Is China Communist? Pop Quiz of Modern China 101

[Marc]

You are doing this all wrong by proving China is not communist. You should research and post about democracy then you can judge how communist is China. Thanks!!!

China is not a communist country. The real communist country is what the countries in the world should be. but sadly, not a single country is practicing. North Korea, Cuba, China, no ,no . no, . Scandinavian, might be. but they seems more interested in becoming a EU member. However, China is different from North Korea.

 

[gambit]

this is a perfect example of how Americans are deeply influenced by the daily bombardment of "manipulated truth" from their "free media".

Give me a break. This is a perfect example of someone too lazy to read and would prefer his news being spoonfed to him. In the US, on the electronic front and am not talking about the Internet, conservatives dominate the radio spectrum but liberal viewpoints dominate television. In print, for news magazine, The Nation is the undisputed king of liberalism, National Review is its conservative counterpart and The Atlantic is somewhere in the middle. For traditional format newspapers, The New York Times is liberal and the Wall Street Journal is slightly liberal with its editorial columnists a visibly conservative slant. These are the major labels and there are city majors like the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicles, both decidedly liberal.

You are seriously confused. The more biased news out there, the more it is evident that there is a free media. It is self-evident. They do not exist unless there is a market for their slants. The US government have the Voice of America but it is aimed primarily at overseas audience, not at the American public in general. Each branch of the US military have its own newspapers but consdiering their readerships their contents are too narrowly focused to matter to the general public. In short the US have nothing like Pravda or something like this...

All news must be good news, says Chinese government | Media | The Guardian

China has ordered its media to report only positive news and has imprisoned a pro-democracy dissident amid a clampdown on dissent ahead of the most important meeting of the communist party in five years.

Media controls have been tightened, Aids activists detained and NGOs shut down as president Hu Jintao prepares for the 17th party congress, when the next generation of national leaders will be unveiled in a politburo reshuffle.

Chen Shuqing, who is a founder member of the banned China Democracy party, suffered the toughest punishment meted out so far when he was found guilty on Thursday of "inciting people to overthrow the government".

I challenge you to show me where any US President in recent memory ordered The New York Times or CNN or the LA Times to print/broadcast anything, favorable or not, for the government throughout his administration. Calling Americans 'brainwashed' by their media despite the plethora of sources is a sign of being brainwashed in itself.

In US, you can find thousands of books like the one written by Jasper Becker, mostly a collection of stories by desperate immigrant trying to make a living in US (through selling cheap stories of how bad their countries of origins are).
There's a mutual benefit:the new immigrant get a starting fund in the deteriorating social economical environment, the publisher also make a lot of money by creating this perfect illusion to feed Americans' fetish for the evilness, ferocity,bloodiness and the dark side of human being. Most of the author did not even bother to verify or carry out some serious investigations on the authentication of the accusations or the sources of the information. Some "exaggeration"are often added just to make the story more bloody and gruesome (hence more money made)

You have no idea how silly this make you look, do you? By your argument, Natan Sharansky dissident opinions critical of the Soviet Union should be suspect because he might be doing it looking for fame and money. Going one step further, I could argue that any woman who detailed how miserably life is in Africa should have her life dissected just in case greed is the motivator. Dismiss one and you have no choice but to dismiss all. This is unbelievable.

 

[gambit]

I agree that the improper land reform had something to do with famine, but to assert that land reform by communists is the only cause of famine is absurd. You can’t expailn without land reform by communists (China and Vietnam in particular in you context), the following 20th century’s big famines: Bengal famines in 1942–1945, Biafran famine in the 1960s, Ethiopian famine of 1983–85, famines in China in 1928 and 1942.

Nonsense...I asserted no such thing. I asserted that land reform FOLLOWED by communist ideology regarding class warfare that move people into collective farms managed by incompetents is the cause of famines. That happened in China and North Viet Nam under Mao. That happened in Chile once Allende and communism took over.

I recommend a study from my home state of Hawaii...

MURDER BY COMMUNISM

Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked.

I guess we could call those 100 million deaths as 'some mistake', no?

In addition, how do you explain my earlier question to you, which you seem never answer, and I now ask you the 3rd time:

India and many other countries never have prevalent communist rule, but famine is still perpetual, whereas in “communist” China, famine has long gone and it actual export some grain product.

I 'seem never answer' is because you have a reading comprehension problem. See post no. 84 on page 6 where I mentioned Zhao Ziyang.

Remember that current China lives in a place that has been land reformed by The Chinese communists.

Famines ingeneral happens in the areas where the people are poor and the agricultural technologies are backward and political situations are volatile. Precisely in those places that oppressions are ferocious against the poor, and communism ideas are easy to spread.

I know...What a tragedy it is for any people.

BTW, I’m now 100% sure you know absolutely nothing of communism, as you rediculously equal communism to murder, famine, massacre, genocide, “boat people”… How shallow your knowledge is! I agree however that many self-proclaimed “communism” practioners only use the slogan to serve their own interest. They are no holy cows as E. and W. Germany and S. and N. Korea have shown.

Please read this to see what communism is before blahblah. Thanks! THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

BTW again, I’m no communist, which I have proclaimed numerous times earlier, but you are perhaps too new here to know that.

I know more about communism than you will ever learn.

Do you what an engineer really is? An engineer is someone who constantly tries to balance the theoretical and the real world. Bernouli give us basic aerodynamics principles such as air flow and boundary layers. But it is the engineers who must take into consideration factors such as material fatigues and load balances to give us the airplane.

We are all engineers when it comes to societies and how we chose to live. The fact that you give me a link to an academic source of Marx and Engels further reenforce my view of you as nothing more than an 'armchair communist'. You probably grew up in the time when communist states were in the inevitable decline as obvious failures, from humanities to economics whilst I grew up when communist states were at their highest in military power, brutality and murder in their rule. I saw how they tried to engineer their world and how miserably they failed at every human endeavors. All the while as their citizens wait in line for hours just to buy days old bread and rough toilet papers, the communists lied about record crop yields and the decline of the West.

Victor Belenko, the MIG-25 pilot who defected to the West (Japan) back in 1976, was astonished that there were expiration dates on meat packages in New York City markets. For a short time he was convinced New York City was a complete CIA front, built just for him, until his handlers took him to the ghetto and showed him the illegal drugs and the prostitutes to convince him that the US was not without its social problems.

As humans, it is our nature to judge any idea or belief system based on its outcomes. Air travel is taken for granted so Bernouli is a giant among men. Communism, AS APPLIED AND ENGINEERED, resulted in an estimated 100 million deaths so Marx and Engels became the laughing stocks of humanity. The one is truly doing the 'blahs' here is YOU.

The core beliefs of Marxism is...

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

In this, monks and priests are the true communists as no one compelled them to take the sacrificial paths they do. Communists, on the other hand, arbitrarily murdered anyone who refused to follow Marx, and those in power in communist states were always as wealthy, in monetary and political terms, as any capitalist in the West. At least the capitalists are honest about what they want.

I know more about the My Lai Massacre than you do and I am willing to bet that you did not know that it was an American officer that stopped the killings....

Yeah, you're right. Chinese communists stopped the Tiananmen massacre.

Yes they did...After enough were killed. And yet some here have the gall to say that the people's voice in China are 'represented'.

As far as the My Lai Massacre goes...

Heroes of My Lai

The My Lai story is one of heroes as well villains. One such hero is Hugh Thompson, Jr., a helicopter reconnaissance pilot who came upon the My Lai massacre in progress. Chief My Lai prosecutor William Eckhardt described how Thompson responded to what he found when he put his helicopter down: "[Thompson] put his guns on Americans, said he would shoot them if they shot another Vietnamese, had his people wade in the ditch in gore to their knees, to their hips, took out children, took them to the hospital...flew back [to headquarters], standing in front of people, tears rolling down his cheeks, pounding on the table saying, 'Notice, notice, notice'...then had the courage to testify time after time after time."

The laugh is on you for being too lazy to look up the facts.

"Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America--not on the battlefields of Vietnam." - Marshall McLuhan, 1975

"Above all, Vietnam was a war that asked everything of a few and nothing of most in America." - Myra MacPherson, 1984

"Saigon was an addicted city, and we were the drug: the corruption of children, the mutilation of young men, the prostitution of women, the humiliation of the old, the division of the family, the division of the country--it had all been done in our name. . . . The French city . . . had represented the opium stage of the addiction. With the Americans had begun the heroin phase." - James Fenton, 1985

"I was proud of the youths who opposed the war in Vietnam because they were my babies." - Benjamin Spock, 1988

I could cite far worse about communist countries but the point have been well made. Communism is man's greatest moral tragedy in the last one hundred years.

 

[gpit]

..
You are seriously confused. The more biased news out there, the more it is evident that there is a free media. It is self-evident.
...

No wonder you nurtured such a fervent hatred and constant fear of something that you don’t understand and don’t care to understand due to you love of bias and one-sidedness. Of course it is your freedom to indulge sadistically in bias and false media.

The greatness of America is built on the fact that wise people in this country don’t care anything but truth.

I challenge you to show me where any US President in recent memory ordered The New York Times or CNN or the LA Times to print/broadcast anything, favorable or not, for the government throughout his administration.

Let the following serves as the answer, as well as a crispy slap on your face!

Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama's banned Iraq photos allegedly show US soldier raping a female prisoner
by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/28/2009 10:54:00 AM
Reuters:

The images are among photographs included in a 2004 report into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison conducted by U.S. Major General Antonio Taguba.

Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and on Wednesday he confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that images supporting those allegations were also in the file....


AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth: Obama's banned Iraq photos allegedly show US soldier raping a female prisoner

BTW, I respect our president very much. I believe he did this based on a consideration of broader national interest, so would perhaps many leaders of other nations do. But please forget about trumpeting your laughable higher moral ground.

Just a sideline, in general American media are controlled by interest groups. Please read the book
Amazon.com: Democracy for the Few: Michael Parenti : Books

About the author:
-"Michael Parenti received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. He has taught at a number of colleges and universities, in the United States and abroad. Some of his writings have been translated into Arabic, Azeri, Bangla, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish"

-"Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer. He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts. His highly informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad."

 

[gpit]

...I recommend a study from my home state of Hawaii...

MURDER BY COMMUNISM
...

You want a pissing-off war instead of a serious debate? Here you are:

...
6. Chronological list of US murder toll: [under construction]

The murder toll has been achieved by either direct violence (e.g. the firebombing and nuking of Japan or the firebombing of Dresden) or indirect/proxy “low intensity conflict” (e.g. Rwanda in the 90s or Nicaragua in the 80s). (I have not here accounted for the deaths attributable to SAP.) Some extremely conservative estimates—

Native Americans (1776-2002): 4M
West Africans (1776-1865): 4M
Philippines (1898-1904): 600K
Germany (1945): 200K
Japan (1945): 900K
China (1945-60): 200K
Greece (1947-49): 100K
Korea (1951-53): 2M
Guatemala (1954-2002): 300K
Vietnam (1960-75): 2M
Laos (1965-73): 500K
Cambodia (1969-75): 1M
Indonesia (1965): 500K
Colombia (1966-2002): 500K
Oman (1970): 10K
Bangladesh (1971): 2M
Uganda (1971-1979): 200K
Chile (1973-1990): 20K
East Timor (1975): 200K
Angola (1975-2002): 1.5M
Argentina (1976-1979): 30K
Afghanistan (1978-2002): 1M
El Salvador (1980-95): 100K
Nicaragua (1980-90): 100K
Mozambique (1981-1988): 1M
Turkey (1984-2002): 50K
Rwanda (1990-1996): 1M
Iraq (1991-2002): 1M
Somalia (1991-1994): 300K
Yugoslavia (1991-2002): 300K
Liberia (1992-2002): 150K
Burundi (1993-1999): 200K
Sudan (1998): 100K
Congo (1998-2002): 3M

We should also take note that the United States bears more than superficial responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust: e.g., the turning away of Jewish, Romani, and other refugees; funding the concentration camp system; underwriting the Third Reich’s military; delay in opening a western front; policies of appeasement before the war; siding with the fascists during the Spanish Civil War; turning down Stalin’s offer to attack Germany jointly in 1938; providing theoretical inspiration for lebensraum, final solutions, anti-communism, anti-Semitism, etc; rebuilding Germany after the war with the fascist infrastructure still intact; saving war criminals; general ideological support; and so forth.

7. Alphabetical list of rightwing dictators, reactionary movements, and other reprehensible figures empowered/materially supported by the US: [under construction]

It seems as though the number one criterion for getting a job as the head of a client state is a willingness to butcher leftists. Indeed, the use of unsavory rightists by the United States began neither with the anti-Castro Cuban émigré community, nor with the Afghan mujaheddin alumni, oh Nelly no!

[the dates provided are sloppily done, I concede. At times, they are just the general duration of the given regime (e.g., Selassie). Most others are the duration of US support while the regime lasted (e.g., Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.)]

Abacha, Sani (Nigeria: 1993-2000)
Afwerki, Isaias (Eritrea: 1993-2002)
Amin, Idi (Uganda: 1971-1979)
Arévalo, Marco (Guatemala: 1985-1991)
Bakr, Ahmad (Iraq: 1968-1979)
Banzer Suarez, Hugo (Bolivia: 1971-1978)
Bao Dai (Vietnam: 1949-1955)
Barak, Ehud (Israel: 1999-2001)
Barre, Siad (Somalia: 1979-1991)
Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)
Begin, Menachem (Israel: 1977-1983)
Ben-Gurion, David (Israel: 1948-1953, 1955-1963)
Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-1964)
Bokassa, Jean-Bedel (Central African Republic: 1966-1976)
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal (Brunei: 1984-2002)
Botha, P.W. (South Africa: 1978-1989)
Branco, Humberto (Brazil: 1964-1966)
Carmona, Pedro (Venezuela: 2002)
Cedras, Raoul (Haiti: 1991)
Chamoun, Camille (Lebanon: 1952-1958)
Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-1949/Taiwan: 1949-1975)
Christiani, Alfredo (El Salvador: 1989-1994)
Chun Doo Hwan (S. Korea: 1980-1988)
Cordova, Roberto (Honduras: 1981-1985)
Diaz, Porfirio (Mexico: 1876-1911)
Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-1963)
Doe, Samuel (Liberia: 1980-90)
Duvalier, Francois (Haiti: 1957-1971)
Duvalier, Jean Claude (Haiti: 1971-1986)
Eshkol, Levi (Israel: 1963-1969)
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1969-2002)
Feisal, King (Iraq: 1939-1958)
Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-1975)
Fujimori, Alberto (Peru: 1990-2002)
Habre, Hissen (Chad: 1982-1990);
Hassan II (Morocco: 1961-1999)
Hitler, Adolf (Germany: 1933-1939)
Hussein, King (Jordan: 1952-1999)
Hussein, Saddam (Iraq: 1979-1990)
Kabila, Laurent (CDR: 1997-1998)
Karzai, Hamid (Afghanistan: 2001-2002)
Khan, Ayub (Pakistan: 1958-1969)
Koirala, B. (Nepal: 1959-1960)
Lon Nol (Cambodia: 1970-1975)
Marcos, Ferdinand (Philippines: 1965-1986)
Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)
Meir, Golda (Israel: 1969-1974)
Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia: 1995-2002)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire: 1965-1997)
Moi, Daniel (Kenya: 1978-2002)
Montt, Efrain (Guatemala: 1982-1983)
Mubarak, Hosni (Egypt: 1981-2002)
Museveni, Yoweri (Uganda: 1986-2002)
Musharaf, Pervez (Pakistan: 1999-2002)
Mussolini, Benito (Italy: 1922-1939)
Netanyahu, Benjamin (Israel: 1996-1999)
Noriega, Manuel (Panama: 1983-1989)
Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)
Omar, Mohamed (Afghanistan: 1996-2001)
Ozal, Turgut (Turkey: 1989-1993)
Pahlevi , Rezi (Iran: 1953-1979)
Papadopoulos, George (Greece: 1967-1973)
Park Chung Hee (S. Korea: 1960-1979)
Pastrana, Andres (Colombia: 1998-2002)
Peres, Shimon (Israel: 1977, 1984-1986, 1995-1996)
Perez Jimenez, Marcos (Venezuela: 1952-58)
Pinilla, Gustavo (Colombia: 1953-1957)
Pinochet, Augusto (Chile: 1973-1990)
Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-1998)
al-Qaddafi, Muammar (Libya: 1969-1971)
Rabin, Yitzhak (Israel: 1974-1977, 1992-1995)
Rabuka, Sitiveni (Fiji: 1987, 1992-1999)
Al Sadat, Anwar (Egypt: 1970-1981)
Selassie, Halie (Ethiopia: 1941-1974)
Salazar, Antonio (Portugal: 1932-1968)
Saud, Abdul Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1944-1969)
Seaga, Edward (Jamaica: 1980-1989)
Shamir, Yitzhak (Israel: 1983-1984; 1986-1992)
Sharett, Moshe (Israel: 1953-1955)
Sharon, Ariel (Israel: 2001-2002)
Smith, Ian (Rhodesia: 1965-1979)
Somoza Sr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1936-1956)
Somoza Jr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1963-1979)
Stroessner, Alfredo (Paraguay: 1954-1989)
Suharto, General (Indonesia: 1966-1999)
Syngman Rhee (S. Korea: 1948-1960)
Tolbert, William (Liberia: 1971-1980)
Trujillo, Rafael (Dominican Republic: 1930-1960)
Tubman, William (Liberia: 1944-1971)
Uribe, Alvaro (Colombia: 2002)
Videla, Jorge (Argentina: 1976-1981)
Yeltsin, Boris (Russia: 1991-1999)
Zaim, Hosni (Syria: 1949)
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed (Pakistan: 1977-1988)

other nasty nasties:
RPF (contra French client Rwanda);
SPLA contra Islamist Sudan, (a French client);
clients in Cameroon, Congo, Ivory Coast, Togo and Benin, after subverted elections (contra French proxies);
AFDL (Kabila);
Dalai Lama (Tibet);
bin Laden’s al Qaida;
Savimbi’s UNITA

Nazi war criminals and collaborators knowingly rescued in the years after WW2 by US intelligence for use as covert assets against the USSR:

R. Gehlen; O. Skorzeny; A. Brunner; O. von Bolschwing; W. von Braun; M. Lebed; A. Vlasov; I. Docheff; K. Dragonovich; I. Bogolepov; C. Bolydreff; A. Berzins; H. Herwarth; K. Barbie; I. Demjanjuk; W. Dornberger; V. Hazners; B. Maikovskis; E. Laipenieks; N. Nazarenko; L. Pasztor; R. Ostrowsky; L. Kairys; P. Shandruk; T. Soobzokov; S. Stankievich; and literally thousands of others.

Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism

PS. just Remind you that your much respected Zhao Ziyang died a communist memeber!

 

[gambit]

No wonder you nurtured such a fervent hatred and constant fear of something that you don’t understand and don’t care to understand due to you love of bias and one-sidedness. Of course it is your freedom to indulge sadistically in bias and false media.

The greatness of America is built on the fact that wise people in this country don’t care anything but truth.

That is correct. And it is evident, just from the Vietnam War topic alone, that I know far more and deeper of the truth than you.

I challenge you to show me where any US President in recent memory ordered The New York Times or CNN or the LA Times to print/broadcast anything, favorable or not, for the government throughout his administration.

Let this serves as the answer, as well as a crispy slap on your face!



BTW, I personally respect the president.

Just a sideline, in general American media are controlled by interest groups. Please read the book
Amazon.com: Democracy for the Few: Michael Parenti : Books

About the author:
-"Michael Parenti received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. He has taught at a number of colleges and universities, in the United States and abroad. Some of his writings have been translated into Arabic, Azeri, Bangla, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish"

-"Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer. He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts. His highly informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad."

What a riot...

First...The photos are not disclosed, Obama have not AUTHORIZED their dissemination to the public. That is not the same thing as the media having the news but ORDERED from publishing them. You would do well to learn about the Watergate scandal where two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, brought down the Nixon Presidency.

Once again, the laugh is on YOU.

 

[gambit]

You want a pissing-off war instead of a serious debate? Here you are:

You failed the 'serious debate' test a long time ago...Sonny...

Amazon.com: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Dr. Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy, Stephane Courtois, Jean-Louis Panne: B

PS. just Remind you that your much respected Zhao Ziyang died as a communist memeber!

What does it matter? Hunger is not the same as famine. Look up the differences. Ziyang admitted that even though no famines existed, hunger continued because after state quotas and allotment for the next planting season, the farmers have no choice but to go hungry. This is the result of policy, not nature. Or may be we could call it communism nature.

 

[gambit]

Just a sideline, in general American media are controlled by interest groups.

And the government is NOT an interest group? You have got to be the most delusional person I yet meet, live or online. NON-GOVERNMENTAL interest groups, even though biased like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, are always better than government controlled media, like China, for example.

 

[gpit]

...

First...The photos are not disclosed, Obama have not AUTHORIZED their dissemination to the public. ...

Is not disclosed?

Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and on Wednesday he confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that images supporting those allegations were also in the file...

It's at least been partially disclosed.

In addition, what does disclosure or non-disclosure has anything to do with restriction of free media?

The President actually banned the picture, much like what the "communists" did. It is a cover-up of a crime!

" I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours. "

- a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.

" Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the [U.S.] media."

-Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US media and foreign policy critic

" ... so long as the media are in corporate hands, the task of social change will be vastly more difficult, if not impossible ..."

-Robert McChesney, journalist and author

BTW, while pointing out medium restrictions in US, it doesn't negate the fact that media here appear much freer than those in China/Vietnam.

 

[gpit]

And the government is NOT an interest group? You have got to be the most delusional person I yet meet, live or online. NON-GOVERNMENTAL interest groups, even though biased like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, are always better than government controlled media, like China, for example.

You've definitely missed politic-economics 101.

Government in essence is nothing but a representative of interest groups. USA is a country with &#8220;representative government&#8221; as reflected in <federalist essays> (BTW, where &#8220;democracy&#8221; is used in a negative sense&#8212;the idea of unfettered mob rule, much like in today&#8217;s democracy of developing countries.)

A good government is a good balancer between different interest groups.

This is why this government suppresses the interest of Wall Street and UWA, as they appear lost balance with other groups.

Water Gate scandal is nothing but an outcome of struggles among interest groups.

Again, show your ignorance of China. Perhaps mostly, but not exactly, true that declining TV, most paper media, etc. are controlled by the government. But, arising Internet media are very hard to control, and thus very open. If you know Chinese, I strongly suggest you go there and to have a look at the &#8220;communist country&#8221; by yourselves. You&#8217;ll be amazed how many &#8220;mobs&#8221; are out there.

In China, (perhaps not anymore now), you could curse your boss, but not state leaders. In US, you can curse President, but you can&#8217;t curse your boss. In general, boss affects your daily life more than state leaders.

 

[gambit]

Is not disclosed?


It's at least been partially disclosed.

In addition, what does disclosure or non-disclosure has anything to do with restriction of free media?

Partially disclosed? What the hell does that mean? Only half the picture?

The President actually banned the picture, much like what the "communists" did. It is a cover-up of a crime!

Source please. Especially where the reporter the editor of a major news organization complained in an op-ed that Obama forbid, with enforcement from the FBI, that his news organization would be under federal indictment if he publishes what he has.

- a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.

Source please. Names and dates of comments.

-Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US media and foreign policy critic

Chomsky? You have got to be kidding me. Chomsky's income, from MIT, came from...drum rolls...please...The Pentagon...

Is Noam Chomsky a hypocrite for calling the US Pentagon the most...

If the US government was really intending to exercise control over the American press, Chomsky would have been out of job and moved to Cuba. Instead, his work on linguistics continues to be funded by the US military and the US continues to put up with his criticisms. You brought on a really bad example, for yourself of course, with Chomsky.

BTW, while pointing out medium restrictions in US, it doesn't negate the fact that media here appear much freer than those in China/Vietnam.

Restrictions? Sources please. Sources, not opinions.

 

[gambit]

You've definitely missed politic-economics 101.

Government in essence is nothing but a representative of interest groups. USA is a country with “representative government” as reflected in <federalist essays> (BTW, where “democracy” is used in a negative sense—the idea of unfettered mob rule, much like in today’s democracy of developing countries.)

A good government is a good balancer between different interest groups.

This is why this government suppresses the interest of Wall Street and UWA, as they appear lost balance with other groups.

Water Gate scandal is nothing but an outcome of struggles among interest groups.

Again, show your ignorance of China. Perhaps mostly, but not exactly, true that declining TV, most paper media, etc. are controlled by the government. But, arising Internet media are very hard to control, and thus very open. If you know Chinese, I strongly suggest you go there and to have a look at the “communist country” by yourselves. You’ll be amazed how many “mobs” are out there.

In China, (perhaps not anymore now), you could curse your boss, but not state leaders. In US, you can curse President, but you can’t curse your boss. In general, boss affects your daily life more than state leaders.

You continue to make yourself look the fool.

First you claimed, along with several opinions, that the US government is evil enough to control the American press. Now you assert that the US government, because it is a 'representative' democracy, is actually quite benevolent. How convenient. And your feeble response on Watergate is evident once again that basic investigative techniques eludes you. Watergate was about governmental corruption at the highest level and that an INDEPENDENT press exposed that corruption. No one from the US government sent assassins after the reporters. They continue to ply their trade today. Compliance is not the same thing as coerced. Certain US media organizations may CHOOSE to comply with certain government requests but that would be based upon their own interpretations of what is important to their status or not. You must have been asleep in class.

 

[gpit]

Partially disclosed? What the hell does that mean? Only half the picture?

Hope your IQ is high enough to reach the meaning of the simple sentence. The picture conveys contents with meanings. Obviously this picture contains contents of alleged criminal evidence, and the reporter disclosed that content verbally but is unable to publish for a complete disclosure of the contents visually. Isn&#8217;t that a partial disclosure? Is that so hard to understand?

Source please. Especially where the reporter the editor of a major news organization complained in an op-ed that Obama forbid, with enforcement from the FBI, that his news organization would be under federal indictment if he publishes what he has.

Source? Are you kidding? I&#8217;ve already presented the proof from Reuters. I have no objection if you hint FBI is in conspiracy.

Is Noam Chomsky a hypocrite for calling the US Pentagon the most...

Please stop making fun of yourself! You take those type of B*S as reliable source, where people can ask and answer the same question by themselves? What a joke!

that the US government is evil enough to control the American press. Now you assert that the US government, because it is a 'representative' democracy, is actually quite benevolent.

That partly justifies my neutral stands that nothing is purely white, neither purely black. Everything is a mixture of white and black. The only question is how much is the white and how much is the black. And everyone&#8217;s view of black and white is different. This applies to USA as well as China, democracy as well as communism. Dare you say US government never did any evil thing? If you are such hard-core anti-communist, Nixon&#8217;s government yielding to Red China is evil, isn&#8217;t it?

As the fact reflects, as recent as the Reuters&#8217; report, medium control does exist. In fact, I don&#8217;t object to reasonable control of media. Instead, I think it is necessary at a point.

Please just stop proclaiming clownishly &#8220;Hey, I&#8217;m the Saint, you are the Devil.&#8221;

Watergate was about governmental corruption at the highest level and that an INDEPENDENT press exposed that corruption.

What a joke again! It&#8217;s a sheer fight for partisan interest whereas media are nothing but to transform it into symbolic issue (rule by law etc) for their own interest, which nonetheless is good in this case.

 

[gambit]

Hope your IQ is high enough to reach the meaning of the simple sentence. The picture conveys contents with meanings. Obviously this picture contains contents of alleged criminal evidence, and the reporter disclosed that content verbally but is unable to publish for a complete disclosure of the contents visually. Isn’t that a partial disclosure? Is that so hard to understand?

Source? Are you kidding? I’ve already presented the proof from Reuters. I have no objection if you hint FBI is in conspiracy.

My IQ is just fine. But I do wonder about yours...

Here is the Reuters article, the one that you are too lazy to find and ACTUALLY READ...

U.S. slams British press over report of abuse photos - Yahoo! News

The Obama administration has been on the defensive over its refusal to release the pictures, which were gathered as part of U.S. military investigations into prisoner abuse.

The administration at first agreed to release the pictures, which the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to obtain through legal action, but then reversed course, citing a likely backlash that would put U.S. troops abroad at greater risk.

If the reporter saw the pictures, but was not able to KEEP them, or keep copies of them, and if all he was able to publish his opinions on what he saw, that is not the same thing as Obama banning the news organization from publishing the pictures. It is very simple, the fact that a retired general and a reporter were able to publish their opinions means that there is no mechanisms for the government to control what the media choses to publish or broadcast, provided they are in POSSESSION of the material.

And it is not even the Reuters reporters -- Andrew Gray and Ross Colvin -- who saw the photos but a UK news source. Here is what the Reuters article said...

President Barack Obama's administration strongly denied a British report...

...the Pentagon attacked the report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper...

The Telegraph quoted retired U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba as saying...

The Pentagon's Whitman said he did not know if the Telegraph had quoted Taguba accurately.

The President can recall General Taguba back to active duty and punish him for expressing to the media what he saw. Did that happen? No. So if the US government did not punish someone who once served it in the military and can still be legally recalled to active duty, how the hell can the government punish the Reuters reporter for publishing his opinions, let alone photos that he does not possess? Possession of opinions and photos is the possession of the same thing, only in different medium -- thoughts and physical evidences. Get it? The fact that the Reuters reporter was able to publish one part of the controversy -- thoughts/opinions -- and not the photos, which is the second part of the controversy, mean that the photos were not released, not that President Obama banned Reuters from printing them. Once again, you have not a shred of proof that the US government control or manipulate US news organization.

What you appear not to understand, probably because you are too young and naive, is that in order for ANY government to have EFFECTIVE controls of the media inside the country's borders, there has to have effective INSTITUTIONAL mechanisms for the task. The FBI Director can serve several Presidents or he can be removed from office by the new President, for example. That mean the law enforcement institution he rule over must have in place practical methods to intimidate news reporters, judges, legislators and ordinary citizens and that those methods must be TRANSFERABLE from director from director so that several Presidents can use them without rebuilding the institution all over.



The laugh is still on you.

Please stop making fun of yourself! You take those type of B*S as reliable source, where people can ask and answer the same question by themselves? What a joke!

The joke is still on YOU...And I can prove it all day long...

The issue is not Chomsky and once again it is obvious that you are too lazy to do basic research. It is no secret that the Pentagon, albeit indirectly through MIT, funded Chomsky's research in linguistics for DoD computer systems. Your contention is that there is media control by the US government and you trotted out Chomsky's opinion to 'prove' it, never mind that an opinion does not and have never constitute 'proof'. Logical thinking would ask that if the US government indeed does have controls over the media, then why was Chomsky allowed to continue his tirade against the entity that funded his research and MIT paid him well for it?

Chomsky is not a poor man. He is a MULTI-millionaire through his books and professorship. There is a well supported story on how once when his car broke down in the street, he merely walked to a nearby dealer, paid cash for a new car, drove home and simply abandoned the broken one. In the former Soviet Union and in China, political dissidents have suffered far more harshly for far less than what Chomsky said about the US. But here you are telling the world that the US is so powerful that it can frighten reporters into silence but cannot do the same to ONE college professor? May be the US government should go to China and take lessons from one of the best practicioners of media controls?

That partly justifies my neutral stands that nothing is purely white, neither purely black. Everything is a mixture of white and black. The only question is how much is the white and how much is the black. And everyone’s view of black and white is different. This applies to USA as well as China, democracy as well as communism. Dare you say US government never did any evil thing? If you are such hard-core anti-communist, Nixon’s government yielding to Red China is evil, isn’t it?

You can call moments of when the US weakens in its stance on certain principles as 'evil' if you like, but no one will take that argument seriously. Foreign affairs are always dirty, especially when dealing with odious characters like Mugabe or Stalin or Mao. The best indicator of the nature of a state lies in how it treats its citizens INSIDE its borders because it is the country and the people that sustain the state, either through force or by reason. Black or white? I have to say that you are good at resorting to meaningless rhetorics in trying to salvage your failed arguments.

As the fact reflects, as recent as the Reuters’ report, medium control does exist. In fact, I don’t object to reasonable control of media. Instead, I think it is necessary at a point.

And I have proven, truly proven, not merely trotting out others' opinions, that you are wrong.

Please just stop proclaiming clownishly “Hey, I’m the Saint, you are the Devil.”

You are not the Devil. You are an 'armchair communist'. Sort of like a curious specimen in the zoo of failed social experiments.

What a joke again! It’s a sheer fight for partisan interest whereas media are nothing but to transform it into symbolic issue (rule by law etc) for their own interest, which nonetheless is good in this case.

See? More meaningless rhetorics. Nixon resigned. He did not decide not to run for re-election. He quit. If the US government was so powerful in media control as you claimed, Woodward and Bernstein would have had 'accidents' that would somehow turn them into blind deaf-mutes.

 

[gpit]

My IQ is just fine. But I do wonder about yours...

Here is the Reuters article, the one that you are too lazy to find and ACTUALLY READ...

U.S. slams British press over report of abuse photos - Yahoo! News
If the reporter saw the pictures, but was not able to KEEP them, or keep copies of them, and if all he was able to publish his opinions on what he saw, that is not the same thing as Obama banning the news organization from publishing the pictures. It is very simple, the fact that a retired general and a reporter were able to publish their opinions means that there is no mechanisms for the government to control what the media choses to publish or broadcast, provided they are in POSSESSION of the material.

And it is not even the Reuters reporters -- Andrew Gray and Ross Colvin -- who saw the photos but a UK news source. Here is what the Reuters article said...

The President can recall General Taguba back to active duty and punish him for expressing to the media what he saw. Did that happen? No. So if the US government did not punish someone who once served it in the military and can still be legally recalled to active duty, how the hell can the government punish the Reuters reporter for publishing his opinions, let alone photos that he does not possess? Possession of opinions and photos is the possession of the same thing, only in different medium -- thoughts and physical evidences. Get it? The fact that the Reuters reporter was able to publish one part of the controversy -- thoughts/opinions -- and not the photos, which is the second part of the controversy, mean that the photos were not released, not that President Obama banned Reuters from printing them. Once again, you have not a shred of proof that the US government control or manipulate US news organization.

It doesn&#8217;t matter how you're screaming and shrieking, or try to find excuses or pretext, the bottom-line fact is that the US government banned the photo, regardless whether Taguba is allowed to work or reporter is prosecuted or not.

Your IQ nonetheless failed you to recognize the simple fact:

WASHINGTON &#8212; Congressional negotiators reached tentative agreement on Thursday on a $105.9 billion spending measure that would provide money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September but would drop a ban on the release of photographs showing abuse of foreign prisoners held by United States forces.
&#8230;

The photo restriction, approved by the Senate, was viewed by some Democratic House members as an end run around federal freedom of information laws. It was dropped to appease Democrats already uneasy about approving nearly $80 billion for combat and more money for aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
&#8230;

Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is seeking the release of the photographs as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, said she was disappointed by the court&#8217;s ruling. &#8220;It will only serve to delay further the release of these photographs, which are critical for informing the ongoing public debate about the treatment of prisoners,&#8221; she said.

Ms. Singh said the photos portrayed abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq in places other than Abu Ghraib prison, the Iraq jail made infamous in 2004 by photographs of abuse there, and would therefore show that abuse was &#8220;not aberrational but systemic.&#8221;

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12cong.html?ref=global-home

Executive, Judiciary, and most of legislature have formed a united front in an open defiant of federal freedom of information laws.

This is a vivid, living example of medium control by US government. It is amazing that in the face of iron fact, somebody will still, in vain though, attempt to deny it clownishly.

If you read Dr. Michael Parenti&#8217;s book, there are numerous examples with sources and proofs how the government and corporate control/influence US media when need arises. It doesn&#8217;t have to actually organize the publishing companies. (see McCarthyism below)

What you appear not to understand, probably because you are too young and naive, is that in order for ANY government to have EFFECTIVE controls of the media inside the country's borders, there has to have effective INSTITUTIONAL mechanisms for the task. The FBI Director can serve several Presidents or he can be removed from office by the new President, for example. That mean the law enforcement institution he rule over must have in place practical methods to intimidate news reporters, judges, legislators and ordinary citizens and that those methods must be TRANSFERABLE from director from director so that several Presidents can use them without rebuilding the institution all over.

FBI Director can&#8217;t serve even a single president if he/she is in conflict with the president: he/she'd then better go Hawaii to type behind screen.

The whole institution is set up for balancing (hopefully) the interest between different interest groups. Ordinary citizen normally can only be represented by/through those interest groups.

For your reference, this link tells WHO RULES AMERICA

Questions and Answers
Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.

Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.

Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).

Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.

Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.

Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.

Q: Is WhoRulesAmerica.net connected to the site called "Who Rules America?" on natvan.com?
A: No! That site (and many others with documents purporting to tell you "who rules America") is run by a white supremacist/neo-Nazi organization.

Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change

BTW, I saw this website because I found that it actually serves as high school teaching material! I love America that there are more sane people than you.

The laugh is still on you.

The joke is still on YOU...And I can prove it all day long...

The issue is not Chomsky and once again it is obvious that you are too lazy to do basic research. It is no secret that the Pentagon, albeit indirectly through MIT, funded Chomsky's research in linguistics for DoD computer systems. Your contention is that there is media control by the US government and you trotted out Chomsky's opinion to 'prove' it, never mind that an opinion does not and have never constitute 'proof'. Logical thinking would ask that if the US government indeed does have controls over the media, then why was Chomsky allowed to continue his tirade against the entity that funded his research and MIT paid him well for it?

Chomsky is not a poor man. He is a MULTI-millionaire through his books and professorship. There is a well supported story on how once when his car broke down in the street, he merely walked to a nearby dealer, paid cash for a new car, drove home and simply abandoned the broken one. In the former Soviet Union and in China, political dissidents have suffered far more harshly for far less than what Chomsky said about the US. But here you are telling the world that the US is so powerful that it can frighten reporters into silence but cannot do the same to ONE college professor? May be the US government should go to China and take lessons from one of the best practicioners of media controls?

What all this raving has anything to do with critics that Chomsky made?

Funny joke, indeed!

&#8230;

See? More meaningless rhetorics. Nixon resigned. He did not decide not to run for re-election. He quit. If the US government was so powerful in media control as you claimed, Woodward and Bernstein would have had 'accidents' that would somehow turn them into blind deaf-mutes.

President Ford pardoned a criminal called Nixon! Please let&#8217;s not talk about presidential pardon &#8211; another can of worms of the system.

"He did not decide not to run for re-election." Perhaps in your imagination Americans are crazy people who all in a fact-denial status similar to you to support a criminal for president.

In addition, bet a young person like you never heard of McCarthyism in US?

McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. ...

Victims of McCarthyism

It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.[42] In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.[43] Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[44] Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment.[45]

In the film industry, over 300 actors, authors and directors were denied work in the U.S. through the unofficial Hollywood blacklist. Blacklists were at work throughout the entertainment industry, in universities and schools at all levels, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. A port security program initiated by the Coast Guard shortly after the start of the Korean War required a review of every maritime worker who loaded or worked aboard any American ship, regardless of cargo or destination. As with other loyalty-security reviews of McCarthyism, the identities of any accusers and even the nature of any accusations were typically kept secret from the accused. Nearly 3,000 seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to this program alone.[46]

A few of the more famous people who were blacklisted or suffered some other persecution during McCarthyism are listed here:
&#183; Nelson Algren, writer[47]
&#183; Elmer Bernstein, composer and conductor[48]
&#183; Leonard Bernstein, composer and conductor[49]
&#183; Charlie Chaplin, actor and director[50]
&#183; Aaron Copland, composer[49]
&#183; Bartley Crum, attorney[51]
&#183; Jules Dassin, director[52]
&#183; Dolores del R&#237;o, actress[53]
&#183; W. E. B. Du Bois, civil rights activist and author[54]
&#183; Howard Fast, writer[55]
&#183; John Garfield, actor[49]
&#183; Lee Grant, actress[56]
&#183; Dashiell Hammett, author[49]
&#183; Elizabeth Hawes, clothing designer, author, equal rights activist[57]
&#183; Lillian Hellman, playwright[49]
&#183; Langston Hughes, writer[49]
&#183; Sam Jaffe, actor[49]
&#183; Garson Kanin, writer and director[49]
&#183; Gypsy Rose Lee, actress and ecdysiast[49]
&#183; Philip Loeb, actor[58]
&#183; Joseph Losey, director[49]
&#183; Burgess Meredith, actor[49]
&#183; Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist[49]
&#183; Zero Mostel, actor[49]
&#183; J. Robert Oppenheimer, physicist, "father of the atomic bomb"[59]
&#183; Dorothy Parker, writer[49]
&#183; Linus Pauling, chemist, winner of two Nobel prizes[60]
&#183; Martin Ritt, actor and director[61]
&#183; Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, writer, political and civil rights activist[62]
&#183; Edward G. Robinson, actor[49]
&#183; Waldo Salt, screenwriter[63]
&#183; Pete Seeger, folk singer[49]
&#183; Artie Shaw, jazz musician[49] &#183; William L. Shirer, journalist[49]
&#183; Paul Sweezy, economist and founder-editor of Monthly Review[64]
&#183; Tsien Hsue-shen, physicist[65]
&#183; Orson Welles, actor, writer, and director[49]

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We ordianry citizen must watch the behavior of the governement with a vigilant eye!