I keep hearing about the Democratic party and how there is only one candidate running as the President, Barack Obama, but that’s not true. There is 22 Democrats are candidates in the 2012 Presidential race. I wanted to highlight the six I found that had websites. The others do not have websites and could be formidable candidates, which are all on the site, thegreenpapers.com. I compiled information on the political positions of each candidate by looking through each website. I also compiled the same information on Mr. Obama and will publish it soon.
I’ll start with Jeff Boss. Jeff Boss has very different positions from the average candidate. Mr. Boss believes NSA “ARRANGE [d] THE 911 ATTACK and has…WITNESSED THE TOP HIGHEST CLEARANCE IN THE NSA CALLING THE 911 HIJACKERS IN MARCH 2001 [from the evidence of] 212 NSA AGENTS ON DVD.” He seems to be very interested with this subject on the homepage of his campaign website. He even thinks the NSA is trying to kill him (maybe because he felt they would not like his challenge to their authority). Along with that, he has filed a court case against the NSA in the past because he is so passionate about this issue. In addition, he seems to be very paranoid about the NSA spying on him, but that could be because he filed a court case against them. Also, Mr. Boss believes “The NSA controls the media and prevents Jeff Boss’ message from being heard.” I think the media rejects him because they don’t think he is real candidate and seems a bit crazy or would not be accepted by enough of the population. I think that he may have trouble on the campaign trail. In a sort of conservative position he is against bailouts of any kind which I agree with because those companies should deal with themselves. If they broke apart, then that’s just what happens. On the economy, he has a free market perspective that rejects socialism (equality of all people for monetary purposes and according to Economics and Liberty is a “centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production”). He [believes] “when the government controls the big companies [it] is Russian style communism.” So this makes him a hard-nosed civil libertarian, with a position like some constitutionalists in Congress and elsewhere. He has a Ron Paul-like position on the country, as he stated that “Our Civil liberties, Constitution, and Democracy are rapidly disappearing.” It sounds similar to Ron Paul’s words: “…our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes…rule of law is constantly rejected [in America] and authoritarian answers [are accepted as valid]…acceptance of…dictatorial powers to the President.” My conclusion is that he is a candidate who wants the truth, but is one who doesn’t agree with the American government’s narrative about the 9/11 attacks and he wants to tell what he says is the real story. Wille Felix Carter on the other hand is not a one issue candidate as Mr. Boss and covers almost all the issues.
Willie Felix Carter’s administration there would be a government “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE” (I went through his positions to see if this was true). He promises on the homepage of his campaign website saying he “will take the God fearing approach, addressing the needs of all the people of our nation, the homeless, jobless, the elderly, the business community, moving forward to reduce our national debt, and dependency on foreign resources, fair international trade, maintaining a strong military, strong foreign diplomacy, and stopping the cycle of violence across our nation.” My question is: What is a strong military? Will the military be kept at current levels? It seems unsustainable at this time, but his other ideas could balance out a strong military. Also I fear that what he says is too broad and could led to more trampling on the Constitution by him if he was President and interpreting it in a way that does not help the American people. For those that want to reform the military, this is not your President. In his own words, he “believe[s] that we should leave the military forces intact as they are...concentrating...energy [on] strong diplomacy and [keep our] intelligence capabilities [intact, while]...reserving the military for greater force application when necessary.” On reference to the homeless he states: “We must work together to create a business friendly community, with incentives to encourage hiring, and working to ensure affordable housing.” I’ve read Michael Harrington’s The Other America and I believe that Mr. Carter’s plan is not enough to help the homeless. Housing must match the housing that is destroyed and more resources should be given to poor and the homeless to help them live better lives. On another subject, he promises to make affordable healthcare by “work[ing] with Congress [with the interest of cooperate America [in mind] and [insuring] small businesses that we not drive them out of competition in the process [of creating affordable healthcare].” This plan is nothing like Mr. Obama’s plan for healthcare but is sounds a lot like Mr. Obama’s plan in the sense of how it was constructed. So, I fear that this candidate will not change the healthcare system in place or could erase the current healthcare system and put in something much worse. In terms of the one of the chief concerns of Americans, jobs, he has an interesting tact. Mr. Carter states: “There must be a balance to insure that while creating jobs, we do not send businesses out of the market. I will work to insure fairness in the work place, and at the same time allowing for healthy business growth.” I feel that more must be done than Mr Carter suggests. Unemployment insurance must be extended to 99 weeks as it will help boost the economy, an idea this candidate would not warm up to. On a hotly debated topic in Congress these days because of the Libyan war, he is not completely antiwar, by partly. He states: “I will work diplomatically to resolve conflicts, and only with a clear vision resort to military power to protect the freedom of our nation, and our interest abroad.” I feel his approach could provoke interventions in other parts of the world, possibly. He takes an approach on crime that is different than most others. He wants to “improv[e] methods used in courts to properly identify those individuals that are a constant and dangerous threat with permanent residence in prison, and giving those who need minor adjustments opportunity to return to society, equipped to successfully restart their lives.” I don’t like the idea of permanent residence in prison or identifying individuals that are a threat, but I like the rest of his statement and I think that giving criminals an opportunity to return to society is step in the right direction. The multitude of positions he supports makes him like a Blue Dog Democrat in Congress. In addition, he is anti-abortion which could turn off certain people that could support him. On another hotly debated topic, taxes, his tax policy is bit obscure: “I believe that with proper involvement we can make our taxes fairer, and simplified.” It is hard to know if Mr. Carter wants to support the fair tax, have a surtax on millionaires or what his exact tax policy is. What is sure is that he wants reform of the tax system in place. He believes in education the importance of employment should be stressed and that every student needs a support network. On marriage, he takes a strong Christian position that a man and woman married can not have sexual relation outside a marriage. While Mr. Carter supports immigration law reform (“United States Immigration Law that needs to be seriously addressed as we see tension mounting about the responsibilities of maintaining our Federal laws”), he supports the current immigration laws that are on the books at this time. He is planning to “reduce taxes...to give taxpayers more buying power...[and to help solve the national debt].” Mr. Carter’s hope is that for self-sufficiency of the people of America to give “relief to the national debt.” To create jobs, he will call upon the American business community and educators. Like the rhetoric Presidents have repeated since Richard Nixon’s Administration, he wants to end dependence on foreign oil, in part by telling OPEC countries to cut production if they want stable prices and he will increase domestic production of energy. Despite what was said earlier, he promises to have just laws in place, but what he is proposing as just laws? In his mind, his proposals (such as punishing those who do not follow U.S. law, protecting the environment, ending war in Iraq and protecting U.S. industry) seem to be just. On the other hand, Dee Neveu is completely different candidate than Mr. Carter.
The next candidate was Deonia P. “Dee” Neveu who said she was a “real vote for the people.” Ms. Neveu said she would be accountable to the people and work only with the people, not corporations. She says “At times...if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself...is an ultimate truth and necessity.” I believe that this statement implies that she supports self-sufficiency. Its not usually a left-leaning position, but its the direction her policies could be headed. Like every candidate, she promises to uphold what she says in the campaign in office. To further this concept, she states sincerely: "I don’t want to make a false promise that I can’t keep, or lead any person to deception on a promise.” Her first promise is an idea that has its origins in Thomas Jefferson being a supposed vote for the people. Its an idea that dictates that she doesn’t “want to live in the White House [so]...part of the White House [can] host Fund Raising events for America [a process that] the citizens of America can help with...[when Ms. Neveu doesn’t live in the White House, it will] offer American citizens the glorious privilege and experience of the White House.” I believe that having a house for just the President is a bit much, as its seems like a King’s Castle. So, I agree that a President should live in a normal house, like everyone else and that it should be completely open to the American people while holding fundraising events. Also to support the American people, she is against outsourcing. Enthusiastically she states “American jobs need saving” which almost every American citizen would agree with. Every candidate and many politicians want to save American jobs, but like the others who have talked about American jobs, she doesn’t lay out a plan to save American jobs. But that plan could be coming in the future possibly. On another note, she wants to encourage service and volunteering by American citizens to help America. In addition, Ms. Neveu stated “I do believe that a President should be for helping everyone, both rich and poor [by having fair tax laws and through other means].” I agree that the President should help everyone, but he/she should also help themselves. I feel that Ms. Neveu would be fit to fulfill this idea of a President that helps the country. As an antiwar position, she says if America is provoked then we should attack that country and the borders of U.S. need to be protected. I do not completely agree with this because I think U.S. borders should be open and the U.S. should only attack countries if it is attacked itself (self-defense). Later on she states the often used point: “How can we continue to help everywhere else...when we need to help ourselves again right here in America [?]” On a personal level she doesn’t agree with abortion and same-sex marriage, but she won’t force her view on anyone else while believing that all people should be respected and live happily. On a final note, her views are different than the average candidate, making her have some promise as a Democratic candidate for U.S. President, even the next U.S. President and views very different from John Sawyer.
John W. Sawyer, III calls himself a conservative on his homepage. But, Mr. Sawyer states: “I support Unions. I'm against reducing Capital Gains taxes to create jobs (it doesn't), and against the death penalty.” But, Mr. Sawyer doesn’t support every union as for religious reasons he takes an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stance. Also, I believe that being against the death penalty is very liberal stance, so he is not a complete conservative. In addition, he respects religious beliefs of all (I hope so! Every candidate should support religious beliefs of all.) As President and in life, he will “never...ASSUME ANYTHING. IF I DIDN'T KNOW THE FACTS, I WOULD KEEP MY THOUGHTS TO MY SELF.” It is good to not assume anything and I commend him for his words, but you can’t always keep your thoughts to yourself. In a cynical position, he believes “Our elected officials don't know what they are doing” because of all the problems that exist in America at this current time. I think that is not putting faith in elected officials and is a pessimistic view of the world, not having the optimism that things will change. On foreign affairs, he dislikes Saudi Arabia and thinks they are duplicity driven because they say they are fighting terror when they support it (Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national). In the same tune, Mr. Sawyer needs to come up with a Mideast policy to counter the current Mideast policy, since it world make him a stronger candidate. Later on in his blog, he even questions the government’s narrative relating to Osama’s death, thinking that the U.S. government may not be telling the truth or not the whole truth. I am a bit cynical of the government’s narrative myself, but I don’t want to take sides at this time saying that I support Mr. Sawyer’s statement or the government’s narrative. In addition, he proposes that Osama Bin Laden was taken alive from his compound which could be possibility, but not enough details have been released so it is hard to know the truth. But sometimes he too cynical, saying he dislikes all the Republican candidates other than Mitt Romney and that Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan would “drastically slash Medicare benefits...[they never] ask[ed] Seniors what THEY thought of their ideas [that] are based on one premise - Social Security and Medicare are going broke...Well, then by all means, cut the programs [but no one has the courage to cut them].” I believe that these programs should be reviewed to see if they can be limited to help solve the deficit, then the debt, but they should not be destroyed. Mr. Sawyer takes a good position on Mr. Ryan’s plan. In a somewhat downing note, he enthusiastically says “American is governed by losers” and concludes that “You're a loser. So am I. We continually make the same mistakes, over and over...[so] America [is not] great.” This is the saddest part of his website. It makes him seem like he doesn’t even have confidence in himself to win the election for U.S. President. But, he has the confidence to attack a sitting President.
In a attacking statement, Mr. Sawyers says President Obama “sandbagged [Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netahayhu [when he announced the idea of Israel possible going back to pre-1967 borders].” This shows he is veriantly anti-Obama (and from his other comments from his blog proves this point) and hates Obama as a President. Hating a sitting President that much can be bad because when you get in office and see that what you wanted to cut or hated isn’t that bad after all then you may even up being like the previous President. I said earlier he hated Mr. Ryan’s plan. Well, made a plan to counter Mr. Ryan’s proposal: “Fund the existing programs...prosecute...$50 Billion in Medicare fraud...[Imprison]...freeloaders who subsist off SSI payments...Cut Medicaid.” Along with that, he states a unbelievable concept: “The Medicare and Social Security systems are NOT broke, they were burglarized...Th[ose] in both [political] parties stole those funds when no one was looking.” I don’t completely agree with his idea about Medicare and Social Security, but at times I don’t trust either political party, so I agree with the concept that the political parties are somewhat corrupt, corrupted by the lobbying efforts of other organizations. It cannot be argued that he is very passionate about this issue and wants to improve the Medicare and Social Security systems. As part of improving both systems he would “change the dynamics of the discussion by separating the terms 'Medicare' from 'Medicaid' [since] Medicaid is welfare - paid for by someone else [and not] pay[ing] medical costs for those here illegally.” I agree that both concepts should be seperated, but I think his way of thinking is bit cynical. In a completely different political position, wars and how they should be thought, his position is different than the average candidate. His position on war, partly antiwar related takes about: “Invoking the Sawyer Doctrine (Go to war only if it is in our best interest, and if you go to war - WIN), there should be no [un]intended consequences in war, unless the unthinkable happens and the United States actually loses - an unlikely scenario if the enemy is Moammar Gadhafi, even with a liberal President. We: attack...invoke martial law...install a puppet government until they are ready to rule on their own...in OUR best interest; then we leave.” I am scared if this Sawyer Doctrine when into effect because the U.S. could be going into countries even if they didn’t attack us, for American national interest. This is not a good thing. Installing puppet government is unacceptable and should result in jail time. The assumption that the U.S. will win every war is silly. However, later he violates his support of Libya as implied in the previous statement, saying he opposes the Libyan war: “Better that Libyans die for Libyan causes. Stay out of it, Mr. President [because those who live in the Mideast hate America].” I believe this flip-flopping is part of political discourse, but could be dangerous because maybe he will flip on his other political views throughout his term as President. In another note, he is against government expansion and is wary of any unnecessary expansion of government, an idea that is usually accepted by conservatives against big government. Strangely enough, he thinks some of those in the Tea Party are idiots and that liberal politicians don’t solve any problems in America as he is a conservative Democratic candidate (like a Blue Dog) even though he supports some of their policies! In the end, his political positions are a mixed bag, with him supporting the Arizona law, SB 1070, that allows racial profiling of illegal immigrants, so they can be questioned on their citizenship. Mike Maloney, is a very different candidate who doesn’t have Mr. Sawyer’s radical positions.
Mike Maloney, as the next President promises to “Bring the Troops Home Now and take care of social justice and financial sanity at home!” The money toward Mr. Obama’s campaign (supposedly up to a $1 billion) for his reelection in 2012 will be “from the super rich to promote their own interests” and Mr. Maloney will run a campaign that works for the people. He will only accept donations from people, not corporations or political action committee (PACS). In order to enact healthcare reform he says that there must be “a Legitimate Debate on Health Care Reform Must Include Medicare for All.” On the economy he has varied views, saying “[the] government cannot plan and direct the economy and cannot be seen as the “creator” of jobs...government must constrain businesses to some extent for the General Welfare, government officials [cannot] direct...business...
Government intervention to prop up failing businesses [is inefficient and [destroys]...productive segments of the economy.” Even though I am traditionally a progressive who wants to move forward, I think that government intervention in the economy, especially with stopping companies from bankruptcy is unacceptable. I believe the big companies should have never got money from the government and I believe it was the first major mistake by President Obama. Along with this, he even says that “History Shows Government Intervention Makes Recession Longer.” I can’t agree on the basis of history, but I believe that government intervention is the wrong idea to fix an economy (the stimulus bill did not lead to a recovery). Even though he is anti-bailouts as implied in the previous statement, he believes “Government Must Protect Free People from the Power of Great Combinations [in business such as monopolies and trusts].” I do not like monopolies or trusts so I was happy to see a candidate who would crack down on these companies, instead of sleeping at the wheel as the Obama administration and other government agencies have done. Along with all this talk, he proposes five ways to control the national debt: http://mikemoloneyforpresident.com/ourmainproblem.php.
In a similar tune, he opposes so-called ‘trickle-down economics’ because it does not allow the the greatest “National prosperity [is] when the working poor and the middle class prosper.” This situation is not happening today and I confident that Mr. Maloney will change it. In a darker note, he attempts to see into the secretiveness and leadership class of the world. According to him, each President in recent times is “[controlled by] some great power elite operating behind the scenes.” He states he will not be a President controlled by the elite, a change from our current President which at times seems under control of the elite. Along with the previous view of a world leadership class, Mr.. Maloney states that: “Big Oil...banks [and] media dismantled antitrust laws...Big Corporations pushed [for] free trade treaties...[that the] Super Rich hide their wealth offshore to escape taxation.” All of his statement are true as I can tell and I believe that the elite should be controlled for the betterment on the country. As one might not expect, he is a constitutionalist. In 2008, the year America’s current President was elected, he writes: “the President is not above the Rule of Law [so] President Bush should be indicted for violating the Constitution. As President he has violated it numerous times: torture, illegal wiretapping, illegal wars...In my opinion President Bush has turned my country into a rogue nation, a terrorist nation. I also hold President Obama totally responsible for continuation of the Bush practices. We must indict Bush and [remove] Obama [from office]” One of the harshest criticisms I have of Mr. Obama is continuing Bush’s policies. I agree that Mr. Obama cannot be President for another four years and Mr. Maloney should be chosen instead. Along with that, according to a voter’s letter to the editor he concludes: “Mike [Maloney] has said for a long time we have to: bring the troops home from around the world, cut the military budget in half to have money for critical domestic needs, (roads, bridges, water, and sewer systems), protect American jobs, replace a health care system built to generate profits and bonuses...restore due process, rights of habeus corpus and security from unwarranted search…restore the Eisenhower tax brackets that [America] prospered with...and replace the private Federal Reserve that charges...government interest for imaginary money.” All of these plans, that the voter lays out seem to be reasonable about would lead to an America that is more prosperous. Along with these comments on Mr. Maloney, many are confirmed in his plan for President in his first 100 days which he displays for every person to see. But, some positions weren’t included in my previous writing about Mr. Maloney included his views on how to: reform how candidates get campaign contributions, stop torture, uphold international law, restore America as a beacon of liberty and have just immigration reform. I think Mr. Mike Maloney is a very capable candidate for President of all of those I have reviewed.
I went through all the candidates for President except one, Randall A. Terry (http://www.terryforpresident.com/). Why didn’t I look into Randall Terry’s positions? Well, for one, most people already know who he is. Mr. Terry is an anti-abortion activist. A Washington Post article notes the history of Mr. Terry and his positions: “Randall Terry [talks] proudly extreme politics...founded Operation Rescue...denounce[s] murderous abortionists and demonic homosexual sodomites...he calls [Islam a] religion [of] “murderers” and “terrorists”...he described Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, as a “whore” and “adultress”...[he believes the Bible] condemn[s] homosexuality.” In an accompanying article by ThinkProgress (liberal-leaning) it says “[the] infamous Christian-right activist Randall Terry followed through on his scheme to destroy the Islamic holy book, tearing pages from an English copy this morning in front of the White House...saying protests related to the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero...“disrespect the memories of our loved ones on this sacred day...veteran right-wing rabble rouser.” Forerunner has even more information about Mr. Terry: “[Terry’s] Operation Rescue activists have been successful in closing down major clinics in cities such as Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Philadelphia, and New York City...[in response to a question he said] God never gave the government a blank check to do what it wants to do. It is a heresy to teach Christians to obey a law which runs counter to His law.” From my analysis of all the candidates I have decided that Jeff Boss is too extreme with his idea that the NSA planned 9/11,Willie Felix Carter’s positions on issues that are across the map like a Blue Dog Democrat, Dee Neveu who has some good ideas like not living in the White House but doesn’t go into detail about her positions and John Sawyer is too skeptical of everything. In conclusion, I believe that Mike Maloney is the best candidate to challenge Mr. Obama because he is the most promising with his ideas on how to change America.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Is Russia Today a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?
I come upon this news service, Russia Today (RT), thinking it showed views other news didn't show. However, I was reading an article and from its conclusions I decided to look into the bias of the news channel. The description of their channel already shows their perspective: "RT is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news" (from their official site.). Some argue what is said on this news channel is in line with the Russian government and the Kremlin.
Its hard to find articles that articulate RT's bias, but there is a few, such as Rightside News. In a long, almost angry rant against the owner of RT (Adam Kohesh), Rightside News says Russia Today serves interests of the Kremlin. They stated, “A closer look at the Moscow-funded Russia Today television channel...reveals some interesting and disturbing corporate and foreign intelligence connections...Russia Today....regularly features Marxist groups on the air...western intelligence services have been wary about Russia Today’s correspondents.” I looked into the claims made against RT by doing a thorough investigation.
I started with article titles. Some were very critical of America, while others weren’t. The ones that critiqued the U.S. were made everything seem like a crisis or that everything was lost:
- Headline-grabbing gossip replaces news in US
- Panetta may be just like Gates
- US must make cuts or risk economic failure
The title I found the most strange and peculiar was: Bush, Cheney listed alongside Hitler, Bin Laden. That seems a bit extreme. I know Bush and Cheney expediated the decline of the American federal republic, but I wouldn’t say they compare equally to Hitler or Bin Laden. In some ways they are comparable but in other ways they are not. But, every news source has a unfairness to it, so that’s not that extreme. However, more of their headlines showed that everything was crisis:
- Former colonel convicted of killing girl in Chechnya, shot dead in Moscow
- Bilderberg meets amid growing global strife
- Fukushima disaster drives into Ukraine
It’s those key words that clued me in that something could be very prejudice in their articles. It’s also possible they are like the U.S. news media that show their biases with flying colors. I kept digging deeper to see if it really was related to the Kremlin or if they are outwardly bias. Looking into what guests come on their TV network could show the opinion of this news organization.
Guests on Russia Today’s program in the past week, according to their youtube page. I added quotes next to each person on the list [Radical= Name bolded]:
- Saifedean Ammous (Quote from his personal blog: “Israel already has destroyed Palestine. Israel is the aggressor and occupier here. Israel is the result of a Zionist project whose stated aim is to destroy the livelihood of Palestinians who do not belong to the Jewish religion. Israel has ethnically cleansed more than a million Palestinians from their homes over the years, murdered tens of thousands, and made freedom and self-determination impossible for all Palestinians everywhere.”)
- Nigel Farage (Zero hedge.com: "The Euro Game Is Up... Just Who The Hell Do You Think You Are? You Are Very Dangerous People”)
- Ali Ashgar Soltanieh (National Post: [“The IAEA chief] is not doing his job. Instead, with his reports, he is paving the way for more confrontation between member states.”)
- Cynthia McKinney (twice) (Boycott Liberalism.com: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?")
- Michael O'Brien (hist.cam.ac.ak: "Until recently, he has mainly written about the intellectual culture of the American South, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: its literature, political philosophy, historical imagination, and sense of self, as it has been formed by local social experience and interactions with other cultures.”)
- Gennady Litvin (from Litivin Law firm video: “We’re being told the economy is starting to rebuild itself? We’re being told the market’s turning around, people are getting jobs again, people are making jobs again but it’s being reported by the news agencies that this year [2011] is going to be the biggest year for foreclosure sales ever. Why is that? Basically cause the banks are behind on their work.”)
- Richard Wolf (From his official website: “The unstable alliance of the Tea Party and corporate America will unravel. Then the left must provide an alternative to austerity.”)
- Tony Gosling (on his page on his site about the Bilderberg Group: “World Government is moving closer all the time - and what's the chance that it will serve the people? Zero! And hardly anybody tells the public or dares to talk about how totalitarian the European Union is. We could be in for some serious skullduggery in coming years/months. A political/financial crisis, combined with spiritual disinformation could push us into a Fourth Reich, New World Order, with an official world religion that claims to represent ALL religions. This is what Prince Charles is advocating NOW. Powerful people will certainly be preparing their version of a spiritual 'panacea' to fill the spiritual gap THEY have created.”)
- Rick Falkvinge (From a recent article: “The United States is utterly bankrupt and has been living off of borrowed money since 1971, when it defaulted on its loans — though of course, it wasn’t worded like that. Not even an income tax of 100% is enough to cover the expenses, and the US is about to go the way of the Soviet Union… The world has been buying IOUs without coverage to maintain the value of the previous IOUs, with no other creditworthiness than an assumption that the US will pay back some day. That day is not going to come, and we’re all going to be poor for a while.”)
- Alexander Cockburn (from an interview in 2005: “Yeah, globalism is great. It's been going on for hundreds of years. Oh yeah, I'm against globalism of the bad sort: some company in America going and screwing people in the Third World and not paying them properly.”)
- Patrick Henningsen (from article about Bin Laden: “If you have been paying attention to this story over the last 8 years, then it’s not very difficult to predict this. If you apply basic common sense, the evidence weighs in favour of Osama bin Laden having died years ago. Or you can choose to believe the Hollywood version of events that we have been fed over the years, one which requires no effort.”)
- Mikhail Margelov (from Global Zero: “For more than half of a century, nuclear weapons have coexisted with us and remained the most powerful means of destruction. The “Club of Nuclear Powers” has been steadily joined by new members of whom not all can boast of internal stability or absence of conflict with neighbor-countries. Moreover, the weapons can fall into the hands of terrorists.”)
- Jean Bricmont (from MRZINE: “The first observation is that military interventions are not due to human rights rhetoric but to the decision, by the leaders of the countries that have the power and the means to intervene, to do so. Given the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going, I do not expect the US to launch new wars in the near future, except possibly with Iran. But the human rights rhetoric will continue as a way to demonize countries whose governments are too independent from the West, like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China etc. It will not necessarily lead to wars, but maintain a climate of hostility and distrust.”)
- Markus Kerber: (EurActiv: “Those who spit on the rules governing European Monetary Union will lose eventually.”)
- Afshin Rattansi (Counterpunch: “For some reason, not one journalist saw fit to attend a gathering of those interested in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – or drones – at the plush Waldorf Hilton in central London. Except me and my cameraman. Perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised. The corporate media doesn’t seem too interested in the so-called surgical strikes carried out by the U.S. Air force as they buzz around the skies of Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”)
- Klaus Peter Koltermann (ozconspiracyhouse: “The [nuclear power plants in Japan] will…affect the coastline, where people live, where ports are, where railroads are, where tourism is developing. And here the direct assessment includes how this will happen, how large it will be and how much the damage will be. So we can advise for the governments’ and authorities’ planning how much the protection and preparation should be.”)
- Peter Schiff (from Euro Pacific Capital: “Economic data over the past weeks, punctuated by last week's dismal employment reports, confirm the diminishing impact of the stimulus efforts orchestrated by the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. In what must be a huge disappointment to Keynesian enthusiasts, the record doses of both monetary and fiscal narcotics did not produce the desired results. In fact, the size and scope of the "recovery" of the past two years was weaker than would have been expected in a typical business cycle recovery without any stimulus whatsoever. Indeed our current recovery is the weakest on record, despite the biggest jolt of government stimulus ever administered.”)
- Vladmir Katalov (Question asked on website—What do you see as the biggest security threats today? Mr. Katalov’s response: “It is definitely a human factor. There are a lot of technical measures today: you can install the words' best firewall, antivirus, anti-spyware; implement an extremely good security policy; provide a few complex levels of authentication to protect your critical data -- and still do not get the appropriate security level simply because the human nature remains the same, most of today's attacks are still based just on that.”)
- Dmitry Maslennikov (Endthelie.com: “We can forget about the idea of privacy altogether. Whenever you go on the internet, you are already revealing everything about yourself. And it is becoming that way with using your phone.”)
- Vitaly Churkin (Charlie Rose’s interview: “We need to think about the peaceful transformation [and]…reforms in Syria…and be mindful of the instability…we know there is some destructive elements of the [Syrian] opposition…[Assad’s regime has enacted reforms for his people in Syria]…our idea in [Libya] is that there must be a ceasefire as soon as possible because it can produce a situation where civilians will no longer suffer. Then there can be political process…[The United States and Russia] are cooperating on Iran…We are trying to help the Israelis and the Palestinians move toward peace in the region…[The next Russian election] might [see a contest between the President and Prime Minister].”)
- Jean Bricmont (Counterpunch: “All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American “left” [that would champion]…the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time…Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media.”)
- Max Keiser (from his website: “Gold remains close to record nominal highs in all major currencies but media coverage in the UK, Ireland and Europe remains minimal and skeptical.”)
- Michel Chossudovsky (from globalresearch: “While the US Congress questions the legitimacy of the war on Libya, the Canadian parliament with one dissenting voice, votes in favor of extending Canada's participation in an illegal and criminal military undertaking…The broader implications of this "humanitarian war” and Ottawa's role in the US-NATO military alliance, not to mention the cost of this military operation to Canadian taxpayers has been barely mentioned in Canada's media. The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois, which claim to be "progressive' and “antiwar”, have given a blank cheque to the US-NATO sponsored war in North Africa.”)
- Chris Nineham (from Twitter feed: “New poll: 52% in Britain want troops out of Afghanistan NOW! Independent today… Stop the war coalition have called a national demonstration for troops out of Afghanistan on October 24. Start spreading the word.”)
- Hamid Gul (from one of Pakistan’s top Generals, Mr. Gul: “We are walking into an American trap [because 9/11 is a hoax].”)
- Adam Kohesh (from his twitter feed: “Fox News is owned by an Australian and a Saudi. No wonder they're so anti-American!”)
- Marc Almond (from his blog: “The humanitarian bombers are repeating the propaganda from their Kosovo intervention in 1999. Mass murder, government organised rape camps with mercenaries fired up on Viagra, and so on are the staples of Washington’s increasingly hysterical denunciations of Gaddafi as it turns out that his family has more support than the glib proponents of hellfire missiles as humanity’s preferred way to protect civilians would have had us believe.”)
- Matt Taibbi (from his Rolling Stone blog: “We justices of the Supreme Court of Assholedom had an extraordinarily difficult time adjudicating the case of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, who in recent weeks has achieved incredible notoriety for … what exactly? Even defining the nature of this scandal is problematic; it is extremely difficult to distinguish here between what he actually did wrong, and what’s merely a luridly gripping tabloid crucifixion of a guy exhibiting run-of-the-mill mongo-horniness.”)
- Pepe Escobar (from Asia Times: “The House of Saud is showering billions of dollars on a "new Egypt", an imploding Yemen and a suddenly more useful Muslim Brotherhood as the great Arab revolt is smothered under a mountain of oil wealth. Washington has meanwhile granted its own loaded gifts to Cairo, while quietly working with Bahrain's crown prince on the Persian Gulf American satrapy.”)
- Seyed Mohammad Marandi (from Guernica Magazine: “When the U.S. is constantly trying to terrorize the nation with threats of war, students obviously take notice. When my nine-year-old-son, after watching the U.S. vice president talk on TV, sadly, asks me if the Americans are going to kill all of us, then one can expect students also to show an interest in current affairs.”)
- Conn Hallinan (From Foreign Policy in Focus: “On the surface, the recent turmoil in Teheran looks like a case of the clerical elite, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, slapping down an independent-minded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though the battle is couched in vocabulary that does more to obscure than to reveal… So far, the Revolutionary Guard has come down on the side of Khamenei and even issued a veiled warning to the president that it might consider releasing records from the disputed 2009 election that saw Ahmadinejad re-elected. For now, the Guard is only intervening discretely, concentrating instead on gathering greater economic power.”)
- Tariq Ali (From The Guardian: “Bin Laden had apparently been in a safe house near the Pakistan military academy for six years. Nobody believes this could have happened without the knowledge of senior intelligence officials. A meeting with one such person in 2006, which I recounted in my last book on Pakistan, confirmed that Bin Laden was in the country and being kept safe. The person concerned told me the Americans only wanted Bin Laden dead, but that it was in Pakistan's interest to keep him alive.”)
- James Corbett (From the Corbett Report: “The bin Laden family has had an intimate relationship with the upper reaches of global power politics for the past half a century…In the weeks after the attack, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over if the US provided proof that he was connected to 9/11. Bush turned the offer down…The only thing we can say for certain is that the Osama Bin Laden character has now been disposed of in a far-fetched burial story only fitting of his cartoonish myth… But after finally waking from the 10 year nightmare of the Osama Bin Laden fable, are the public willing to go straight back to sleep? Or are they going to start questioning the official narratives that are cemented into place in the wake of every large-scale event…?”)
On the list above, I bolded the names of those I thought were radical. I combined the definitions of Webster’s New World Dictionary and Roget’s II Thesaurus. A radical is defined as: “Having political views that deviate from traditional beliefs; favoring fundamental or extreme change.” 15 of the guests fulfilled this definition and that’s 44% of the guests on the show! There is nothing wrong with radicals; it could just make the news channel bias toward the radicals. Although its not the majority of those the guests, it seems to influence the content of the news network (why else would they be allowed on the show?). Recently I has a back and forth conversation with someone about Russia Today.
I was searching around Twitter and I sent another user a message asking him about RT’s bias
Even though at a first glance it seems to prove Russia Today’s bias, it really didn’t prove anything and was circumstantial evidence. There wasn’t much else until I delved into their website even more. I went on the side of their homepage and found a poll. At first there seemed nothing wrong until you look at the options presented:
What’s interesting about the poll is that none of the options mentioned a cease-fire in Libya. Three of the four options I identified as “Western” positions on the Libya war (they have orange boxes around them). The first option would be a hawkish (pro-war) position for those who want to fight “terrorism” and want to gain more imperial power for their country and to dominate parts of the world. If the first option is put into place, there would be chaos across Libya and possibly a radical group could become the new leadership class of the country. The third option is a “Western” position of those called liberal constructionists or neoliberals in international politics that support the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. If it is applied all around the world, it would justify interventions in any country at any time. The forth option would be a passive Westerner who doesn’t care about politics or world happenings at all. If everything stayed the same, it would most likely result in a stalemate and nothing would be accomplished from this unconstitutional -unlawful-costly war in Libya. The second option is only one that I believe would represent the point of view of the Russians. Russians believe the “Western” powers need to leave Libya so more civilians are not killed or injured unnecessarily (respectfully, some Americans also have this point of view). This poll criticizes those who live in “Western” countries (Western Europe, U.S. and Canada), especially American policy.
In conclusion, I have found Russia Today (RT) is not the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, but has anti-American sentiment. The guests on the shows aren’t radical for the most part (56% are not radical, 44% are), but that’s not the reason for the bias. At every chance the hosts of RT and its affiliates can, they paint America in crisis or in distress. Despite it seeming a good alternative to the flawed corporate media, it is really a news machine that wants to make Russia like the global crusader for good. It makes America look like the evil “global policeman” who wants to terrorize the world. Supposedly, according to RT, the United States of America a police state, but it’s never mentioned that the Russian Federation is even more corrupt because of the overarching control of the wealthy in the country. As a concerned citizen, I recommend you do not watch RT unless you want to become anti-American yourself and want a perspective of the news that is not fair and balanced, but is unfair and discriminatory.
Its hard to find articles that articulate RT's bias, but there is a few, such as Rightside News. In a long, almost angry rant against the owner of RT (Adam Kohesh), Rightside News says Russia Today serves interests of the Kremlin. They stated, “A closer look at the Moscow-funded Russia Today television channel...reveals some interesting and disturbing corporate and foreign intelligence connections...Russia Today....regularly features Marxist groups on the air...western intelligence services have been wary about Russia Today’s correspondents.” I looked into the claims made against RT by doing a thorough investigation.
I started with article titles. Some were very critical of America, while others weren’t. The ones that critiqued the U.S. were made everything seem like a crisis or that everything was lost:
- Headline-grabbing gossip replaces news in US
- Panetta may be just like Gates
- US must make cuts or risk economic failure
The title I found the most strange and peculiar was: Bush, Cheney listed alongside Hitler, Bin Laden. That seems a bit extreme. I know Bush and Cheney expediated the decline of the American federal republic, but I wouldn’t say they compare equally to Hitler or Bin Laden. In some ways they are comparable but in other ways they are not. But, every news source has a unfairness to it, so that’s not that extreme. However, more of their headlines showed that everything was crisis:
- Former colonel convicted of killing girl in Chechnya, shot dead in Moscow
- Bilderberg meets amid growing global strife
- Fukushima disaster drives into Ukraine
It’s those key words that clued me in that something could be very prejudice in their articles. It’s also possible they are like the U.S. news media that show their biases with flying colors. I kept digging deeper to see if it really was related to the Kremlin or if they are outwardly bias. Looking into what guests come on their TV network could show the opinion of this news organization.
Guests on Russia Today’s program in the past week, according to their youtube page. I added quotes next to each person on the list [Radical= Name bolded]:
- Saifedean Ammous (Quote from his personal blog: “Israel already has destroyed Palestine. Israel is the aggressor and occupier here. Israel is the result of a Zionist project whose stated aim is to destroy the livelihood of Palestinians who do not belong to the Jewish religion. Israel has ethnically cleansed more than a million Palestinians from their homes over the years, murdered tens of thousands, and made freedom and self-determination impossible for all Palestinians everywhere.”)
- Nigel Farage (Zero hedge.com: "The Euro Game Is Up... Just Who The Hell Do You Think You Are? You Are Very Dangerous People”)
- Ali Ashgar Soltanieh (National Post: [“The IAEA chief] is not doing his job. Instead, with his reports, he is paving the way for more confrontation between member states.”)
- Cynthia McKinney (twice) (Boycott Liberalism.com: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?")
- Michael O'Brien (hist.cam.ac.ak: "Until recently, he has mainly written about the intellectual culture of the American South, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: its literature, political philosophy, historical imagination, and sense of self, as it has been formed by local social experience and interactions with other cultures.”)
- Gennady Litvin (from Litivin Law firm video: “We’re being told the economy is starting to rebuild itself? We’re being told the market’s turning around, people are getting jobs again, people are making jobs again but it’s being reported by the news agencies that this year [2011] is going to be the biggest year for foreclosure sales ever. Why is that? Basically cause the banks are behind on their work.”)
- Richard Wolf (From his official website: “The unstable alliance of the Tea Party and corporate America will unravel. Then the left must provide an alternative to austerity.”)
- Tony Gosling (on his page on his site about the Bilderberg Group: “World Government is moving closer all the time - and what's the chance that it will serve the people? Zero! And hardly anybody tells the public or dares to talk about how totalitarian the European Union is. We could be in for some serious skullduggery in coming years/months. A political/financial crisis, combined with spiritual disinformation could push us into a Fourth Reich, New World Order, with an official world religion that claims to represent ALL religions. This is what Prince Charles is advocating NOW. Powerful people will certainly be preparing their version of a spiritual 'panacea' to fill the spiritual gap THEY have created.”)
- Rick Falkvinge (From a recent article: “The United States is utterly bankrupt and has been living off of borrowed money since 1971, when it defaulted on its loans — though of course, it wasn’t worded like that. Not even an income tax of 100% is enough to cover the expenses, and the US is about to go the way of the Soviet Union… The world has been buying IOUs without coverage to maintain the value of the previous IOUs, with no other creditworthiness than an assumption that the US will pay back some day. That day is not going to come, and we’re all going to be poor for a while.”)
- Alexander Cockburn (from an interview in 2005: “Yeah, globalism is great. It's been going on for hundreds of years. Oh yeah, I'm against globalism of the bad sort: some company in America going and screwing people in the Third World and not paying them properly.”)
- Patrick Henningsen (from article about Bin Laden: “If you have been paying attention to this story over the last 8 years, then it’s not very difficult to predict this. If you apply basic common sense, the evidence weighs in favour of Osama bin Laden having died years ago. Or you can choose to believe the Hollywood version of events that we have been fed over the years, one which requires no effort.”)
- Mikhail Margelov (from Global Zero: “For more than half of a century, nuclear weapons have coexisted with us and remained the most powerful means of destruction. The “Club of Nuclear Powers” has been steadily joined by new members of whom not all can boast of internal stability or absence of conflict with neighbor-countries. Moreover, the weapons can fall into the hands of terrorists.”)
- Jean Bricmont (from MRZINE: “The first observation is that military interventions are not due to human rights rhetoric but to the decision, by the leaders of the countries that have the power and the means to intervene, to do so. Given the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going, I do not expect the US to launch new wars in the near future, except possibly with Iran. But the human rights rhetoric will continue as a way to demonize countries whose governments are too independent from the West, like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China etc. It will not necessarily lead to wars, but maintain a climate of hostility and distrust.”)
- Markus Kerber: (EurActiv: “Those who spit on the rules governing European Monetary Union will lose eventually.”)
- Afshin Rattansi (Counterpunch: “For some reason, not one journalist saw fit to attend a gathering of those interested in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – or drones – at the plush Waldorf Hilton in central London. Except me and my cameraman. Perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised. The corporate media doesn’t seem too interested in the so-called surgical strikes carried out by the U.S. Air force as they buzz around the skies of Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”)
- Klaus Peter Koltermann (ozconspiracyhouse: “The [nuclear power plants in Japan] will…affect the coastline, where people live, where ports are, where railroads are, where tourism is developing. And here the direct assessment includes how this will happen, how large it will be and how much the damage will be. So we can advise for the governments’ and authorities’ planning how much the protection and preparation should be.”)
- Peter Schiff (from Euro Pacific Capital: “Economic data over the past weeks, punctuated by last week's dismal employment reports, confirm the diminishing impact of the stimulus efforts orchestrated by the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. In what must be a huge disappointment to Keynesian enthusiasts, the record doses of both monetary and fiscal narcotics did not produce the desired results. In fact, the size and scope of the "recovery" of the past two years was weaker than would have been expected in a typical business cycle recovery without any stimulus whatsoever. Indeed our current recovery is the weakest on record, despite the biggest jolt of government stimulus ever administered.”)
- Vladmir Katalov (Question asked on website—What do you see as the biggest security threats today? Mr. Katalov’s response: “It is definitely a human factor. There are a lot of technical measures today: you can install the words' best firewall, antivirus, anti-spyware; implement an extremely good security policy; provide a few complex levels of authentication to protect your critical data -- and still do not get the appropriate security level simply because the human nature remains the same, most of today's attacks are still based just on that.”)
- Dmitry Maslennikov (Endthelie.com: “We can forget about the idea of privacy altogether. Whenever you go on the internet, you are already revealing everything about yourself. And it is becoming that way with using your phone.”)
- Vitaly Churkin (Charlie Rose’s interview: “We need to think about the peaceful transformation [and]…reforms in Syria…and be mindful of the instability…we know there is some destructive elements of the [Syrian] opposition…[Assad’s regime has enacted reforms for his people in Syria]…our idea in [Libya] is that there must be a ceasefire as soon as possible because it can produce a situation where civilians will no longer suffer. Then there can be political process…[The United States and Russia] are cooperating on Iran…We are trying to help the Israelis and the Palestinians move toward peace in the region…[The next Russian election] might [see a contest between the President and Prime Minister].”)
- Jean Bricmont (Counterpunch: “All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American “left” [that would champion]…the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time…Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media.”)
- Max Keiser (from his website: “Gold remains close to record nominal highs in all major currencies but media coverage in the UK, Ireland and Europe remains minimal and skeptical.”)
- Michel Chossudovsky (from globalresearch: “While the US Congress questions the legitimacy of the war on Libya, the Canadian parliament with one dissenting voice, votes in favor of extending Canada's participation in an illegal and criminal military undertaking…The broader implications of this "humanitarian war” and Ottawa's role in the US-NATO military alliance, not to mention the cost of this military operation to Canadian taxpayers has been barely mentioned in Canada's media. The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois, which claim to be "progressive' and “antiwar”, have given a blank cheque to the US-NATO sponsored war in North Africa.”)
- Chris Nineham (from Twitter feed: “New poll: 52% in Britain want troops out of Afghanistan NOW! Independent today… Stop the war coalition have called a national demonstration for troops out of Afghanistan on October 24. Start spreading the word.”)
- Hamid Gul (from one of Pakistan’s top Generals, Mr. Gul: “We are walking into an American trap [because 9/11 is a hoax].”)
- Adam Kohesh (from his twitter feed: “Fox News is owned by an Australian and a Saudi. No wonder they're so anti-American!”)
- Marc Almond (from his blog: “The humanitarian bombers are repeating the propaganda from their Kosovo intervention in 1999. Mass murder, government organised rape camps with mercenaries fired up on Viagra, and so on are the staples of Washington’s increasingly hysterical denunciations of Gaddafi as it turns out that his family has more support than the glib proponents of hellfire missiles as humanity’s preferred way to protect civilians would have had us believe.”)
- Matt Taibbi (from his Rolling Stone blog: “We justices of the Supreme Court of Assholedom had an extraordinarily difficult time adjudicating the case of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, who in recent weeks has achieved incredible notoriety for … what exactly? Even defining the nature of this scandal is problematic; it is extremely difficult to distinguish here between what he actually did wrong, and what’s merely a luridly gripping tabloid crucifixion of a guy exhibiting run-of-the-mill mongo-horniness.”)
- Pepe Escobar (from Asia Times: “The House of Saud is showering billions of dollars on a "new Egypt", an imploding Yemen and a suddenly more useful Muslim Brotherhood as the great Arab revolt is smothered under a mountain of oil wealth. Washington has meanwhile granted its own loaded gifts to Cairo, while quietly working with Bahrain's crown prince on the Persian Gulf American satrapy.”)
- Seyed Mohammad Marandi (from Guernica Magazine: “When the U.S. is constantly trying to terrorize the nation with threats of war, students obviously take notice. When my nine-year-old-son, after watching the U.S. vice president talk on TV, sadly, asks me if the Americans are going to kill all of us, then one can expect students also to show an interest in current affairs.”)
- Conn Hallinan (From Foreign Policy in Focus: “On the surface, the recent turmoil in Teheran looks like a case of the clerical elite, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, slapping down an independent-minded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though the battle is couched in vocabulary that does more to obscure than to reveal… So far, the Revolutionary Guard has come down on the side of Khamenei and even issued a veiled warning to the president that it might consider releasing records from the disputed 2009 election that saw Ahmadinejad re-elected. For now, the Guard is only intervening discretely, concentrating instead on gathering greater economic power.”)
- Tariq Ali (From The Guardian: “Bin Laden had apparently been in a safe house near the Pakistan military academy for six years. Nobody believes this could have happened without the knowledge of senior intelligence officials. A meeting with one such person in 2006, which I recounted in my last book on Pakistan, confirmed that Bin Laden was in the country and being kept safe. The person concerned told me the Americans only wanted Bin Laden dead, but that it was in Pakistan's interest to keep him alive.”)
- James Corbett (From the Corbett Report: “The bin Laden family has had an intimate relationship with the upper reaches of global power politics for the past half a century…In the weeks after the attack, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over if the US provided proof that he was connected to 9/11. Bush turned the offer down…The only thing we can say for certain is that the Osama Bin Laden character has now been disposed of in a far-fetched burial story only fitting of his cartoonish myth… But after finally waking from the 10 year nightmare of the Osama Bin Laden fable, are the public willing to go straight back to sleep? Or are they going to start questioning the official narratives that are cemented into place in the wake of every large-scale event…?”)
On the list above, I bolded the names of those I thought were radical. I combined the definitions of Webster’s New World Dictionary and Roget’s II Thesaurus. A radical is defined as: “Having political views that deviate from traditional beliefs; favoring fundamental or extreme change.” 15 of the guests fulfilled this definition and that’s 44% of the guests on the show! There is nothing wrong with radicals; it could just make the news channel bias toward the radicals. Although its not the majority of those the guests, it seems to influence the content of the news network (why else would they be allowed on the show?). Recently I has a back and forth conversation with someone about Russia Today.
I was searching around Twitter and I sent another user a message asking him about RT’s bias
Even though at a first glance it seems to prove Russia Today’s bias, it really didn’t prove anything and was circumstantial evidence. There wasn’t much else until I delved into their website even more. I went on the side of their homepage and found a poll. At first there seemed nothing wrong until you look at the options presented:
What’s interesting about the poll is that none of the options mentioned a cease-fire in Libya. Three of the four options I identified as “Western” positions on the Libya war (they have orange boxes around them). The first option would be a hawkish (pro-war) position for those who want to fight “terrorism” and want to gain more imperial power for their country and to dominate parts of the world. If the first option is put into place, there would be chaos across Libya and possibly a radical group could become the new leadership class of the country. The third option is a “Western” position of those called liberal constructionists or neoliberals in international politics that support the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. If it is applied all around the world, it would justify interventions in any country at any time. The forth option would be a passive Westerner who doesn’t care about politics or world happenings at all. If everything stayed the same, it would most likely result in a stalemate and nothing would be accomplished from this unconstitutional -unlawful-costly war in Libya. The second option is only one that I believe would represent the point of view of the Russians. Russians believe the “Western” powers need to leave Libya so more civilians are not killed or injured unnecessarily (respectfully, some Americans also have this point of view). This poll criticizes those who live in “Western” countries (Western Europe, U.S. and Canada), especially American policy.
In conclusion, I have found Russia Today (RT) is not the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, but has anti-American sentiment. The guests on the shows aren’t radical for the most part (56% are not radical, 44% are), but that’s not the reason for the bias. At every chance the hosts of RT and its affiliates can, they paint America in crisis or in distress. Despite it seeming a good alternative to the flawed corporate media, it is really a news machine that wants to make Russia like the global crusader for good. It makes America look like the evil “global policeman” who wants to terrorize the world. Supposedly, according to RT, the United States of America a police state, but it’s never mentioned that the Russian Federation is even more corrupt because of the overarching control of the wealthy in the country. As a concerned citizen, I recommend you do not watch RT unless you want to become anti-American yourself and want a perspective of the news that is not fair and balanced, but is unfair and discriminatory.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Ron Paul: Is he the right man to lead America?
Since I have decided that President Barack Obama should not be elected for a second term, I have been looking at other candidates; even some in the classical right-wing area of politics. The speech Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gave on the House Floor was promising: "The Last Nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are fading before our eyes." But that's the Ron Paul everyone knows. Everyone thinks he will defend liberty and support the average American. But will he really do that?
To confirm his true feelings about government the only accurate place to look is his voting record as a U.S. representative. I compiled the highlights of his voting record by using information from OpenCongress. He only votes 80% of the time, meaning that for almost 1/4th of the votes he abstains (doesn't vote for or against a resolution). So, some issues he has talked about in public could be absent from his voting record.
Mr. Paul’s voting record as a Representative in Congress (note: abstaining is not included in the voting record because it could doesn’t show what political position Mr. Paul takes, I bolded the ones I agree with) :
To confirm his true feelings about government the only accurate place to look is his voting record as a U.S. representative. I compiled the highlights of his voting record by using information from OpenCongress. He only votes 80% of the time, meaning that for almost 1/4th of the votes he abstains (doesn't vote for or against a resolution). So, some issues he has talked about in public could be absent from his voting record.
Mr. Paul’s voting record as a Representative in Congress (note: abstaining is not included in the voting record because it could doesn’t show what political position Mr. Paul takes, I bolded the ones I agree with) :
- Voted for Dennis Kucinch's House Continuing Resolution 51, which would direct the President to remove U.S. forces from Libya in 14 days.
- Voted for House Resolution 292 which directs the President to not send ground troops into Libya, while tacitly supporting the war.
- Votes against H.R. 1954 which would "implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt."
- Voted against S 990. This bill reauthorized the provisions of the Patriot Act and extended them non-restricted for another 4 years.
- Voted against the H.R. 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. This bill has been described me before and it would give the President the authority to engage in so-called “worldwide war” while continuing other operations such as counterdrug operations in Columbia.
- Voted against H.R.1231 that would “amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources, to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal, and for other purposes.” Also this bill would have reversed President Obama’s oil moratorium on deepwater oil wells (it was put in place after the BP Oil spill)
- Voted for H.R.1229 that would “amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the safe and timely production of American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for other purposes.”
- Voted for H.R.1230 that would “require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for other purposes.”
- Voted for H.R.3 that would “prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.”
- Voted against the H.R.1473 that would make “appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes.”
- Voted for H.R.910 that would “amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.”
- Voted for H.R.872 that would “amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.”
- Voted for H.R.839 which would “amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis.”
- Voted for H.Con.Res.28 that would require the “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.”
- Voted for H.R.1076: that would “prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content.”
- Voted for H.R.836 that would “rescind the unobligated funding for the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the program.”
- Voted against H.R.514 that would “extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.”
- Voted for H.R.359 that would “reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions.”
- Voted for H.R.2, a bill that would “repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.”
- Voted for H.R.292 which would “amend title 44, United States Code, to eliminate the mandatory printing of bills and resolutions for the use of offices of Members of Congress.” (note: 399 members of House voted for this, it passed)
- Voted for a “Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment: H R 2965 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.” In otherwards he voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/638)
- Voted for H.R.5987 that would “ensure that seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities who receive Social Security and certain other Federal benefits receive a one-time $250 payment in the event that no cost-of-living adjustment is payable in 2011.”
- Voted against S.3307, An original bill that would “reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other purposes.”
- Voted against H.Res.1735, a resolution that would be “Condemning North Korea in the strongest terms for its unprovoked military attack against South Korea on November 23, 2010.” (The only representative in the whole House other than Steve Kagen and the 28 abstaining that voted against this resolution).
- Voted against S.3729: “An original bill to authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes.”
- Voted against H.R.5756, a bill that would “amend title I of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to provide for grants and technical assistance to improve services rendered to children and adults with autism, and their families, and to expand the number of University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disablities Education, Research, and Service.” (I am really mad with him about this vote because I am partly autistic, luckily this bill passed the Congress).
- Voted against H.R.5851, a bill that would “provide whistleblower protections to certain workers in the offshore oil and gas industry.” (It’s interesting Mr. Paul is against this because he supports WikiLeaks, a whistleblower group)
- Voted for H.Con.Res.301, a bill that is “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan.” (Mr. Paul was one of 6 Republicans to vote for this bill)
- Voted against H.R.5618 which would “continue Federal unemployment programs [and] would Restor[e]…Emergency Unemployment Compensation.”
- Voted against H.R.3962 that would “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” (This is the infamous healthcare plan Mr. Obama proposed in 2009).
- Voted against H.R.5175 (also called the DISCLOSE Act) that would “amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.” (Note: this act passed even with Mr. Paul’s opposition).
- Voted against H.Res.1338, a resolution that would be “Recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service.”
- Voted against “an Act [that would] amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.” (2007)
I stopped writing about his voting record because it was getting too tiring through all of those pages (if you want to keep going then do so: I was on page 49 and it ends at page 156). I only went back to April 2010 in his voting record. So, to summarize from list of voting, I have learned he is anti-abortion, very antiwar (he voted against wars in Afghanistan, Libya and troops in Pakistan), anti-environment, anti-unemployment compensation and anti-Obama’s healthcare law. That’s not all, as a highlight of his voting record shows. However, you can’t judge a future candidate for public office on voting record alone, you have to judge on what they have said in public.
To figure out what he said in public, I turned to publications on the internet to get a balanced perspective. The Atlantic has the most scarring review of the political positions of Congressman Paul, explaining what they called “Ron Paul's 15 Most Extreme Positions.” Of the 15 “extreme positions” I found some that I think aren’t so extreme:
“Protect Sexual Predators' Privacy, he voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government.” I think that everyone deserves their privacy and why do you need to let the government deal with sexual predation? Why can’t you take some responsibility for yourself? I am also of the belief that porn should be legalized, as should prostitution as well. It’s a stupid activity that is illegal and the laws to enforce it are almost unenforceable.
“Rescind the Bin Laden Raid: Instead of authorizing the Navy Seals to take him out, President Paul would have sought Pakistan's cooperation to arrest him.” What is wrong with this? I think America should have asked Pakistan first! It’s a violation of their sovereignty. It was right to get Osama (killing may have been a bit extreme), but I think that we must respect the rights of other countries when trying to make the world safe. We are not the global policeman. If Pakistani forces killed and maimed a person in American borders, we Americans would get mad, right? Well, that’s how Pakistan feels.
“Simplify the Census: The questions posed by the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey, which collects demographics data such as age, race, and income, are "both ludicrous and insulting," Paul says.” He is completely right. The Census does ask some questions that go too far. Do they have to know the race and age of each person? I don’t think so. We need to come into society that doesn’t track what age or ethnic group you are in. If the census tracks those demographics, it could bias those conducting the census as well (possible discrimination against minority groups or majority groups in society). However, I think that income should be mapped so that the government can map if they need to help reduce the number of impoverished people.
“Let the Oldest Profession Be: Paul wants to legalize prostitution at the federal level.” Why is this a problem? I think prostitution should not illegal. Its waste of the resources of government that is tracking down these officials, resources that could be better spent tracking down people such as murderers roaming the streets. The paying for sexual intercourse should not be illegal since it is your decision to pay for it anyway, so it should be not be the business of the government to regulate such a personal behavior.
Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a "massive violation of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of a free society." How is this extreme? Not everyone supported civil rights at that time. Even parts of the Democratic party broke off in the 1940s and became the “Dixiecrats” or those that supported segregation. I support civil right and equal rights for everyone, but in terms of positions of those on the right and those that are libertarian, it’s not that extreme.
Now, there were some positions of Congressman Paul that the Atlantic article articulated I thought were definitely extreme:
- Legalize All Drugs (Legalizing pot, heroin, cocaine and meth is too much. I think it should be gradual process and there can’t be immediate legalization of pot. I do not think legalization of all drugs is a good idea)
- Keep Monopolies Intact (Why? They cause an unfair market. I am very anti-monopoly, so this enraged me)
- Lay Off Ben Bernanke (I agree he should be kicked out) and abolish the Federal Reserve (I would limit their power, but not abolish the institution)
- Stop Policing the Environment (I guess he wants people to die from pollution and to help create an unlivable world in the future)
- Let Markets Care for the Disabled (If this happened, then the Americans for Disabilities Act [ADA] would suffer. I am counted under this policy, so if it was repealed, I would lose the resources for my disabilities that help me exceed. Also all the other kids around the country that have disabilities would be unable to reach their full potential.)
- Wants to end birthright citizenship and allow emergency centers to refuse medical care to illegal immigrants (So, I wouldn’t be a citizen of the United States if this policy was enacted. That is ridiculous. It would create an unnecessary bureaucracy that every American would go through to even become a citizen. A waste of money. Also, if an illegal immigrant was dying on the street the hospital could refuse them. That is not what America should be like. We need to make sure we save the lives of all we can in America.)
Despite these severe positions on issues, some people still support Ron Paul, saying he is the only one who can save America. Vince Iori’s Blog brings about that question in his story: “Ron Paul 2012: Last Chance To Rescue America?” I don’t know if he is the only one, but too see if his point was valid, I scathed the article.
He starts off with a probable proposition: “Ron Paul…represents the United States’ last hope of preserving its position as a pre-eminent economic superpower and avoiding a Soviet-style collapse into an abyss of debt, depression and decay.” I don’t think he is the last hope of stopping America’s fall as superpower. There are 74 candidates on the Republican side and 21 on the Democratic side, with the rest as independent or other parties, adding up to 180 candidates in the Presidential race. Most people don’t know about these candidates since many are less known, so from a comprehensive site, I compiled all the candidates that are running in the 2012 Presidential race on a google document. Anyway, the article continues saying that Ron Paul is the only alternative to Democratic and Republican war hawks in Washington. Once again, he is not the only alternative because almost half of the candidates on the Republican side oppose the war in Afghanistan. Despite his positions that some may call wacky, he could provide the change needed in Washington.
Ron Paul has a very limited government approach, so some of his positions may seem a bit weird. There is no doubt he would change the U.S. government radically. I don’t want to endorse him at this time, but if there is no one else that can change America in way that will prevent is collapse, he may be the only one who can do it because he has such a spirit to change what is wrong and ideas that no one else would dare saying in public.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Is Microsoft's Kinect the future of gaming?
Ten days after Microsoft released its new type of gaming product there has been a rather "mellow" reaction only about one million copies have been sold which if you compare it to all the people in the world who actually own a Xbox it is rather... sad?
This is in fact one of the most amazing products released by a company in a really long time (I mean there is no controller!) and the last thing I am trying to do is criticizes it, all I am saying is that it is rather sad to see that not a lot of people are interested in this type of product. But hopefully it will catch on while people upload their own personal Kinect fail videos on to you tube.
This is in fact one of the most amazing products released by a company in a really long time (I mean there is no controller!) and the last thing I am trying to do is criticizes it, all I am saying is that it is rather sad to see that not a lot of people are interested in this type of product. But hopefully it will catch on while people upload their own personal Kinect fail videos on to you tube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)