headers
Macdonald Stainsby | 10 Mar 2002 21:05
Picon

Journalist Admits Lying Abour Balkans Massacre

Journalist Admits Lying Abour Balkans Massacre

    VETERAN 60 Minutes reporter Richard Carleton has admitted he had misled and
lied to viewers by showing footage from another massacre site to illustrate
a story about the massacre of Srebrenica. Mr Carleton, 60 Minutes executive
producer John Westacott and producer Howard Sacre are suing the ABC and its
Media Watch team over two Media Watch segments in July 2000 accusing 60
Minutes of lifting footage from an earlier BBC documentary. Mr Carleton told
the ACT supreme court yesterday that being accused of plagiarism was the
journalistic equivalent of paedophilia. But under cross-examination by
counsel for the ABC, Media Watch presenter Paul Barry and former executive
producer Peter McEvoy, Mr Carleton conceded he had knowingly used footage of a
morgue and a mass grave site far away from Srebrenica to illustrate the
Channel Nine report. Asked by barrister Terence Tobin if he had misled
viewers, Mr Carleton said: "In the technical meaning of the word misleading,
yes." Asked had he lied, he said: "In so far as the meaning of the word lie
is taken (to mean) misleading, yes." But Mr Carleton denied he had behaved
unethically as a journalist and said the footage had enhanced viewers'
understanding of the 1995 massacre of Muslim residents by Bosnian Serbs. The
hearing before Justice Terence Higgins is continuing. /rlt/rz

-------------------------------------------
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international

"They are all Enron, we are all Argentina"
    --WEF protesters.
----
In the contradiction lies the hope.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Craven, Jim | 10 Mar 2002 21:20
Favicon

FW: Eyes-only memos--IMF/WB against Argenitina


Eyes-only memos--IMF/WB against Argenitina

Eyes-only memos show who done it

By Greg Palast

February 7, 2002

http://www.americas.org/News/Features/200202_Argentina/200
202EyesOnlyMemos.h tm

In Buenos Aires, the Paris of Latin America, police gunned
down two dozen Argentines in December after they chose to
face bullets rather than starvation. The nation's currency
had crumbled and unemployment had shot up from a grim 16
percent to millions more than the collapsing government
could measure. The economy had been murdered in cold
blood.

Who done it? The killers left fingerprints all over the
warm corpse.

A "Technical Memorandum of Understanding," dated September
5, 2000, was signed by Pedro Pou, president of Argentina's
Central Bank for transmission to Horst Köhler, managing
director of the International Monetary Fund. I received a
complete copy of the inside report from . . . let's just
say the envelope lacked a return address.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Craven, Jim | 10 Mar 2002 22:05
Favicon

RE: Atheism?

Greg Schofield wrote [eloquently]:

Those who profess but who's actions are not theological justified or marked
by cowardice or mindless conformity are by definition Phasasees (via
Christian theology) and not what they profess to be. Needless to say the
vast majority of in-your-face christians are demonstratable not christian by
definition.

In this sense I am a close ally of the Church Militant (that of Christ) and
a joint enemy of the Church of anti-christ (fundementalism being a prime
example). I would back this up theologically if you doubt that real
christians are set against pharasees "christians", that they are asked by
Christ to do battle in his name, but I am affraid that would not be of great
interest to many on this list.

Response: We should never forget that throughout history there were many
self-identified "religious people" or "believers" (not only Christians like
Dietrich Bonhoeffer) who considered their "sacred beliefs" a mandate not
only for a way of life and a guide to personal choices and behaviors, but
also a mandate to take risks and stands and concrete struggles against
various forms and systems of oppression--and paid horrible sacrifices to do
exactly that.

Someone, I forget who, pointed out that whether theist, atheist or agnostic,
the fundamental question is: What are the practical consequences of your
beliefs? What do your beliefs drive you do to in the real world on real
issues. When someone says to me "I am praying for peace" or "I am praying
for your People", I always answer: "thank you and what else do you propose
to do or how else do you propose to help?". If it is only prayer, well that
may well be for your own benefit and gratification (and redemption) than
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Danielle Ni Dhighe | 10 Mar 2002 23:11

IRSP: Solidarity with the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organisation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Irish Republican Socialist Party
10 March 2002

Solidarity with the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organisation

As the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organisation (ILGO) prepares to face
exclusion from the New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade for the
12th consecutive year, the International Department of the Irish
Republican Socialist Party issued a statement expressing its
solidarity with ILGO and denouncing the "sectarian and heterosexist
policies" of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) which have caused
ILGO to be banned.

A spokesperson for the IRSP said:

"The IRSP are appalled that for the twelfth year in a row, the
largest St. Patrick's Day parade in America will refuse to allow a
group of Irish women and men to demonstrate their pride in their
homeland. This parade is intended to be an opportunity for the Irish
in the Diaspora to reclaim their pride in their heritage as Irish
women and men. The purpose of this parade is to draw together the
many different parts of the Irish emigre community in the US, but the
AOH thinks that it is the ultimate arbiter of who does and does not
deserve the honour of marching with the many other Irish
organisations in the parade.

"Religious sectarianism, whether coming from the loyalist thugs or
from the Roman Catholic reactionary wing of the AOH is something that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Friedman | 10 Mar 2002 23:34
Favicon

re: Gould's new book--bourgeois ideology and theory. more metaphysical b.s.

Puzzling? Not at all. Only if you've never actually read Gould's 
discussions of natural selection... Gould is merely recognizing that 
science, like other superstructural endeavors, is socially conditioned. It 
draws models and ideas from other realms of thought, which means that yes, 
bourgeois ideology influences science. Darwin acknowledged his debt to 
Malthus in first formulating a basis for what became the theory of natural 
selection: more individual organisms are born than can survive, which leads 
to inter- and intraspecific competition. Classical bourgeois economic 
theory provided a model or scaffold for understanding or visualizing a 
natural process. Which doesn't make the theory wrong. Science is a process 
of successive approximations. You advance one model or hypothesis and test 
it. If it is falsified, you adjust it or move to another model. If it 
stands, you keep testing it. The Bourgeois field of political economy was 
not "wrong," as in factually incorrect (although even "facts" are social 
things), but an approximation filtered through the world view of a (rising) 
bourgeoisie. That was the world Darwin grew up in. Recognizing the above 
makes Gould a historical materialist, which is different from an 
metaphysical idealist who confuses Gould's recognition of bourgeois 
influence on Darwin's thought with Gould adopting that ideology, himself.

>book. Gould notes, " I would advance the even stronger claim that the
>theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics
>transferred to nature". This, and the extended material on Darwin and
>Adam Smith, is a puzzling stance from one always that to be a
>leftist. And it requires no stance on ideology to scratch one's head.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
nemonemini | 11 Mar 2002 01:16

Gould, economics, and theory

The Bourgeois field of political economy was 
not "wrong," as in factually incorrect (although even "facts" are 
social 
things), but an approximation filtered through the world view of a 
(rising) 
bourgeoisie. That was the world Darwin grew up in. Recognizing the 
above 
makes Gould a historical materialist, which is different from an 
metaphysical idealist who confuses Gould's recognition of bourgeois 
influence on Darwin's thought with Gould adopting that ideology, 
himself.
_________________

All I can say to this is that the best cover for promotion of 
ideology is the pose of the leftist promoting ideology in the name of 
exposing it. 
As far as that goes, a somewhat stinking reactionary, David Stowe, in 
Darwinian Fairytales seems to be the only person who sees through 
this trick. 
As to economic ideology, my point was that economies are complex 
plastic, however much determination they show. That is, free 
intentionality can modify their course. Only a reductionist monism is 
so rigid as to exclude the interplay of intentionality, free agents, 
and mechanical systems. The point is powerfully made in Polanyi's The 
Great Transformation. There is the economic streams, and the rules of 
the game invented, and changeable. Witness the debates on free trade. 
What policy on free trade is entailed by historical materialism to 
make the theory deterministic? You see the problem. 
Here Gould is saying that evolution by natural selection happens like 
this. Like what? Economists don't have a theory, they have a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Craven, Jim | 11 Mar 2002 01:19
Favicon

Residential School, Holocaust Effects Similar

Book after book after book that I read on various holocausts and genocidal
campaigns, especially those of the German nazis, along with arguments for
reparations of various injured Peoples, never a mention Indigenous Peoples
in terms of being worthy of reparations or in terms of parallels between the
German nazi Holocaust and the genocidal campaigns against Indigenous Peoples
(even when the German nazis--and their allies--themselves acknowledged
having  taken their major inspiration (scopes, methods, rationales of
genocide)from the U.S. and Canadian experiences in exterminating Indigenous
Peoples.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural
resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that
they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does
not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared
towards the FINAL SOLUTION OF OUR INDIAN PROBLEM [emphasis added]."
(Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent D.C. Scott to Indian Agent
General Major D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG 10 Series, April 12, 1910)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

 Residential School, Holocaust Effects Similar

http://www.ammsa.com/windspeaker/WINDNEWSJULY2000.html#anchor1271227
                     By Paul Barnsley
                     Windspeaker Staff Writer
                     MONTREAL
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Greg Schofield | 11 Mar 2002 01:04
Picon

Re: Atheism?

Jim I could not agree more there is a quolte by Paul when someone challenges whether he spoeaks for christ and
he replies - judge me not by what I say but what I do.

Greg

--- Message Received ---
From: "Craven, Jim" <jcraven <at> clark.edu>
To: "'marxism <at> lists.panix.com'" <marxism <at> lists.panix.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:05:49 -0800
Subject: RE: Atheism?
Response: We should never forget that throughout history there were many
self-identified "religious people" or "believers" (not only Christians like
Dietrich Bonhoeffer) who considered their "sacred beliefs" a mandate not
only for a way of life and a guide to personal choices and behaviors, but
also a mandate to take risks and stands and concrete struggles against
various forms and systems of oppression--and paid horrible sacrifices to do
exactly that.

Someone, I forget who, pointed out that whether theist, atheist or agnostic,
the fundamental question is: What are the practical consequences of your
beliefs? What do your beliefs drive you do to in the real world on real
issues. When someone says to me "I am praying for peace" or "I am praying
for your People", I always answer: "thank you and what else do you propose
to do or how else do you propose to help?". If it is only prayer, well that
may well be for your own benefit and gratification (and redemption) than
anything useful or concrete. Among Blackfoot, for example, prayers are never
a substitute for concrete investigation and action (necessary for
transformation of anything) but rather prayers are used a call to action and
a reminder of being committed to something transcendent--beyond oneself and
ones own immediate wants and needs. In Blackfoot terms, "spirituality" means
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Craven, Jim | 11 Mar 2002 01:49
Favicon

RE: Atheism?

When I spoke with the Moderator of the United Church, then Rev. Bill
Phipps--three times--about the ugly legacy of the United Church in the
Residential Schools (rape, torture, murder, forced diet, desecration of
Indigenous ways and symbols, beatings, forced assimilation, kidnapping, use
of children for medical experiments, medical procedures with no anesthetics,
etc) I noted to him that here is some real irony: We Indians, wind up being
missionaries of The "Gospel" to the United Church that did all of these
atrocities in the name of being "missionaries of 'The Gospel'"; I pointed
out that we were not there to blaspheme or desecrate "The Gospel" or
symbols/traditions important to Christians (as was/is being done to
Indigenous Spirituality and Ways) rather we were inviting them to "walk
their talk" and "live The Gospel". I asked the good Reverend what he would
do if a parishioner came to him to "confess" some sins but said something
like: "Well I don't want to get too specific because it is hurtful and
embarrassing to ME, and some of MY sins have caused damages that will
continue in the future, but, could you give ME a sort of generic forgiveness
for all sins I have committed, may have committed, and, could you cover ME
for all future damages from past sins?" Would this go over? That is exactly
what the Churches have done. They don't want to get specific, not only
because of exisitng or potential litigation, but also because of cognitive
dissonance and naked hypocrisy problems.

I have interviewed and examined may victims of the Residential Schools. When
children made mistakes in reading the bible, they were beaten horribly. I
asked some of the vicitms, what parts of the bible that they were forced to
read that they remember; usually it is not much if anything. Suffice to say,
"The Sermon on the Mount" was not on the reading list in the Residential
Schools. I asked Phipps, "How could you or anyone in your church, after
having read "The Golden Rule" or "Even as you have done it unto the least of
these..." or "Suffer the children..."do what your church has done to Indian
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Greg Schofield | 11 Mar 2002 02:10
Picon

Re: Atheism?

Jim I have probably told this story before but I thought it might be of interest to you as it touches on the same
strange blindness and hypocrisy which the churches find themselves.

In the late 1970's when churches were justy wionding down their dreadful aboriginal missions in
Australia, I met on a long train journey a Nun travelling from the one of these missions to the mother house.

She seemed a genuinely compassionate person, seemed to like her aboriginal "charges", in short, she
seemed to present the better face of the church (there had been a lot of "reform" and Vatican 2 had not been
shoved totally away). Obviously this is no defense of the missions, but I am purposefully putting it in its
best light.

After a while she confessed that the real problem with "the" aboriginals was that they would not accumulate
possessions, that their relatives sponged off them and it was impossible for them to "improve" because of
this. It appeared to geniunely distress her, as if despite all her efforsts and hopes that they were
afterall condemned to poverty and that her efforts were wasted.

My response was simple. I said no more than "It seems their main problem is that they live too much like
Christ." Suddenly, I had said something which immediately created an odd distancing effect. It was as if I
had said something beyond comprehension, she did not respond with hostility - she just seemed incapable
of response (which I think is similar to what you say below). It was not just being lost for words either, it
was far deeper (it stays vividly in my memory for this reason).

Without being too patronising, it would seem that it is up to us to save the souls of these christians (I mean
this quite literally). Geniune forgiveness for past sins may well come into this, predicated on that they
go forth and do right (just to keep things within theological terms).

"(s)He just looked at me like a Moonie selling roses at the airport." just about sums up the experience.

Greg
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane