Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself?
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Amelia Edgeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Amelia Edgeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note the part about 89% of journalists voting for Clinton. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The New Australian Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of our military. What America needs is a moral revival and the media is a good place to start. Questions that come to mind: Where did that 89% statistic come from? What percentage of EDITORS [gatekeepers], not REPORTERS [newsserfs] "voted for Clinton and everything he stands for"? Are "Clinton" and "everything he stands for" identical? Could some have voted for Bill [I didn't] not because they liked "everything he stands for" but because they somehow perceived some difference between the nearly- identical platforms of Clinton-Bush [92] and Clinton-Dole [96]?? That statistic may have come from the survey taken by MSNBC News. I remember the survey but not the exact percentage. That seems about right. Sure, I remember that 'survey' too, but the other questions remain unanswered. That survey, and the NewOzzy piece, misconstrue power relationships in media. Line-workers don't make policy, managers do. I have a simple little quiz re: "Liberal" media: Q: How do you become a journalist in the US? A: An editor hires you. Q: How do you become an editor in the US? A: Senior management hires you. Q: How do you become senior management in the US? A: The owner(s) hire you. Q: How many media corporations in the US are owned by Marxists? A: (the answer is left as an exercise for the student) Q: Who controls biases of US media - journalists, editors, or owners? A: (the answer is left as an exercise for the student) Q: What is the religion of for-profit corporations? A: Money. Q: What is the driving force behind media corporations? A: Money. Q: What will corporations do to make more money? A: Anything they can get away with. The logic is simple: If a perceived bias, if polarization of the populace, will sell advertising space in any media, that medium WILL present polarizing, biases productions. If ad space can be sold in productions about talking equines, alien invaders, cabals, soft-core porn, conspiracies, vampire slayers, Elvis, or anything else, such productions WILL be presented, with much fanfare. Keep in mind that, for commercial media, their actual product is the audience, not the production. They sell their audience to their advertisers. When we consume TV, radio, periodicals, WE are the product. The content of the media is but a lure. Every pundit and politico before the public eye is a performer, a dancing bear, a talking parrot who squawks to grab our attention for the next sales pitch, the next chance to sell US to the advertisers. When a media outlet spouts an ideological line, it's because they have enough of an audience to generate dividends for the shareholders. So in presidential campaigns, the finalists have indistinguishable political platforms, and the only way to induce candidates/parties [advertisers] to plow MASSIVE amounts of cash into media biz, is to produce presentations magnifying the minute distinctions between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, to garner sufficient audiences [we, the product] for the show. Never let truth stand in the way of a good story [that's showiz]. Misconstrue every possible detail. Omit every embarrassing contrary detail. 89% OF JOURNALISTS VOTED FOR MARXIST CLINTON!! But how many editors/owners did, and who controls what journalists write, and is corporate-whore Dixiecrat Clinton any more Marxist than was Reagan? Hey, don't answer that, the readers/ viewers will get bored and switch channels and ad revenues will drop and the shareholders will be pissed and I'll be pounding the streets looking for another cushy job. Keep the juices flowing. Never underestimate the power of greed. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself?
-Caveat Lector- When you get to these upper-level individuals which you have termed "Marxist" I do not think they bother to vote. They already know the outcome. Any gesture along those lines is for appearance only. Either way, they win. Amelia - Original Message - From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? -Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Amelia Edgeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Amelia Edgeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note the part about 89% of journalists voting for Clinton. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The New Australian Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of our military. What America needs is a moral revival and the media is a good place to start. Questions that come to mind: Where did that 89% statistic come from? What percentage of EDITORS [gatekeepers], not REPORTERS [newsserfs] "voted for Clinton and everything he stands for"? Are "Clinton" and "everything he stands for" identical? Could some have voted for Bill [I didn't] not because they liked "everything he stands for" but because they somehow perceived some difference between the nearly- identical platforms of Clinton-Bush [92] and Clinton-Dole [96]?? That statistic may have come from the survey taken by MSNBC News. I remember the survey but not the exact percentage. That seems about right. Sure, I remember that 'survey' too, but the other questions remain unanswered. That survey, and the NewOzzy piece, misconstrue power relationships in media. Line-workers don't make policy, managers do. I have a simple little quiz re: "Liberal" media: Q: How do you become a journalist in the US? A: An editor hires you. Q: How do you become an editor in the US? A: Senior management hires you. Q: How do you become senior management in the US? A: The owner(s) hire you. Q: How many media corporations in the US are owned by Marxists? A: (the answer is left as an exercise for the student) Q: Who controls biases of US media - journalists, editors, or owners? A: (the answer is left as an exercise for the student) Q: What is the religion of for-profit corporations? A: Money. Q: What is the driving force behind media corporations? A: Money. Q: What will corporations do to make more money? A: Anything they can get away with. The logic is simple: If a perceived bias, if polarization of the populace, will sell advertising space in any media, that medium WILL present polarizing, biases productions. If ad space can be sold in productions about talking equines, alien invaders, cabals, soft-core porn, conspiracies, vampire slayers, Elvis, or anything else, such productions WILL be presented, with much fanfare. Keep in mind that, for commercial media, their actual product is the audience, not the production. They sell their audience to their advertisers. When we consume TV, radio, periodicals, WE are the product. The content of the media is but a lure. Every pundit and politico before the public eye is a performer, a dancing bear, a talking parrot who squawks to grab our attention for the next sales pitch, the next chance to sell US to the advertisers. When a media outlet spouts an ideological line, it's because they have enough of an audience to generate dividends for the shareholders. So in presidential campaigns, the finalists have indistinguishable political platforms, and the only way to induce candidates/parties [advertisers] to plow MASSIVE amounts of cash into media biz, is to produce presentations magnifying the minute distinctions between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, to garner sufficient audiences [we, the product] for the show. Never let truth stand in the way of a good story [that's showiz]. Misconstrue every possible detail. Omit every embarrassing contrary detail. 89% OF JOURNALISTS VOTED FOR MARXIST CLINTON!! But how many editors/owners did, and who controls what journalists write, and is corporate-whore Dixiecrat Clinton any more Marxist than was Reagan? Hey, don't answer that, the readers/ viewers will get bored and switch channels and ad revenues will drop and the shareholders will be pissed and I'll be pounding the streets looking for another cushy job. Keep the juices flowing. Never underestimate the power of greed. 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
[CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? By James Henry
-Caveat Lector- Note the part about 89% of journalists voting for Clinton. AKE - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 4:34 AM Subject: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? By James Henry - SNETNEWS Mailing List Subj: Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? By James Henry Date: 7/11/99 7:58:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Huddleston) A HREF="http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~gjackson/USReport.html"http://www.labyri nt h.net.au/~gjackson/USReport.html /A U.S. Report Telling it Like it Is The New Australian Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? By James Henry No. 126, 5-11 July 1999 The ancient Romans said if you want peace, prepare for war. Somehow this is also the downside of the better-known saying that history always repeats itself. Why? Because it is not that history repeats itself at all, it's just that people tend to repeat their mistakes. The great mistake America is repeating is to forget that wise Roman saying. Under Clinton America has been preparing for defeat. Peace comes through strength. In a pacific world the need for military might would not exist. But we live, as we have done since time immemorial, in a dangerous and uncertain world. A world in which powers rise and fall. In one sense, American power is unique because it springs from a country that was born into liberty. This uniqueness offers no protection against aggression. That can only come from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not treaties. Any treaty between a democracy and a tyranny is only as good as the ability and willingness of that democracy to defend itself. Clinton has greatly reduced this ability thus putting America in grave peril. Democracies are dangerously pacific. This means that once a democracy runs down its armed forces it can become politically impossible to raise the funds to restore them to the appropriate level. There will always be siren voices telling us that there is no foreseeable danger, which makes as much sense as saying that one should never try to secure property until after it is stolen. The same voices use this fallacious argument to demand that any so-called social spending should always take precedent over defence spending, which is really arguing that defence has no social value. That these arguments are largely articulated by the ant-capitalist Left and its media allies comes as no surprise. This is the same group that considers America an exploitative, racist and unjust country. The very same group Kirkpatrick aptly called the "America-stinks crowd". Now it has found its apogee in William Jefferson Clinton whose savaging of America's defense capability could very well bring on this country another "day that will live in infamy". Only this time it might be our epitaph. A quick review of the serious damage that Clinton has done to this country's defenses will strengthen my argument. Something like 2,000 combat aircraft plus more than 232 bombers which comprised 20 air force and navy air wings have been abolished. Also gone are 207 ships including more than 121 combat ships plus of submarines and 4 carrier groups . The loss of these ships also meant that their shipyard facilities and the trained personnel needed to maintain them have been disbanded. The damage (or is it sabotage?) to the army and the nation's nuclear inventory has been equally devastating. This brings us to the disastrous 1922 Washington Conference. The Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty was to be renewed in 1922. As an alternative, the U.S. government proposed the Washington Conference that would limit armaments. With a little judicious arm-twisting the US government persuaded Britain to abandon the Japanese relationship and sign a US treaty that would limit the capital ship ratio for Britain, America and Japan to 5:5:3. In addition, no new warships over 35,000 tons were to be built and a massive number of existing warships were to be scrapped. To placate the Japanese the treaty denied Britain the right to build mainfleet bases north of Singapore while America was denied the same right to build them west of Hawaii. To make matters worse, in 1930 Hoover managed to persuade, in the name of peace, Britain's labor government to make deep cuts to its naval forces. The result was to break British naval power in the Pacific. There was no way this ratio would allow Britain to maintain a significant presence in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Something had to give. Moreover, the treaty made it impossible for the American fleet to quickly reach the British if they were attacked. These facts did not elude Japanese militarists who realised that this insane treaty opened up a military window of opportunity for them in Asia. Thanks to this idiocy the British
Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself?
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Amelia Edgeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note the part about 89% of journalists voting for Clinton. AKE - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The New Australian Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? ... Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of our military. What America needs is a moral revival and the media is a good place to start. Questions that come to mind: Where did that 89% statistic come from? What percentage of EDITORS [gatekeepers], not REPORTERS [newsserfs] "voted for Clinton and everything he stands for"? Are "Clinton" and "everything he stands for" identical? Could some have voted for Bill [I didn't] not because they liked "everything he stands for" but because they somehow perceived some difference between the nearly- identical platforms of Clinton-Bush [92] and Clinton-Dole [96]?? Do Americans mind that Australians are trying to interfere with US domestic politics? Are Australian media operating at such a high moral level that their journalists can preach about US media? [Hint: think "Rupert Murdoch"]. Doesn't anything printed in the NEW OZZIE constitute interference with US internal affairs? Should the U.S. bomb Melbourne to retaliate for this affront? Should we boycott/ embargo Foster's, slaughter zoo kangaroos, burn every Outback Steak- house and Aussie Fried Chicken franchise? Or should the CIA just destabilize and overthrow the Oz gov't? What's your preference? DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself?
-Caveat Lector- Do Americans mind that Australians are trying to interfere with US domestic politics? Americans have certainly interfered plenty with Australian internal affairs. For details read Crimes of Patriots By Jonathan Kwitny. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot 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
Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself?
-Caveat Lector- Ric, That statistic may have come from the survey taken by MSNBC News. I remember the survey but not the exact percentage. That seems about right. No retaliation required against the folks from downunder for their affront. They seem to have their hands full with their own loss of personal freedoms. If you feel you must protest, maybe you could protest Quantas airlines safety record, ban Crocodile Dundee video showings and also that shampoo line "Aussie's" in addition to having the CIA overthrow their government. Don't hold back! Amelia - Original Message - From: Ric Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [CTRL] Fw: SNET: [piml] Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? -Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Amelia Edgeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note the part about 89% of journalists voting for Clinton. AKE - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The New Australian Clinton and 1922: Is History Repeating Itself? ... Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of our military. What America needs is a moral revival and the media is a good place to start. Questions that come to mind: Where did that 89% statistic come from? What percentage of EDITORS [gatekeepers], not REPORTERS [newsserfs] "voted for Clinton and everything he stands for"? Are "Clinton" and "everything he stands for" identical? Could some have voted for Bill [I didn't] not because they liked "everything he stands for" but because they somehow perceived some difference between the nearly- identical platforms of Clinton-Bush [92] and Clinton-Dole [96]?? Do Americans mind that Australians are trying to interfere with US domestic politics? Are Australian media operating at such a high moral level that their journalists can preach about US media? [Hint: think "Rupert Murdoch"]. Doesn't anything printed in the NEW OZZIE constitute interference with US internal affairs? Should the U.S. bomb Melbourne to retaliate for this affront? Should we boycott/ embargo Foster's, slaughter zoo kangaroos, burn every Outback Steak- house and Aussie Fried Chicken franchise? Or should the CIA just destabilize and overthrow the Oz gov't? What's your preference? 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. Substancenot 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
