DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 154--------------------------------------------------
Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: October 24, 2013, 10:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Large Corporations (like McDonald's in the following video) LIE
as POLICY and the MEDIA then proceed to cover for them.
Conclusion: You CANNOT TRUST LARGE CORPORATION Mouthpieces
(EVER). They will only be truthful when they are forced to
(something that RARELY happens >:().
[move][I]And that goes double for the Corporate Media!
[/I][/move]
UPWORTHY
Joseph Lamour
Ever Hear About The Lady Who Spilled Coffee On Herself At
McDonald's, Then Sued For Millions?
It's really unbelievable what happened to Stella Liebeck. You
just have to watch to see how the media turned on this little
old lady who lived in Albuquerque. Obviously a villain, right?
And at 5:00, prepare to see what the coffee actually did to her.
It's not pretty. Well ... nothing in her situation was
.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE&feature=player_embedded
HTML https://www.upworthy.com/ever-hear-about-the-lady-that-spilled-coffee-on-herself-at-mcdonalds-then-sued-for-millions?c=upw1
#Post#: 155--------------------------------------------------
Seven misleading words you’ll run into and truth behind the adve
rtising
By: AGelbert Date: October 24, 2013, 11:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don’t be fooled by packaging. Here are seven misleading words
you’ll run into at restaurants and grocery stores … and how to
find the truth behind the advertising.
The Lie: Healthy Fast Food
From salads to oatmeal to grilled chicken, plenty of fast food
restaurants offer a handful of so-called healthy alternatives to
the fried, cheesy, and bacon-y stuff. Turns out those
healthy-sounding options aren’t necessarily even any healthier
than the regular items on the menu. Take McDonald’s for
example: the New York Times found that their oatmeal contains
more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than
their cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin. And the grilled chicken in
their Premium Caesar Salad? Surprisingly, it contains rib meat,
along with a bunch of additives.
Get the Truth: Always read nutrition labels and look up the
ingredients and nutritional info when possible (readily
available online when it comes to chain restaurants) before you
chow down. If something as simple as grilled chicken has 11
ingredients you can’t pronounce, move along.
The Lie: All Natural
Plenty of food products, from soda to granola bars, have
“natural” or “natural ingredients” on the label … and it
definitely sounds healthy. But what does it actually mean?
Unless it’s meat or poultry, whatever the company behind the
product wants it to, for the most part.
Get the Truth: Unlike meat and poultry, which is regulated by
the US Department of Agriculture, other products are regulated
by the Food and Drug Administration. And it turns out, the FDA
has no official definition of the term “natural” or its
derivatives. They only go so far as saying they don’t object to
the use of the term “if the food does not contain added color,
artificial flavors or synthetic substances” which gives
companies pretty generous leeway. Before being fooled by a food
that’s labeled “natural,” ask yourself: can I make this in my
own kitchen? If you can’t pronounce half of the ingredients on
the label, let alone define or find them in a supermarket,
they’re probably not as natural as the branding would like you
to believe.
The Lie: Whole Grain
Whole grains have been shown to reduce your risks of type 2
diabetes, colorectal cancer, and cardiovascular disease. So
bring on the whole-grain crackers, right? Not so fast. Some
products labeled “whole grain” actually contain very little of
it—and some contain none at all.
Get the Truth: Look on the packaging for stamps and
certifications from third parties like the Whole Grain Council.
And make sure a whole grain (like whole oats or whole barley
flour) is listed first on the list of ingredients. Ingredients
are always listed in a descending order, from greatest amount to
least amount. If it’s second, it may make up as little as 1
percent of the product.
The Lie: Multi-Grain
Multi-grain is touted on food packaging as if it’s healthy for
you, but all “multi-grain” means is that there are multiple
kinds of grains in the product—often the unhealthy refined kind.
And the kind of grain is more important than how many there are.
Get the Truth: Flip the package to see if whole grains are
listed first in the list of ingredients to get the most health
bang for your buck. And make sure “whole” is in front of every
grain listed.
The Lie: Artisan
The “artisan” label evokes images of small-batch cooking and
skilled chefs perusing farmer’s markets for fresh ingredients.
But it’s a word not regulated by the FDA, which means anyone can
use it any way they want, even with bulk quantities of frozen
food. Case in point, an “artisan egg sandwich”… made by Wendy’s.
Get the Truth: Dig to find out how a food is made and what it’s
made from. If it’s filled with artificial flavors, trans fats,
and additives, cooked by microwave, and produced in mass
quantities for huge chain restaurants and fast food place,
there’s likely nothing “artisan” about it.
The Lie: “Made With Real…“
Cheesy crackers made with real cheese. Snack bars made with real
fruit. Sure, they’re made with real cheese and fruit… and plenty
of other stuff too. Take Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain raspberry
bars—”real fruit” is on the label, and they even added “no
high-fructose corn syrup” to make it sound healthier. But
really, the “real fruit” is listed as raspberry puree
concentrate…and it’s only third on the list, after invert sugar
and corn syrup.
Get the Truth:Get the Truth: Look at the ingredient list, not
the packaging. And remember that even if the list does include
real cheese or real whole fruit, it still may be sharing space
with a whole bunch of junk. If a product has to cover its
package in claims that it’s “real” food, be skeptical.
The Lie: “Made with 100% real/pure…“
But surely 100% real must mean something, right? Not really.
Whether it’s sugary juice drinks made with 100% real fruit juice
or a Betty Crocker casserole-in-a-box made with 100% real
potatoes, the packaging doesn’t tell the whole story. The “made
with 100% real” is a particularly deceptive kind of trickery,
because it intentionally reads like the entire product is 100%
made up of that ingredient. For things like fruit juice, that’s
easy to buy into—until you read the label.
Get the Truth: Yep, I’m going to tell you—again—to read the list
of ingredients! Take juice for example—the fruit juice inside
may indeed be 100% fruit juice, but often it’s also mixed in
with extra sugar, and the 100% real fruit juice only makes up
50% of what’ll end up in your drink.
HTML http://www.care2.com/greenliving/7-lies-the-food-industry-sells-us.html#ixzz2ihaMqRuT
[move]Can you now understand why food processing corporations
"lobby" the government to NOT have to put all the ingredients on
the label? It's because they want to con you into buying
something that you think is something else of much more value!
Can you now see why Libertarians against government oversight
and regulations are idiots?[/move]
Coca-Cola and Pepsi 'change recipe to avoid putting a cancer
warning on their labels' [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]•Both<br
/>firms to alter the way caramel colour is produced
•Changes will take place in the U.S
•But not in UK as the drinks meet European safety rules
HTML http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112335/Coke-Pepsi-change-recipe-avoid-putting-cancer-warning-labels.html#ixzz2ixlHXiHX
Pepsi, Coke, Nestle Pump Millions Into Anti-GMO Labeling
Initiative >:(
HTML http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2013/10/19/pepsi-coke-nestle-pump-millions-into-anti-gmo-labeling-initiative
#Post#: 174--------------------------------------------------
A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: October 27, 2013, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at this seemingly well intentioned and informative
article urging people to confirm what they read.
Something is REALLY MISSING here. Can you tell what it is? How
about the upiquitous (and mostly surreptitious) government
efforts to manufacture consent when they aren't financing
astro-turf fake grass roots popularity, porn and sensationalism
to keep people distracted?
[move]See my comment after the article. My remarks are in red in
the article as well or my opinion is voiced with an emoticon.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
[/move]
How the internet is breaking ;) journalism ;D (and what it
means to you)
Article by Leo on the Ask Leo web site.
When it comes to journalism and other information that you read
on the internet, there's a very strong argument that things are
seriously broken. The result is that we all need to be more
vigilant than ever to separate the truth from falsehood and
recognize what's important as opposed to what's popular.
Last week’s revelations, investigations, and clarifications
regarding Microsoft Security Essentials really made me realize
something very critical about how the internet works today and
how broken it is.
The assumptions that readers are making about the information
that they find online – even at relatively “reputable” sites –
are wrong. The internet is breaking what “journalism” means. As
a result, it’s become even more critical for online information
consumers (that’s you and me, by the way) to take on a burden
that we have not been trained to even concern ourselves with
until now.
The burden of confirmation.
I’ve written about it before, but the sad fact is that you just
can’t believe everything you read on the internet. And it is now
your practical responsibility to do the legwork to confirm
whether something is, or is not, true.
And yes, I agree, that’s totally broken.
And it’s partly our fault. ???
•
What drives the internet
Most websites on the internet measure traffic. More visitors
equals more success. It’s as simple as that. Whether the success
is measured in advertising revenue or product sales, the bottom
line is that more eyeballs are critical to most site’s success.
And I’ll admit that this is true for Ask Leo! More visitors make
my endeavor more successful.
So, how does one get traffic? Uh... Shouldn't there be a
discussion of, like, ETHICS HERE ??? So this "traffic" thing is
ONLY about MONEY, Leo?[/I] >:( Product quality, content, Good
will, reliability, no ad overload, no spam, no cookies, good
fact checking, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with
obtaining traffic? >:( ??? :P
My approach has been relatively straightforward: write articles
that I think are helpful and informative, that answer real
questions asked by real people, sprinkle them with my own
editorial and other content, and hope that people discover me
via the search engines when they’re looking for an answer to a
problem. Unfortunately, that approach isn’t as effective as it
once was.
Perhaps as a result, more and more sites use different
techniques to attract site visitors or “clicks.”
Attracting clicks
Perhaps the most common approach to generating traffic these
days is the sensational or salacious headline – one that says
something so strong or outrageous that you just have to click
through to read more.
“How the Internet is Breaking Journalism” might be considered
such a headline, although I think it’s fairly mild in comparison
to some that I’ve seen. (I’m not really very good at headline
writing.) I get it Leo. You are mild, milquetoast and extremely
non-confrontational because that would be bad for business.
The resulting article may, or may not, deliver on the headline’s
promise. Many do not. I hope this one does. We'll see.
The headline served its purpose: it got you to click, the site
got a “page view,” and perhaps an ad was shown. Mission
accomplished. The fact that the accompanying article was total
rubbish or content-free is immaterial. (I hope this one isn’t
one of those).
Many go further, continuing with provocative and typically
unsubstantiated information – all to get you to spend more time
on the site, click through to additional pages, or even better,
recommend the article to your friends.
All at the expense of what we often refer to as the truth,
accuracy, or occasionally balance. [I]And future clicks TOO,
LEO! Why didn't you mention REPUTATION in your zeal to brand us
as pavlovian dogs?
The truth is often boring and doesn’t generate page views. [img
width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]BULLSHIT.<br
/>
Continued in "A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 2"
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corporate-mendacity-and-duplicity/msg175/#msg175
#Post#: 175--------------------------------------------------
A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 2 (final part)
By: AGelbert Date: October 27, 2013, 7:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 2
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/121.gif
When it comes to the news, however, there’s another factor at
play.
News in internet time
Because the internet is instantaneous, there’s tremendous
competitive pressure to get your article published as quickly as
technologically possible. So the NSA data mining has no bearing
on the decisions to manufacture propaganda or some other
mendacious bit of distraction? PRESSURE TO MEET A HEADLINE? I
don't think so.
This often happens at the expense of facts, replacing them with
rampant and sometimes wild speculation. Speculation that is
often presented or interpreted as fact. Yeah sure, facts get
"lost" because of "pressure" to meet a headline. LOL!
Confirming facts takes time and resources. DUH!
The immediacy of internet publishing has taken away the luxury
of time and budget; other constraints erode the resources
required to even do the work. It has?[/I] ??? Truth is now the
casualty of headline pressure (time and money) as well as the
first casualty of war?
News and other sites that cover current events are often faced
with a very simple choice:
Speculate today,
Be correct tomorrow. Leo CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT that this is
precisely the propaganda TOOL disguised as "rushed headline
inaccuracy" used by the New York Times and several other
"reputable" matrix mouthpieces to push for War as far back as
the Spanish American War and as recently as the Iraqi "weapons
of mass destruction" FRAUD, Iranian atomic boogeyman Israeli
pushed fraud and the false flag terrorist child massacre
instantly (and fraudulently) blamed on the Syrian government.
Getting something out today almost always wins. Accuracy be
damned. BULLSHIT! When they set out to twist some news to suit a
government approved narrative, they deliberately set up a fake
fact check or bought and paid for scholar to back up the lies in
the article. It takes LONGER to set up the mendacious propaganda
than just post the news without filtering it for "acceptable"
content. To assume EVERYTHING going out from the allegedly
"reputable" web sites isn't thoroughly massaged before it goes
out is Santa Claus propaganda by YOU, Leo. The only place I
agree with you is when a manufactured headline (used to demonize
some ethnic group) deliberately claims large numbers of victims
of said ethnic group NOW, only to place a correction" in small
print a week or so later.
Why you and I are part of the problem [img width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]Yeah,<br
/>right, WE are the problem...
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
Satirical news parody site, [i]The Onion, nailed it with an
article, Let Me Explain Why Miley Cyrus’ VMA Performance Was Our
Top Story This Morning.
The article is a fictitious “explanation” of why a major news
site – CNN.com – highlighted on its home page the antics of the
singer at the previous night’s music awards show.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif
The only thing fictitious about the article is its attribution.
Everything else is frighteningly accurate.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
Leo wants me to
think the consumer of manufactured mendacity and/or truthful but
unimportant distractive silliness is there because WE ASKED FOR
IT, not because SOMEONE has worked their Orwellian asses off for
about a century to keep us from thinking.
News sites are simply giving us what we apparently want
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gifas
measured by what
we’ll click on to read.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
It’s all about clicks and page views and time-on-site and
advertising revenue and … well, you get the idea. Yes, and the
Native Americans are a bunch of irresponsible drunkards because
we gave them liquor and took their land. And the African
Americans are "lazy and prone to thievery" because that's just
the "way they are", right Leo? It's ALL OUR FAULT, right Leo?
Gee, I think I read that about the financial crisis right after
2008, too. >:( Giving the public guilt trips is such fun... YES.
LEO, I think I understand what the IDEA you are pushing is. ;)
The fact is simple: you and I are much more likely to click
stories about the outrageous antics of a pop singer than we are
to click stories about what one might consider “real news,” such
as atrocities happening elsewhere in the world. [img width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
Sure. sure, we are all brainless Pavlovian dogs...We don't care
about truth, corruption, pro-war propaganda, fossil fuel piggery
and poisons, massive voter disenfranchisement, CEO fraud and
theft, etc...
News sites are simply giving us what we apparently want as
measured in clicks.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
At least that is what YOU want us to believe, LEO.
The same is true for the salacious headlines, fact-free
articles, and sensational speculation-as-truth that’s littered
all over the internet. Ahh! We have arrived at the money quote!
You are claiming anything that is hard hitting is equivalent to
cheap porn and hysterical fear mongering. Clever, clever,
clever.
We don’t click on boring, and we don’t fact check anything.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
Yeah, you boyz in the mild Santa Claus propaganda mills are a
bit upset at the FACT that the populous isn't buying the
"everything is just hunky Jake" line you are used to force
feeding us. SO you are now claiming we aren't rational. I guess
you will leave it to the more strident propagandists to start
calling us 'unpatriotic' and 'traitors' too!
I have no solution, but… Translation: It's human nature to be
Pavlovian dogs. Take a pill. Relax. Only believe mild,
politically correct, everything is "hunky dory" type news and
everything will be fine.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
I’m not about to change journalism, or human nature.
People will click on what we’re going to click, and website
owners are going to respond as they see fit for their business.
As an information consumer, however, I want you to be aware of
two exceptionally important things:
Your decisions and actions drive the internet.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
You may believe that it’s big (or small) business doing whatever
it is they want to make money, but the fact is they can’t do
that without you. The more that you visit certain sites, the
more you’re implicitly endorsing what they do and how they do
it. As a result, they’re going to do more. You left out
surreptitious government funded and fossil fuel funded
astro-turf and fake popularity, Leo. How come?
Seriously. That’s exactly how it works.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gifOnly
for a small
niche, not for non-consumer goods truthful information. People
read news a lot more than they shop! The predatory capitalist
corporations that run most Western governments are bending,
folding and mutilating the news 24/7 but you are pretending WE
get that crap because we asked for it. BULLSHIT!
You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
OR anywhere else, for that matter. Water is wet. Is this some
kind of, 'I'm on your side' type of con?
This pains me deeply because while almost everyone says this, it
seems like no one acts like they understand it. It’s absolutely
amazing the wild and wacky stuff that people will believe if
it’s published online. The fact is even those sites that we
consider reputable will fall into the trap of publishing
inaccurate and misleading information1 – and yet people believe
it all without question. Yes Leo, a large percentage of Homo
SAPs have low IQs and are easily led astray. That's blame the
victim logic. What about the very intelligent evil bastards with
a lot of mainstream credibility that push war, fossil fuels and
a host of other horrors destroying the biosphere in general and
Homo SAPs in particular? Are you telling me that the silliest.
most ignorant among us CONTROL the message on the internet?
BULLSHIT!
And that’s what has to
change.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
Boilerplate. What has to change is that people in government
and private enterprise engaging in activities that poison the
planet and kill people must be FORCED to stop lying about it on
the internet.
You must question everything
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
Most people do. It's people like you who limit our choices in
the media about what is "believable" or not and bore us to death
with pop singer topics, porn, or lockstep propaganda day in and
day out. The world is a big place but you can tune in any of the
main stream media news casts and they are basically running the
SAME stories. Can you say, controlled media? And don't tell me
that doesn't happen on the internet.
This is where I really believe that internet journalism is
really letting us down. This is how the internet has broken
journalism.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
I think what is REALLY bugging you is that people don't believe
the bought and paid for main stream media 'journalists' any
more. That's THEIR fault for lying so much. The INTERNET has
destroyed their credibility. GOOD! Tough luck for you, Leo.
You and I, we have to now do the legwork that we could in the
past assume that journalists and authors had at least made an
attempt to do themselves. Boilerplate. You are setting readers
up to be herded into NOT believing the Santa Claus version of
history.
It’s horrible. It’s awful. It’s frustrating. It shouldn’t have
to be this way.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif
And yet, it is what it is. You and I must (and I do mean must)
take everything that we read online with a grain of salt.
Nothing can be believed without question. DUH!
You and I must do the job that in the past we might have relied
on good journalism to at least begin to do for us: confirm the
truth, check sources, clarify statements, and see through the
hyperbole. Right... Anytime strong wording is use, it must be
hyperbole. A propaganda rag with deep government pockets cannot
buy cred and false statements to give some astro-turf pseudo
scientific or fake goody two shoes historical narrative the aura
of respectability while disparaging a truth teller without
government funding... ;)
Of course, the practical reality is that we can’t actually do
that for every single thing we encounter. As a result, we
develop relationships with sources that we trust – venues that
have proven themselves to be honest, accurate, and at least
somewhat diligent about presenting truth as truth, speculation
as speculation, and avoiding the temptation to do just about
anything for a page view. Ah yes, the RELATIONSHIPS...."sources
that we trust – venues that have proven themselves to be honest,
accurate, etc.". I get it Leo. If DA GOOBERMENT ain't backing
it, it isn't "believable".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Naturally, I hope Ask Leo! is one of those sites. I admit I have
gotten a few good tips on computers here but the total absence
of perspective about real world conditions is misleading. Leo
NEVER exposes any of the many scandals in the computer industry
including back doors by Microsoft and others on behalf of the
government. I have had to go to other sites to get anything that
isn't extremely mild. He does provide pretty good data BUT it is
seldom complete and you need to go to less restrained computer
geeks to find out the total story. Leo worked for Microsoft for
WAY TOO LONG. ;D
But even for those sites that you trust, you must keep up your
guard and do your own due diligence. Accidentally or not, it’s
very easy to get it wrong. That is the one statement here I
agree with. However, in the light of what has already been said,
I consider it disengenous. Mixing truths with falsehoods is the
bread and butter of successful propaganda.
And if I ever start posting about the antics of half-naked
pop-stars, slap me. Hard. As if that was the main problem with
the internet. Defense of bullets and bombs is doing much more
damage than bulbous boobs ever will. >:(
HTML http://askleo.com/how-the-internet-is-breaking-journalism-and-what-it-means-to-you/
Agelbert comment to Leo:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif
I'm sorry Leo, I must take issue with you on this assumption:
[quote]Your decisions and actions drive the internet. You may
believe that it’s big (or small) business doing whatever it is
they want to make money, but the fact is they can’t do that
without you. The more that you visit certain sites, the more
you’re implicitly endorsing what they do and how they do it. As
a result, they’re going to do more.
Seriously. That’s exactly how it works.[/quote]
NO, it is definitely NOT how "it works.". I can quote you
chapter and verse from the 1950s to the 1990s on how the
overwhelmingly high percentage of stories were NOT "when it
bleeds, it leads" or simple sensationalism appealing to the
lowest common denominator of readership.
I can bring you proof of funding of pro-war, pro-fossil fuel,
pro-predatory capitalist practices, active suppression of news
about criminal activities by our own government in order to keep
the people in the dark about said activity.
Don't tell me they wouldn't be "interested" in reading that and
would prefer Hollywood scandals and other mindless
entertainment. You are a knowledgeable man. Study Operation
Mockingbird.
Follow your own rule (and mine as well!) and CONFIRM all the
following statements rather than tossing them aside as mendacity
before you responsibly investigate them.
[quote]"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call
girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative
discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the
availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA
propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah
Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any
significance in the major media." -- William Colby, former CIA
Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don't
need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are
[Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
-- William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the
Media, by Carl Bernstein
"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far
its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials.
[It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the
CIA whenever possible." -- The CIA and the Media, by Carl
Bernstein
"Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of
the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though
Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The
"intelligence community" is officially defined as including only
those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence
Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign
and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the
term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the
federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined
multiple of that number." -- Jim Hougan, Spooks
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been
diverted from its original assignment. It has become an
operational and at times a policy-making arm of the
government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the
CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger
operations." --former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963,
one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the
Washington Post, early edition
As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in
known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the
advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it.
In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that
our press is free from such government meddling. This is an
insidious lie about the very nature of the news institution in
this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while
denying the very fact of the lie itself [/quote]
--------------------
Leo, it is cruel joke to believe the many idiotic, prurient and
sensationalistic web sites out to keep people distracted and
dumbed down on the internet are not every bit as FINANCED with
government funds to provide the appearance of popularity as the
main stream media propaganda outlets. Pravda and Izvestia are
alive and well in our media. As a matter of fact, those old
Russian propaganda rags have probably more truth in them since
the Soviet Union collapsed than CNN does.
It costs money to run web sites but you fail to mention that the
government funds web sites surreptitiously for the purpose of
manufacturing public consent. Noam Chomsky is NOT a "conspiracy
theorist".
Sure Leo, we have a small niche where we do the old "compete for
popularity" thing. But presenting that niche as "exactly the way
it TOTALLY works" is a disservice to your
readership.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Operation Mockingbird may have a different name in the internet,
but the modus operandi has not changed and if you don't know
that, it's time you did.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
#Post#: 239--------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of Manipulative People
By: AGelbert Date: November 1, 2013, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UzqmvEngPo&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 241--------------------------------------------------
How to deal with Cunning Deceitful Manipulators
By: AGelbert Date: November 1, 2013, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_UyuMVCFQc&feature=player_embedded
How to deal with Cunning Deceitful Manipulators
#Post#: 449--------------------------------------------------
Mens Rea
By: AGelbert Date: November 25, 2013, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99siSbqTX8&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
Senator Elizabeth Warren unwittingly describes the Wall Street
deliberate impoverishing of Americans for over 40 years. Maybe
she cannot bring herself to say the expression, "MENS REA" in
regard to Wall Street and most of their pet politicians from
Reagan on down.
[move][I]But I'll say it! And it describes the conscience free
behavior of people like Mking PERFECTLY! These prevaricators are
not stupid; they just wallow joyfully in Malice and Aforethought
continuously. Why? Because, to them, humility, honesty,
cooperation, the golden rule and altruistic thinking are
WEAKNESSES. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/i][/move]
In a century or so, if we don't "reform" [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/> the Mkings among us, a few sad ETs will gaze on the brown, de
ad
ball that was once a vibrant place full of life called Earth.
They will discuss the timeframe for a seeding procedure to
attempt bioremediation based on a several thousand year time
scale due to the presence of DNA destroying radionuclide
contamination of the soil and the oceans. They will lament the
Homo SAP tragic and suicidal fixation with caloric intake and
concentrated power that blinded them to the vital, non-optional
requirement for inter-species and intra-species cooperation and
altruistic behavior in order for the sustainability of a complex
biosphere to be a reality. They will wonder how, with so much
knowledge of the life processes around them, humans failed to
realize the fragility of the biosphere they so depended on.
One ET specialist in endocrine systems and biochemical signaling
considered the possibility that the sugar reflex was behind most
of the human excesses that blinded that species into the belief
that hoarding and storing energy was a viable strategy, even
when taken to extremes that resulted in excess "fat", creating
analogous "anoxic" conditions in the biosphere, even as excess
fat in a human liver brings necrosis from lack of oxygen, that
began to destroy them.
Perhaps their brains became intoxicated from the toxins present
in too much caloric intake.
Perhaps they weren't as intelligent as they seemed.
Homeostasis, if applied to their biosphere and industrial
civilization, would have saved them. But, like a primitive
primate given the choice of cocaine over food, would always pick
cocaine until it died. :(
Attention then turned to the next planet on their survey and the
quandary of the seemingly intelligent humans with such
incredible lack of foresight was shelved for a future
discussion.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef016306595840970d-500wi[/img]
[url=
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php][color=green]Renewable<br
/>Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
#Post#: 507--------------------------------------------------
Why is Google Funding ALEC?
By: AGelbert Date: December 6, 2013, 6:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly said,[move] if you want the truth, follow the money.
Certainly corporate interests are far more astute in covering
their tracks these days, laundering their efforts through
middlemen, foundations, shell companies, etc....[/move]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
YEP!
And speaking of MONEY and the habit of some (allegedly green)
large corporations of putting money in GW denial organizations
while pushing a certain amount of renewable energy in what
APPEARS to be schizophrenic behavior but is ACTUALLY a TAX and
REGULATION avoidance strategy, see what GOOGLE is doing with
some money...
Why is Google Funding ALEC?
SustainableBusiness.com News
Petitions with 230,000 signatures have been delivered to Google
asking the company to stop supporting ALEC, which it joined this
year just as 60 other corporations cut their ties with the
right-wing extremist organization.
Google is a bright light in the corporate world taking strong
advocacy positions on climate change and renewable energy and
walking the talk on those positions by investing heavily in the
field - some $1 billion since 2010. It's an innovator on energy
efficient data centers, uses green building practices
extensively, serves organic food in its cafeterias, all of which
is actively opposed by these organizations.
This year, Google tied for first place for leading the tech
industry on addressing climate change.
So it crushes our trust when they simultaneously fund a slew of
organizations - ALEC is one of many - that are working
relentlessly to prevent action on climate change and obliterate
the renewable energy industry.
In its blog, Google says, "Why are we making these investments?
It's simple: we believe in a clean energy future, and we think
that companies like ours can help make it happen," says Kojo
Ako-Asare, head of corporate finance for Google. "We invest in
these projects because they make business sense, because they
help put more renewable energy on the grid and because they have
a positive impact on the local economies where they operate."
::)
Google has extensively mapped a changing planet to bring
peoples' attention to climate change:
Google time lapse
"Google should Google ALEC's agenda. Funding right-wing
extremists at ALEC is a guaranteed way for Google to undermine
its own admirable clean energy goals. It's like building a new
house only to set it on fire after defunding the fire
department," says Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra
Club.
"Google's support for ALEC is part of a disturbing embrace of
the climate denial machine by a company that professes to fight
global warming," says Brad Johnson at Forecast the Facts. "It
may be time to pronounce Google's famous 'Don't Be Evil' motto
dead."
Next year, ALEC has its sights on killing state Renewable
Portfolio Standards, state net-metering laws, the Northeast
cap-and-trade program (RGGI), and federal level restrictions on
power plant emissions.
Who's Who List of Right-Wingers
Google financially supports the who's who list of right wingers
from infamous climate denier Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
This year, organizations that received “substantial” funding
from Google for the first time include Grover Norquist's
Americans for Tax Reform, the Federalist Society, the American
Conservative Union (best known for its CPAC conference), and
Heritage Action - the political arm of the Heritage Foundation
that led the charge to shut down the government over the
Affordable Care Act.
All these groups are heavily supported by the Koch Brothers.
Google's PAC, called Google Inc. Net PAC, contributed to Ted
Cruz's Senate campaign and already contributed to his next
senate race even though it's five years from now.
Agelbert Note: And HERE is where following the MONEY LEADS TO:
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
[move]As for why it supports Grover Norquist's "no taxes ever"
pledge, to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it
in the bathtub," that's pretty clear: Google creatively shields
some $2 billion a year from global taxes, reports Bloomberg. and
is holding $33 billion offshore to avoid US taxes.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
[/move]
The company even sponsored a recent fundraiser for the
Federalist Society, a network of right-wing judges and lawyers
that includes Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img],<br
/>John Roberts, [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]<br
/>Antonin Scalia [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]<br
/>and Clarence Thomas. [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]Justice<br
/>Thomas was the guest of honor at that event, for which Google
was listed as a top-tier “gold” sponsor. Google names the
Federalist Society on its list of groups receiving its most
substantial grants in 2013, [img width=140
height=100]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]reports<br
/>the Center for Media & Democracy.
Sure, Google would say it also funds progressive groups and
after all, it's just looking after its business interests. But
"there really aren't two proportionate sides to the facts about
the climate changes that are underway, as to whether working
people should be paid a living wage, and whether corporations
should have to pay taxes just like working people do. By funding
extreme groups on the right under the guise of a false
equivalency, Google is enabling groups that seek to undermine
government," counters Lisa Graves, Executive Director of Center
for Media & Democracy.
"Political spending for corporations is purely transactional.
It is all about getting policies that maximize profitability,
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
so even
ostensibly hip companies like Google invariably spend lavishly
to support groups and politicians that pursue decidedly
anti-democratic policy outcomes. It is why sane democracies
strictly regulate or even prohibit such spending,[I] regarding
it accurately as a cancer for democratic governance.",[/I]
notes Bob McChesney co-founder of the media reform group Free
Press and author of How Capitalism is Turning the Internet
Against Democracy.
Read more:
Website: www.prwatch.org/node/12319
HTML http://www.prwatch.org/node/12319
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25385
#Post#: 508--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: Surly1 Date: December 6, 2013, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"By funding extreme groups on the right under the guise of a
false equivalency, Google is enabling groups that seek to
undermine government," counters Lisa Graves, Executive Director
of Center for Media & Democracy.
Take it to the fking bank. Incomprehensible.
#Post#: 513--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: December 7, 2013, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly said, [quote]Take it to the fking bank.
Incomprehensible.[/quote] ??? >:(
I feel the same way. The only way to make heads or tails of this
is that the GOOGLE big shots believe THEY are the Government.
>:(
They see representative democratic government as a "competitor"
to be undermined. This is Libertarian, Randian, Predatory BS
based on the LIE that the "ELITE Galts" would do a better job of
governing the rabble than the one the rabble elects.
These cheap, relativistic, self justifying greed based
mephisto-"philosophies" will be the death of us.
I overheard Lucifer make this remark in a fit of depression the
other day. It surprised me that Satan isn't more peppy in these
times when everything seems be going his way.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
[quote]In the last several centuries, the only new SIN I've been
able to come up with is Advertising... :([/quote]
Yes, we know good old Mephisto-Prince of the Earth just "does
what he does", but the issue is REALLY NOT ABOUT HIM, but about
US.
As long as HOMO SAP continues to believe in fairy tales about
sliding scale ("SITUATIONAL") ethics and other cockamamie
silliness as a magic wand to justify doing any damned thing he
wants to do (I'm NOT swearing here! ;)), every place we dwell
in is totally trashed. [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
Isaiah used a bit of hyperbole in threatening his stiff necked
and arrogant fellow Jews but he generally established proper
cause and effect in human ethics. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/> Everything else is pseudo sophisticated "modern" BULLSHIT.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
[color=navy]Here's Isaiah giving it to us with both
barrels,
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
fully loaded with
100% truth, ethics and the effects of ethical and non-ethical
behavior in Homo SAP:
[quote][font=times new roman]Isaiah33:1 Woe to you who plunder,
though you have not been plundered;
And you who deal treacherously, though they have not dealt
treacherously with you!
When you cease plundering,
You will be plundered;
When you make an end of dealing treacherously,
They will deal treacherously with you.
14
The sinners in Zion are afraid;
Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites:
“Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”
15
He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly,
He who despises the gain of oppressions,
Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes,
Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed,
And shuts his eyes from seeing evil:
16
He will dwell on high;
His place of defense will be the fortress of rocks;
Bread will be given him,
His water will be sure.[/font][/quote]
What most Homo SAPs that LAUGH at the words above DO NOT GET is
that those words are not about big daddy God kicking our ASSES
IF WE ARE "BAD".
These words are CAUSE AND EFFECT in human relations! You can
call it karma or any other wistful, fate like term you want to
dream up. The fact remains that, in this universe, ethics are
NOT NEGOTIABLE if you want to perpetuate your species. The
non-self aware life forms are on automatic pilot so they don't
have the CHOICE of forking it up.
We do. We did. We need to stop being STUPID or it is OVER.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page