on American Defence. (Why
else
> would Forbes quote him approvingly). Biden was a strong supporter of the
> Coalition for a New Foreign Military Policy. This umbrella organisation
was
> formed in 1976 by the notoriously pro-Soviet Institute for Policy Studies
and
> consisted of 55 left-wing groups. Readers will not be surprised to learn
how
> closely it toed the Soviet line which included "unilateral disarmament"
and aid
> to "liberated" countries like totalitarian Communist Vietnam. This mob
never
> met a communist dictatorship is didn't admire and yet Biden supported it.
Given
> that he supported, even in the teeth of Soviet aggression, unilateral
> disarmament by the US and that he worked to deny Americans a missile
defence
> system, is it any wonder that he maligns Republicans for vetoing an
unworkable
> test ban treaty.
>
> But what about the so-called treaty itself and what was it that that
bigoted
> journalists like Forbes withheld from their readers? Forbes viciously
trashed
> Helmes (he also trashed Thomas Jefferson), accusing him of acting
> ideologically, but not the noble Senator Biden and his left-wing mates.
What he
> didn't report is that in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign
> Relations Committee, Sen. Jesse Helms conducted a hearing with the express
> purpose of discussing the treaty. Though eleven people testified the
majority
> of Democrats refused to attend, preferring personal attacks on Helmes to
an
> open and honest debate on the treaties alleged benefits. The truth is that
the
> Democrats not only refused to discuss the treaty they tried to manipulate
it
> for partisan reasons. Not that the likes of Forbes or his editor would
ever
> report this.
>
> This is how leading intellectuals William Kristol and Robert Kagan writing
in
> the Weekly Standard described the treaty's rejection: "Last week's
rejection by
> the Senate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was the most responsible
and
> courageous action by that body since the 1991 vote authorising the Gulf
War."
> Why didn't Forbes refer to these men? Because they are conservatives and
the
> likes of Forbes hate conservative intellectuals. He also ignored Kissinger
and
> Richard Lugar, both of whom opposed the treaty. But maybe he reckons they
are
> just right-wing "hardliners" like six former defence secretaries who
agreed
> with them. Then there were Senators like Ted Stevens of Alaska, Olympia
Snowe
> of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Thad
> Cochran of Mississippi, all of whom have impeccable records of
bipartisanship
> in their support of arms control agreements. Yet they too opposed
Clinton's
> treaty.
>
> Tell us, Mr Forbes, are these Senators also right-wing "hardliners"? While
> you're at it, Forbes, perhaps you'll care to explain why you didn't report
> their objections to signing the treaty? And while I'm at it, I'll quote
Dr.
> Richard Garwin's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"I
> oppose modifying our nuclear weapons under the moratorium or under the
CTBT."
> Unlike the left-wing Messrs Paine and Biden, Dr. Richard Garwin is a
prominent
> scientist who actually knows what he's talking about as do a number of
acting
> and retired military personnel who also oppose the treaty. No mention of
them
> either.
>
> That the CTBT treaty is unverifiable and unenforceable was another
embarrassing
> fact that Forbes suppressed along with the fact that neither Pakistan nor
India
> would sign it. Even certain signatories like Russia and China have refused
to
> cooperate with its compliance-enforcement measures. For example, Moscow is
> deploying a brand-new generation of road-mobile nuclear-tipped ICBMs
called the
> Topol-M and Beijing is doing likewise. These actions confirm a CIA
report -
> ignored by Forbes and his fellow left-wing journalists - that Russia and
China
> have already violated the treaty, thus demonstrating that they never had
any
> intention of honouring it. (This raises the question of why Clinton also
> ignored the report). What this means is that the countries that would
abide by
> the treaty are the ones we do not have to fear, while rogue states North
Korea
> and Iran continue with their nuclear weapons programs.
>
> That, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms pointed
out,
> "not a single president before the current one has ever sought a
zero-yield,
> indefinite duration CTB" was an observation that Forbes decided was better
left
> unreported. After all, in Forbes view, what could redneck "troglodytes"
like
> Helmes have to say that could possibly be worth reporting.
>
> The response of Austalia's left-wing print media, meaning nearly all of
it, was
> just as dishonest, ideologically corrupt and grotesquely self-righteous as
> Forbes' reporting. The Age (a Melbourne 'quality' paper) viciously
asserted, as
> did its Washington correspondent, Gay Alcorn, that America "is now looking
. .
> . like one of the world's rogue states." (The US now stands along side
North
> Korea and Iran as a rogue state!) Of course, this very left-wing paper
blamed
> the Republicans, accusing them of being motivated by "vindictiveness and
> ideology." (Pretty rich coming from a genuinely vindictive and dishonest
rag).
> Needless to say, the paper refused to publish the Senate's reasons for
> rejecting the treaty.
>
> Joanne Gray, The Australian Financial Review's Washington correspondent,
was
> more restrained in her rhetoric but equally damning. Adhering to the
left-wing
> line, she levelled most of the blame at the Republicans, claiming that
Helmes
> did not even hold a hearing on the treaty when, as we have already seen,
he did
> just that only to have it boycotted by the Democrats.
>
> Australia's Reagan-hating media is overwhelmingly left-wing. The same
papers
> that now condemn the Republicans for rejecting this dangerous hard left
treaty
> are the same papers that vilified, lampooned, derided, satirised and
grossly
> misrepresented the Reagan presidency. The same papers that savaged Reagan
for
> having the courage to walk away from the disarmament deal at Reykjavik and
> refuse to surrender the Strategic Defense Initiative. It was this courage
that
> finally sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire. But not to the Australian
media
> which also, incidentally, staunchly supports the Clinton administration.
>
> The fact that these journalists are contemptible and bigoted still does
not
> explain the depth of their enmity toward the Republicans. In his The
Vision of
> the Anointed Thomas Sowell provided brilliant insights into the 'thinking'
of
> the likes of Forbes and Alcorn. What matters to these ideologues is the
vision,
> not reality. Thus those who do not share their vision are the real enemy.
> Because the vision is self-evidently good those who do not share it can
only be
> motivated by bad faith or even actual evil. This, in a nutshell, is what t
hey
> think. Thus they have no difficulty defending Clinton, even against
charges of
> rape, because he at least shares the vision. On the other hand, a
left-wing
> journalist like Christopher Hitchens hates Clinton because he thinks he
> betrayed the vision.
>
> Left-wing fundamentalists like Forbes find it impossible to ascribe
anything
> but bad faith to their critics, such is their moral certainty and faith in
> their own righteousness. Such people have always been a menace to liberty
and
> always will be.
> {{<End>}}
>
>
> From http://www.newaus.com.au/peter.html
>
> {{<Begin>}}
> Peter Zhang's Column
> Will Lord Keynes cripple China's military?
> No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999
>
> In some ways economic thinking is so bad in China that I'm trying to think
of
> something funny to say about it. While the British seem to have a happy
knack
> of making fun out of even the grimmest of situations, no such tradition
exists
> in China. That's sad because I think we're going to need one. However,
American
> conservatives can look on the bright side - for the moment. While they are
> worrying about how to contain China's potential for creating military
mischief
> Beijing is planning to implement economic policies that could cripple
military
> expansion. Yep, life's full of ironies.
>
> While having clever young Chinese train in the West as engineers and
scientists
> was a smart move, having some trained as economists was definitely dumb.
So
> dumb in fact that I suspect a CIA plot. (Sorry folks, that's the best I
can do
> for humour this week). Smart as our students are, they still tend to do
> everything by rote. This means that having learnt Keynesian economics at
> British and American universities they will inevitably apply it in a
mechanical
> way. The likely consequences for the Chinese economy is not something most
> Chinese would care to dwell on, that is if they understood them.
>
> It was the State Development Planning Commission that forced me to
consider the
> extent to which Lord Keynes' poisonous economic brew had become Beijing's
> economic panacea. The commission calculated that if each of the 85 million
> peasants who are to be moved off the land were to each spend 30,000 yuan
this
> would expand the demand for residential housing by 2550 billion yuan. In
> addition, further spending of 400 billion yuan on consumer items like
fridges,
> televisions, etc, would stimulate the economy and help absorb a glut of
> consumer goods.
>
> The fallacy here is the very old one of thinking that savings are a drain
on an
> economy while consumption drives it. There is no general glut in China but
> there has been a massive misdirection of production. Huge surpluses of
goods
> have been produced at the expense of goods in greater demand. (Nothing is
for
> nothing). Furthermore, a goodly proportion of these goods are of such
inferior
> quality they shouldn't even be classified as stock.
>
> The problem here is that over the years massive amounts of savings have
been
> malinvested. But under the present system these malinvestments have been
kept
> in operation with cheap loans and outright subsidies, meaning they have
> continued to produce goods in excess of demand. The piling up of huge
surpluses
> and the emergence of 'excess' capacity as many malinvestments find it
> increasingly difficult to maintain output combined with an apparent fall
in
> consumer prices have persuaded some that China is deflating. If the money
> supply figures are accurate then deflation is a myth. My guess is that
bank
> reserves are accumulating while excessive stocks are forcing prices a
down. In
> other words, a simple supply and demand situation.
>
> So why should the commission's spending calculations be bad for China's
> military? Because they will damage investment and that in turn will hamper
the
> military. As this magazine continually points out, savings fuel growth and
> entrepreneurship drives it - but only within a free-market framework, even
a
> badly hampered one such is the power of market processes. Massive
consumption
> spending, and that includes housing, at the expense of savings will reduce
the
> size of China's already small capital structure. Should this occur the
effect
> will be to raise the opportunity costs of military spending because living
> standards will be declining. Because, for example, America is vastly
richer
> than China, dollar for dollar America's opportunity costs of military
spending
> are lower than China's. One only has to think of how easily Reagan spent
the
> Soviet Union into extinction to see what I'm getting at.
>
> Before American conservatives jump with glee at the prospect Keynes'
Chinese
> disciples eating their country's seed corn they should reflect on two very
> important points: (1) America is doing the very same thing and (2) a
poorer
> China is not really in any nation's long run interests. Poverty always
breeds
> resentment.
>
> {{<End>}}
>
>
> From http://www.newaus.com.au/USReport.html
>
> <<This one's only excerpted because of the vast amount of coverage seen
over
> the years in various places. Although TNA has only recently (to my
limited
> knowledge of the magazine's content) put anything out on this, it is
remarkable
> that this is getting world-wide exposure now. A<>E<>R >>
>
> {{<Begin>}}
> Mena, Clinton and the CIA
> By James Henry
> No. 139, 25 - 31 October 1999
> Isn't America's mainstream media a marvel to behold. It enthusiastically
leaps
> on a rumor that presidential candidate George W. Bush is a cocaine user
while
> at the same time suppressing information regarding Bill Clinton's
drug-taking
> habit and cocaine connections. Unfortunately the right has also muddied
the
> waters with its obsession about alleged CIA drug smuggling through Mena,
even
> though the evidence points elsewhere. That elsewhere being Clinton and his
> crooked drug-taking friends. So what really happened at Mena? I've
consulted
> several well-informed people on this matter, people who have always proved
> reliable and honest.
> >>Break<<
> Editor's note: Rupert Murdoch's left-wing Australian not only ran the
phony CIA
> drug story it also continues to push the Bush drug rumours. Like the rest
of
> our media The Australian refuses to publish any references to Clinton and
> cocaine. Though the paper's intellectual and moral standards have been in
> decline for some time, the process seems to have accelerated under the
> 'control' of Lachlan Murdoch, one of Rupert Murdoch's sons. It seems young
> Lachlan has inflated ideas about his intellectual powers. Strutting little
> egotists like him are always easy meat for sophisticated leftists.
> {{<End>}}
>
> A<>E<>R
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
> new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
> it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
> own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
> prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
> information and ideas through any media and regardless
> of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
> teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
> is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
> expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
> for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting
propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance-not soapboxing! These are sordid
matters
> and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and
outright
> frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor
effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to
readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
