j_b

In Fairweather's orwellian reality the killing of innocent civilians isn't murder, but of course I'd be the one playing semantics. Jackass. Here's is a short blurb by the editor of Editor & Publisher about the coverage of Israel-Palestine within the last week by the New York Times: "Israel launched its much-anticipated invasion of Gaza this afternoon. After more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only one op-ed (favoring Israel). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/israel-launches-invasion_b_154988.html

It sounds like there is confusion about the period of time discussed because 2000 is more or less the number of palestian civilian casualties since the beginning of the new millenium.

and a Human Rights Watch report on Gaza as of 12/30/08: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelhamas-civilians-must-not-be-targets

Come on. Cherry picking and spinning facts isn't making "great points". Moreover, here are the conclusions of a study done by FAIR in 1998 (thus even before the press showed how much they were willing to help Bush force his policies on Americans), which essentially shows that the "librul media" bit is conservative propaganda: "The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand. This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold "liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. Most of all, though, they can be broadly described as centrists. This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power. Which brings us back to the conservative critique. It is based on the propositions that: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the general public, and (2) that these views influence the news content that they produce. Having now exposed the first point for the myth that it is, we are left with the issue of personal views influencing news content. There are two important responses to this claim. First, it is sources, not journalists, who are allowed to express their views in the conventional model of "objective" journalism. Therefore, we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and right-wing think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; left-wing think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, "liberal bias" is nowhere to be found. Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country—not surprisingly—tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers. It is here, at the structural level, that the fundamental ground rules of news production are set. Of course, working journalists sometimes succeed in temporarily challenging some of those rules and boundaries. But ultimately, if they are to succeed and advance in the profession for any length of time, they must adapt to the ground rules set by others—regardless of their own personal views." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

Liar. As I said, the only one here who advocates violence against semitic people is you Fairweather.

Right, all males including traffic cops are combatants according to the 101st keyboard brigade. There has been thousands of civilians casualties among palestinians since 2000. But responding ad-infinitum to continual lies by omission gets tiresome.

Yes, the UN is pro-Israel, which doesn't mean it condones the murder of thousands of civilians by israeli forces. I hope for you that you can tell the difference.

The NYT is right wing on most economic and foreign policy issues. Today the body of the UN wants Israel to abide by UN resolutions but the UN partioned Palestine without palestinian approval. But thanks for pointing out that the entire world except for rightwing americans sees the israel-Palestine issue very differently than you do.

The NYT has a clear pro-Israel bias. Like the rest of the corporate media in the US. Isn't it interesting that on this issue and pretty much this issue only, Fairweather is pro-UN, pro-NYT, and pro-Bill Clinton? How convenient. I guess that is one instance when the "big bad world government" doesn't bother our very own jack-booted thug. What an opportunist.

Pervasive corruption means they can deal with it? LOL

The US corporate media, including the NYT, has no credibility w.r.t. the palestine isssue:"The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, fighting an election campaign, said that "nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon " and said that he could not commit a subsequent government to what he called the "ideas" coming out of the talks. With the election of Ariel Sharon in February 2001, time ran out." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6666393.stm

Arafat was accused of lack of transparency but there isn't actual 'proof' of his being corrupt. Corruption among politicians in Israel is however coined to be "epidemic" by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6276071.stm Both the current israeli prime minister and Sharon before him were/are accused of corruption.

Clinton tryed to get Arafat and the Palestinians to agree to a peace Treaty with Israel at Camp David and got nowhere,and at that time alot of them worked in Isreal,and would have been the beginning of the end,the rest could have been worked out. Its hard to say how far along they would be by now,but they were given BILLIONS in aid at the time WTF!! So 4 years later as Isreals tanks were knocking down his compound walls he was on the phone saying O.K. i'll take the deal,but by then he was a dead stick with no control over the Palestinians and their suicide bombers! It is in fact a lot more complicated: "In December 2000 President Clinton presented a "bridging proposal" aimed at ending the most recent Al-Aqsa Intifada culminating with the Taba Summit (January 22 and January 28, 2001). After the November 2000 US presidential elections, President Clinton was on his way out while George W. Bush was waiting in the wings. This was as far as Barak would take the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It put the Oslo peace process, from the time of Madrid Conference of 1991 on indefinite hold. In spite of Barak's concessions to the Palestinians, the majority of Israelis did not support him as seen in Ariel Sharon's rejection of Arafat's position vindicated with his election as prime minister on February 6, 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#Summary

Let it be clear that the only person here who advocates violence against semitic people is Fairweather.

A regurgitation of a one-sided version of facts shouldn't convince anyone.

They voted for Hamas because after Arafat's death, Fatah was going to make peace on terms that was unacceptable to the majority of Palestinians.

Don't believe the spin. No evidence is ever presented that Hamas first provoked Israel. Until the land grabbing by israeli settlers stops, there will be no peace.

Right on cue, conservative nincompoops want us to believe that 30 years of deregulation, of slashing social programs, of privatizing everything, and of closet libertarians in control of key institutions that have all led to economic collapse is the result of "big government" ideology. That piece of demagoguery which is doing the rounds of internet isn't written by Linda Monk but by Pat Buchanan. Of course, almost nobody would trust Buchanan on anything.

I read your material but discussing the specifics of a carbon tax without considering a new development paradigm that would entail radically reshaping government budgets and subsidy, and the entire taxation scheme (including a ban on doing business with tax heavens) is bound to repeat the same errors. I am not opposed to some kind of carbon tax but it has to be very progressive so that lower incomes that can't afford efficient new technology aren't penalized. Also a carbon tax places true renewables on the same footing as nuclear, which as I have mentioned elsewhere is an important issue as we reconsider our energy production infrastructure. Here is an interesting proposal that addresses reducing carbon emission, saving energy, stimulating the economy and creating loads of jobs: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/27/architecture-2030-stimulus-green-buildings/#more-4522

There will be a lengthy transition period but you are posing the problem upside down: we have already heavily mortgaged the future and imposed hardship on poor people and our children because of unsustainable dead-ender policies. Every single penny invested toward business as usual will compound the problem, whereas money spent toward sustainability is likely to improve people’s life by creating real jobs and enabling stable communities. Generating “growth” via over consumption and speculative bubbles, while depleting finite resources secured through war is the reason for our current condition. The sooner we stop it, the better off we are today and will be tomorrow. We committed the better part of 10 trillion dollars we didn’t have for stabilizing the casino economy and to control Iraqi oil, and those who advocated these failed policies now argue we can’t afford a fraction of that amount to get us a long way toward energy independence and sustainability. I suggest these people take a back sit and watch for a while until they have shown they could be trusted again. We don’t need “growth” to make billionaires. What we need is development to make everybody’s life better.

I am with you including for accountability in government, but I am against the death penalty even for someone like Saddam.

There is little reason to think the science isn't already mostly right despite the continuing rhetoric of the denialists. Starting today, global greenhouse gas emissions have to decrease by at least 80% by the end of the century to avoid warming greater than 2degC, which implies we'll have to do better since we contribute already a disproportionate amount. Peak oil and the present severe recession combined with climate change represent an opportunity to rebuild the economy on a truly sustainable basis.

My proctologist is a scientist too and he said anthropogenic climate change was a hoax, so I am not worried. He also suggested that I keep my head up my ass to be unaffected by climate variability. Do you think it'll will work?

Wow! 50 parties at Applebee is a crowd but it is a vastly different experience than that of Mattp. I haven't gone there since the mid-90's but in 4 trips I never saw more than a handfull of people there. I can see why with this many people a via ferrata is considered for Snowpatch Col since most are bound to line up for the Kain and NE buttress routes on Bugaboo. Making access easier rarely seems a viable solution to a crowd problem, unless coupled with limits on user days ...

Hanford's waste came from the nuclear weapons program but it is nevertheless illustrative of our unability to make the problem go away as well as the cost of temporary fixes. Here is a short discussion of Hanford and the Columbia by the state of Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HCleanup.shtml