Paracelsus: I asssume you are at a loss for words. Anybody else care to challenge me?

No.

re comment #67658 by Paracelsus:  Rubbish!

re comment #66642 by Paracelsus.  Just as the individual posting as a so-called 911truthdotorg did earlier, you smear this nation’s finest reporter, Amy Goodman, and the beacon of truth that is Democracy Now! without providing a single cite to a date or program.  As noted on my previous posting, Ms. Goodman aired a debate on Sept. 11, 2006 between the writers/directors of “Loose Change” and the “Popular Mechanics” editorial team responsible for the article, “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.”

For the self-described “9/11 truthers” it is not enough for an objective reporter to allow both sides of the question to fully present their case.  Your obsession is so great, that if someone either doesn’t buy into your fanatical views lock, stock and barrel or even if someone agrees that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full and fair investigation, they must be condemned as the enemy if those same individuals, like myself, feel that a great deal more evidence must be forthcoming before one can arrive at conclusions that you believe are true to a religious certainty.

Your suggestion that Amy Goodman “and her confederates” are “co-conspirators in war propaganda” either reflects that you have “never” watched Democracy Now! and have no idea what you are talking about, or that you are a damnable liar.

Very well written article and of interesting content enough to have me writing both my senator and congressmen.  I think everyone should writetheirs and perhaps a dialogue will commence.  Talking about the issue on a larger scale starts the ball rolling and maybe they will actually deal with this issue.  I agree with Louise, writeletters to advertisers on the channels you disagree with or the most egregious culprits…hit them where it hurts the most…their wallets, it is their god afterall…

So many great comments here.  I’ve been disturbed by this idea for a while and I’ve not seen anyone talk about.  How can you be a democratic canidate and not recognize that the more money you spend the more money that is available to counter your campaing?  I think I’ll focus on funding media like ‘Democracy Now!’, truthdig and others.  I’m feeling more liberal about spending money that way after the DN! April 12th segment on War and taxes.  If I’m already funding war with thousands of dollars each year in taxes, then I need to stop thinking I’m neutral.  We learn nothing from the ads anyway, except in our witnessing the power of conscience spin used by men of little and no real character such as with that swiftboat ad.
            It’s not just the ads either.  It’s the media pundents who are ‘moderating’ the political debates.  The networks can cherry pick the pundent to get the right spin, rewarding the faithful.
              I haven’t watched five minutes of TV since getting broadband last year.  I’ve learned to build my own computers and I’m having the time of my life.  I like the boycott idea.  I haven’t driven my car in six months.
      I agree with the love at first sight thought.  The world is dust and rocks without the beauty of women of character, women who don’t hide away in their quite place of peace and Marry abusive beer drinking yellow livered neo con cowards(ie Earl), closing their eyes to horrific damage to others that is inherent in their complicency.  Ofcourse, if these ‘men’ really were men, there wouldn’t be a
problem.

      Re63241;  You must not be talking about gramatical ignornace.  And, too, United we stand has to do with our humanity, not political or religous views.  Hitler made the same mistake;  not to be cruel or mean. 

              Re63281;  Tivo?  Outlawed?  That would be fine by me as TIVO is a high dollar proprietary pile of ......shaving creme, be nice and clean, shave everday and you’ll always look keen!

      Anyone else consider what might happen if the dollar collapsed?  Would Bush stand down the nukes and open the door for chinese and russian malitias to come and secure their ‘investments’?  The real people that hate our constitution and the American people are the yellow livered cowards that have been spending our Nation into slavery and directing a foreign campaign to undermine public opinioin abroad through bogus and corrupt foreign policy.  The truth is actualy more astounding than the fiction;  that many of those people don’t hate Americans and see what’s going on.

          Live responsiblity and please don’t drink and breathe

Ernest C., I realise the major media misinforms the public by giving it only half of a spun story. However, the truth—whatever they decide it to be— IS out there, if people want to look hard enough. And with the explosion of media such as blogs, people can find it without looking terribly hard. It’s not important enough to enough people, who have a “can’t be bothered” attitude. So I still blame the people as much as the media.

BTW, Rupert Murdoch (the worst waste product to ever worm its way out of Australia) is now an American citizen. He needed to acquire citizenship for some media-ownership purpose, as I recall. And although I live in Australia (in self-imposed political exile from Bush fascism) I am an American citizen.

Take back the airwaves. Take back our country. Electing a presidential candidate drenched in corporate money is more of the same. No more one party rule. Elect Mike Gravel.

re comment #63390 by Truthdotorg.  You tell us, oh dot that claims to be the truth, “Amy Goodman is a fraud” and she “won’t go near the 9/11 truth issue.”

If what you say is the unvarnished “truth” about Amy Goodman, can you explain to me why Ms. Goodman hosted a Sept. 11, 2006 debate between the writer/directors of “Loose Change” and the “Popular Mechanics” editorial team responsible for the article, “Debunking 9/11 Myths:  Why conspiracy theories can’t stand up to the facts?”

If you were not aware of this “fact” about Ms. Goodman, go to archives at Democracy Now.org and see for yourself.  I think you will find that as a professional journalist/moderator, she provided both sides the opportunity to make their case.

I suspect that I am not alone amongst Truthdig readers who have read David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor,” who has been fully exposed to issues like WTC 7 collapsing into its own footprint and who agree wholeheartedly that there is enough evidence to warrant a full and complete investigation, but when someone, like yourself, is so consumed by that event as to transform an obsession into a smear of this nation’s most reputable journalist—a woman who came very close to being killed in order to bring this nation the truth about a massacre in East Timor—someone has to step forward and say, enough!

Democracy Now is the only national news progam I watch.  It is the only program that provides unfiltered truth.  Amy Goodman is a real hero.
I agree that having Amy host an additional program where all canidates would have an opportunity to score their points would be in this country’s best interest.  As Amy’s integrity stands above all others in the media, she could pull this off.

Great post Earnest Canning.
I too was heartsick the day I realized that corporate money had tied the tongues on the News Hour.  I haven’t watched it since.
Transparency is really all that we want.

AMY GOODMAN
Love at 1st Sight

Please know that I appreciate your courage.
COURAGE NEEDED in The Press, the Pulpit, the Politicians and the People

  I writethis because I care for those who fight for this nation and who keep us free. I fought in two wars and have two grandsons who are combat veterans of the Iraq War. One is Air Force security man and the other is an Army paratrooper who was wounded in
Action, home on convalescent leave and now back in Iraq in the war with his buddies. Our armed forces are the bravest and the best and we need to back them in what they do.
In my book, Expendable Elite - One Soldier’s Journey Into Covert Warfare, I writeabout my year in Vietnam (Dec 65 to Dec 66) as commander of an independent force of Green Berets and Buddhist irregulars who fought the enemy along a 30 mile stretch of border with Cambodia. The well armed enemy, who outnumbered my forces four to one, operated out of what had been their safe haven inside Cambodia.  That sanctuary ended the day I took command, but continued in all other areas - giving the enemy the advantage over our forces. 
President Johnson had ordered that safe havens be provided the enemy all along the Cambodian border with South Vietnam. General William Westmoreland, rather than resign and tell the American people the truth, secretly made certain the enemy was allowed their safe havens from which they attacked our forces, killing and wounding thousands, while General Westmoreland played tennis in Saigon and steered clear of controversy.  He did nothing to prevent the continued use of the Mekong River by large foreign ships to carry enemy war goods into Cambodia for them to turn on our forces and shoot with impunity. How many suffered and died because of those actions?  General Westmoreland corroborated these facts in his biography, A Soldier Reports.  I quote him in my book on how he was “ordered” not to tell Congress or the media about the enemy safe-havens. 
My publisher, Kris Millegan, and I were taken to Federal Court in Charleston, SC in January 2006 in a vain attempt by the Special Forces Association to bankrupt us and prevent us from publishing more truth about illegal covert operations, aiding the enemy, CIA retribution against Americans and allies, and how our government covers these actions with lies or subterfuge. We won our battle in court with five days of testimony and documentation.  We proved that my book, Expendable Elite - One Soldier’s Journey Into Covert Warfare, was an honest portrayal of events in An Phu, South Vietnam.  The jury took less than two hours to deliberate and reach a unanimous verdict in our favor.
You might ask “This happened forty years ago.  Why should we care?”  If you care about our men and women who are now in the armed forces you should get up the courage to demand action by the White House, Congress and the Department of Defense to make it a criminal act to ever, regardless of the situation, aid the enemy.  I pray that you ask that myself and MSG Gerald Willsey be called to testify before a Congressional hearing regarding covert operations which no doubt persist to this day as we continue to bury those valiant warriors who fight a tough war in strange lands.  I laud Truthdig for its dedication to the dissemination of truth!
ASK YOURSELF:
      Why has the world press refused to publish the truth?
              Why have most pulpits lacked courage to demand that Christians act to support our         troops and to deny the enemy any choice other than defeat?
                        Why has Congress permitted the aiding of our enemies?
How many of our present day military leaders permit the enemy any advantage over our forces?

©2007 LTC Daniel Marvin, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

Dimslow promises not to spend a single cent on TV in his run for the Presidency. He wants elections to be run by the public, not by Wall Street and advertising agencies, putting people first, rather than dollars, in this as in all else –

“The political platform on which I, John Doe Dimslow, will base my campaign and which will serve as guide if elected is not the Holy Corporate Charter but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed into law by the United States and other nations over half a century ago….”

apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/dimslow-08/

re comment #63380 by Bukko in Australia.  I would respectfully disagree.  It is not that people are “stupid.”  It is that they are uninformed, or worse yet, misinformed by the media conglomerates.  The greatest source of disinformation comes from your fellow Australian, Ruppert Murdoch and his Fox Propaganda Network.

Bravo Bill Blackolive!

Amy Goodman is a fraud.

She should be on “Not Quite Free Speech TV”.

She won’t go near the 9/11 Truth issue. How sad for her.

The “official” 9/11 story is a fairy tale…anyone who believes their own eyes can see that.

Please watch the Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth,
9/11 Mysteries, 9-11 Justice, America: Freedom to Fascism

And WHY is it so important to raise obscene amounts of money—making whores of politicians—so they can buy TV ads? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!!

They don’t bother to study candidates and issues, so they can be swayed by commercials. If the masses of people had a clue, they would laugh at campaign ads like I do because they could see right through them. However, a majority (not the tuned-in people who read TruthDig, of course) are sheep who can be led by the fleecers who have been bought by the big-money wolves.

Question.  Would I, (a candidate) buy a 30 second ad on a ‘friendly’ television network, an ‘unfriendly’ one, or no difference?

If the answer is ‘friendly’ it’s beyond easy to see why so-called television journalists (think Russert) are loathe to question the veracity of the stuff their ‘guests’ spew.  Sort of like peeing in one’s nest, wouldn’t it be.

Amy Goodman, who once again demonstrates why Michael Moore was right when he described her as “a national treasure” touches on a core issue—that there can be no meaningful campaign finance reform until there is a fundamental media reform.

When Ben Bagdikian first published “Media Monopoly” in 1983, 50 giant firms dominated almost every medium.  On Dec. 1, 2003, Howard Dean informed viewers of “Hardball with Chris Matthews: that “eleven companies in this country control 90% of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their televisions.”  “The very structure of our conglomerated media system,” Tim Robbins observed in a forward to “Tragedy & Farce,” “conspires against real journalism, and hence, the truth.  And without access to the truth, democracy withers.”

Nowhere is this problem more acute than the manner in which we operate elections.  The corporate media has a vested interest not only in who we elect but how we elect.  By failing to provide in-depth, meaningful coverage of links between candidates and issues that truly matter to the vast majority of Americans—the middle and working classes—by focusing only on those candidates whose success will not threaten the mediate conglomerate bottom line, even then limiting coverage to polling and the bogus, but self-fulfilling prophesy of candidate viability, the media congromerates enhance a corrupt electoral system in which the expenditure of billions of dollars on expensive, 30-second spot ads is a pre-requisite to electoral success—a system in which only candidates backed by wealthy corporations need apply.

Where parliamentary democracies function quite well with relatively brief election cycles, here, in make-a-buck for the media U.S.A., the electoral process is approaching a permanent cycle.  Almost from the moment votes were being counted for the November 2006 election, presidential aspirants in both parties were stepping forward to declare that they were in the running for 2008.  Why?  Because more time is needed to raise funds sufficient to feed the insatiable conglomerated media machine.

While Ms. Goodman has done an excellent job in identifying the problem, her article falls short with respect to a solution.  Senator Durbin’s proposal, while well-meaning, doesn’t cut it.  Why should the government issue vouchers to feed the media machine?  The media giants should be “required” to make sufficient air time available for debates, free of charge, as part of the price for the monopoly licenses they receive to operate on the “public” air waves.

Pending meaningful legislative “reform,” alternative (listener-sponsored) media, like Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! should offer to host candidate forums, invite all candidates, invite all commercial and non-commercial stations to share the feed.  We should return to the type of non-partisan sponsoring of debates, as occurred when debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters.  Most importantly, such debates should be moderated by individuals with a track record for speaking truth to power—commentators like Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers, Juan Gonzalez, Robert Scheer.  Could you imagine the dynamic of a debate over Middle East policy if the candidates were questioned by the likes of Robert Fisk?

The establishmentarian punditry’s reticence about this particular “money trail” is no doubt due to their great respect for the anti-obscenity laws.

HokaHey!

I couldn’t agree with you more.  While campaign finance reform and public finance of elections face considerable constitutional challenges, the freeing of the airwaves would require no more than for Congress to enforce our property rights in the airwaves. 

In a similar vein, I was incensed to see the Army and Navy buying prime time adds during the NCAA tournament, spending tax dollars to (1) encourage a war effort I disagree with and (2) fill the coffers of CBS at my expense.  When will we say enough is enough?