Friday, April 01, 2011
New Chomsky Video
Chomsky explains who U.S. leaders work for and what they have done. NEW VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBI9mC77igo
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Posted 2 Questions
I posted 2 questions to the "Ask YouTube" policy event.
SEE VIDEO:
My Questions for "Ask YouTube" policy event
Here is the longer version of 2nd question: 
I have seen some of my videos get excluded from being listed in "popular," is there an intentional mechanism by which this happening? I think people should know if videos are getting handicapped and why, the partner and the public. I don't know if there is software that adds up number of flags and automatically demotes a video out of the top 100 popular for a given category. It is not made clear how it is determined, could you do so? I don't even know if there is software or why it is happening. Does it clear an editor? Could you provide partners the math used to determine position within "popular" and "top news?" If people are able to group together and false flag a video and those flags can have an effect on if a video gets to be listed in the top 100 of a given category, I think that is obviously not fair. Could you provide partners with the math if it exists? Could you give a partner channel the benefit of the doubt after it has a good total track record of about 5 years and not exclude a video from being listed if it accumulates a buck of flags? I am not sure how or why it has happened to some of my videos.
I have seen some of my videos get excluded from being listed in "popular," is there an intentional mechanism by which this happening? I think people should know if videos are getting handicapped and why, the partner and the public. I don't know if there is software that adds up number of flags and automatically demotes a video out of the top 100 popular for a given category. It is not made clear how it is determined, could you do so? I don't even know if there is software or why it is happening. Does it clear an editor? Could you provide partners the math used to determine position within "popular" and "top news?" If people are able to group together and false flag a video and those flags can have an effect on if a video gets to be listed in the top 100 of a given category, I think that is obviously not fair. Could you provide partners with the math if it exists? Could you give a partner channel the benefit of the doubt after it has a good total track record of about 5 years and not exclude a video from being listed if it accumulates a buck of flags? I am not sure how or why it has happened to some of my videos.Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Torturing Manning
Bradley Manning is accused of being the source for documents published by WikiLeaks which exposed U.S. government crimes. "I want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." VIDEO: Forced Nudity Abuse & Torture MUST STOP NOW! 
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Chomsky on Egypt, Obama, Israel & Mubarak (U.S. Policy Supports Brutal Dictator)
VIDEO: Chomsky on Egypt, Obama, Israel & Mubarak (U.S. Policy Supports Brutal Dictator)
BTW, President Sadat of Egypt had offered a full peace treaty to Israel in 1971 but Israel rejected it. "Sadat's offer was closely in accord with official U.S. policy, but Washington decided to back Israel's rejection of it, adopting Kissinger's policy of "stalemate": no negotiations, only force." (Chomsky, Failed States, p. 173) Powerful media outlets like the New York Times falsify history by denying Sadat ever made the 1971 peace offer. "Newsweek refused even to print a letter correcting outright falsehoods on this matter by their columnist George Will, though the research department privately conceded the facts. The practice is standard." (Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World, p.29) (Also see p. 127 of Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky)
Well, Obama very carefully didn't say anything. Mubarak would agree that there should be an orderly transition, but to what? A new cabinet, some minor rearrangement of the constitutional order, it's empty. So he's doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. There is a playbook whenever a favored dictator is in trouble: try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides. The U.S. has an overwhelmingly powerful role there. Egypt is the second-largest recipient over a long period of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel is first. "In fact, if you look at the leading recipients of U.S. aid, most of it military aid, two countries are in a separate category: Israel and Egypt, which gets half the aid given to Israel. This arrangement is part of the Camp David agreement from back in 1979, unofficially. Aid to Egypt is basically aid to Israel, to encourage Egypt to play along. But aid to Israel and Egypt is in a separate category, way above anybody else." Chomsky, What We Say Goes, p.165 Obama himself has been highly supportive of Mubarak. Asked by the BBC, Obama said he didn't regard Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler, he also said he was a "force for stability and good in the region"! This is one of the most brutal dictators of the region — how anyone could have taken Obama's comments about human rights seriously after that is a bit of a mystery. But the support has been very powerful in diplomatic dimensions. Military — the planes flying over Tahrir Square are, of course, U.S. planes. The U.S. has been the strongest, most solid, most important supporter of the regime. It's not like Tunisia, where the main supporter was France. They're the primary guilty party there. But in Egypt, it's clearly the United States, and of course Israel. Israel is—of all the countries in the region, Israel, and I suppose Saudi Arabia, have been the most outspoken and supportive of the Mubarak regime. In fact, Israeli leaders were angry, at least expressed anger, that Obama hadn't taken a stronger stand in support of their friend Mubarak.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
An Open Letter to President Barack Obama about Egypt & Mubarak
NEW VIDEO: An Open Letter to President Barack Obama about Egypt & Mubarak
See video
Dear President Obama:
As political scientists, historians, and researchers in related fields who have studied the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, we the undersigned believe you have a chance to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.
For thirty years, our government has spent billions of dollars to help build and sustain the system the Egyptian people are now trying to dismantle. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Egypt and around the world have spoken. We believe their message is bold and clear: Mubarak should resign from office and allow Egyptians to establish a new government free of his and his family's influence. It is also clear to us that if you seek, as you said Friday "political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people," your administration should publicly acknowledge those reforms will not be advanced by Mubarak or any of his adjutants.
There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy. On Friday you rightly said that "suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." For that reason we urge your administration to seize this chance, turn away from the policies that brought us here, and embark on a new course toward peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of the Middle East. And we call on you to undertake a comprehensive review of US foreign policy on the major grievances voiced by the democratic opposition in Egypt and all other societies of the region. See video (link to HD version here) info for link to this open letter and signers. Also a link to a FAIR article.
See video
Dear President Obama:
As political scientists, historians, and researchers in related fields who have studied the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, we the undersigned believe you have a chance to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.
For thirty years, our government has spent billions of dollars to help build and sustain the system the Egyptian people are now trying to dismantle. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Egypt and around the world have spoken. We believe their message is bold and clear: Mubarak should resign from office and allow Egyptians to establish a new government free of his and his family's influence. It is also clear to us that if you seek, as you said Friday "political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people," your administration should publicly acknowledge those reforms will not be advanced by Mubarak or any of his adjutants.
There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy. On Friday you rightly said that "suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." For that reason we urge your administration to seize this chance, turn away from the policies that brought us here, and embark on a new course toward peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of the Middle East. And we call on you to undertake a comprehensive review of US foreign policy on the major grievances voiced by the democratic opposition in Egypt and all other societies of the region. See video (link to HD version here) info for link to this open letter and signers. Also a link to a FAIR article.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sources for video on North & South Korea
"There have been frequent naval clashes around the Northern Limit Line, indeed it seems likely that it has been preserved by the current ROK and US authorities for that purpose. President Roh moo-hyun and Chairman Kim Jong Il, at their summit on 4 October 2007 agreed to a ‘special peace and cooperation zone in the West Sea’, but this peace initiative was overturned, as so many others, by incoming president Lee Myung-bak."
Tim Beal, "Korean Brinkmanship, American Provocation, and the Road to War: the manufacturing of a crisis," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Dec. 2010
"If Seoul were really interested in peace, you would think it would carry out its military drills in a less sensitive area." “It is appalling,” says Korea expert Leonid Petrov. “If it was a bona fide need for artillery practice they have plenty of islands in the Western sea. This is simply sending a message that the South is putting pressure on the North.”
Stephen Gowans, "Seoul and Washington play dangerous game with Korean lives," what's left, 12/17/10
"south Korean marines had fired live artillery into waters that, according to international customary law, belong to north Korea. Seoul, however, claims the waters as its own based on a sea border drawn unilaterally by the US military in 1953. Hardly unprovoked, the north Korean retaliation was triggered by the south Korean violation of north Korean territorial waters. Moreover, the artillery exchange between the two Koreas coincided with south Korean manoeuvres involving 70,000 ROK troops backed by US Marines. Pyongyang saw the exercises as a rehearsal for an invasion, not an unreasonable inference given the number of troops involved and Lee’s overt hostility to the DPRK."
Stephen Gowans, "Lee Myung-bak Heats Up Cold War on Korean Peninsula," what's left, 12/23/10
"The sea border that has become the main battleground between North and South Korea 57 years after it was imposed by a U.S. general has been called legally indefensible by American officials for more than three decades.
Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a 1975 classified cable that the unilaterally drawn Northern Limit Line was “clearly contrary to international law.” Two years before, the American ambassador said in another cable that many nations would view South Korea and its U.S. ally as “in the wrong” if clashes occurred in disputed areas along the boundary."
Daniel Ten Kate and Peter S. Green, "Defending Korea Line Seen Contrary to Law by Kissinger Remains U.S. Policy," Bloomberg News, 12/17/10
(cited by Stephen Gowans in "Seoul and Washington play dangerous game with Korean lives.")
Friday, December 24, 2010
Great article
Added the following comment to this article Korean Brinkmanship, American Provocation, and the Road to War: the manufacturing of a crisis by Tim Beal (which I liked to in my previous video):
Great article, I've been telling people to read it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxI0wXLBJg
I want to add that as far as the location of the civilians killed, the claim that the "two civilian contractors working on a military base" is supported by Kim Chi-joong, the brother of one of the civilians, "They were killed while engaging in construction work inside the military base. On top of industrial disaster benefits, the government should recognize them as those who sacrificed their lives for the country and others."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_77317.html
Also, yes, North Korea may have been trying to fire into the water since that is what it did in response to a similar situation. On 8/9/10, North Korea fired about 110 artillery rounds off the coast of South Korea's Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands. "Roughly 110 artillery rounds fired off by North Korea in the direction of the West Sea Northern Limit Line (NLL) on Monday afternoon, about 10 crossed the NLL and fell in the waters of Baengnyeong Island." "The Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on testimony from soldiers on patrol and analysis by relevant departments, concluded that about 10 shells fell in the waters off Baengnyeong Island, about one or two kilometers south of the NLL. It said that all 100 shells that fell in the waters off Yeonpyeong Island fell north of the NLL." "The Joint Chiefs official said, “Confirmation of the point of impact comes from splash the shells make as they hit the water, but as the waters of Baengnyeong Islands were experiencing 2.5m waves at the time, it was difficult to conclude that the shells crossed the NLL based on soldiers’ visual observations alone."
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/434543.html
Please send this link to everyone you can:
http://TinyURL.com/NoKoreanWar
Great article, I've been telling people to read it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxI0wXLBJg
I want to add that as far as the location of the civilians killed, the claim that the "two civilian contractors working on a military base" is supported by Kim Chi-joong, the brother of one of the civilians, "They were killed while engaging in construction work inside the military base. On top of industrial disaster benefits, the government should recognize them as those who sacrificed their lives for the country and others."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_77317.html
Also, yes, North Korea may have been trying to fire into the water since that is what it did in response to a similar situation. On 8/9/10, North Korea fired about 110 artillery rounds off the coast of South Korea's Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands. "Roughly 110 artillery rounds fired off by North Korea in the direction of the West Sea Northern Limit Line (NLL) on Monday afternoon, about 10 crossed the NLL and fell in the waters of Baengnyeong Island." "The Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on testimony from soldiers on patrol and analysis by relevant departments, concluded that about 10 shells fell in the waters off Baengnyeong Island, about one or two kilometers south of the NLL. It said that all 100 shells that fell in the waters off Yeonpyeong Island fell north of the NLL." "The Joint Chiefs official said, “Confirmation of the point of impact comes from splash the shells make as they hit the water, but as the waters of Baengnyeong Islands were experiencing 2.5m waves at the time, it was difficult to conclude that the shells crossed the NLL based on soldiers’ visual observations alone."
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/434543.html
Please send this link to everyone you can:
http://TinyURL.com/NoKoreanWar
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Comments posted to this video in response to "prayfortruejustice" who claims that I " ignore all science and change the topic to misdirect any immutable facts about the 9/11 events":
prayfortruejustice,
WHAT "science?" WHAT "science?" I have repeatedly posted points of fact, all you have done is post notions with nothing to back it up at all. Before we even get into "science" can we start with basic logic and agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned? Can we at least agree on that?
If we can agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned then the theory pushed by Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Mike Rivero and others has a serious flaw because steel has weakened to the point of failing due to fire in other buildings. And as pointed out in my first video uploaded to Youtube, we can see that progressive failure of the steel columns well before the collapses. This is a fact these men are ignorant of.
And that fact should not come as a surprise to people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. THE BASIC FACT that steel can be weakened by fire has been understood for a long time (its the reason they spray fireproofing onto steel for example) and I have shown how this fact had been discussed years before 9/11.
"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having 3 or 4-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel." - Sept. 1998, John Norman, captain with the FDNY
Here is my reply to degeneratgambler, I sent this comment:
You didn't or couldn't dispute the facts I went to the trouble of posting over at my blog.
WTC7 sure as hell didn't SOUND like a controlled demolition did it?
(because in CD we hear multiple explosions, with WTC7, right before it collapses we DON'T hear multiple explosions.)
I hear one low rumble (probably an internal failure of the steel column)
and it didn't look like one since CD buildings don't show signs of structural failure well before they collapse. Firemen expected it to collapse due to its condition. Read hat they have to say: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.
prayfortruejustice,
WHAT "science?" WHAT "science?" I have repeatedly posted points of fact, all you have done is post notions with nothing to back it up at all. Before we even get into "science" can we start with basic logic and agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned? Can we at least agree on that?
If we can agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned then the theory pushed by Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Mike Rivero and others has a serious flaw because steel has weakened to the point of failing due to fire in other buildings. And as pointed out in my first video uploaded to Youtube, we can see that progressive failure of the steel columns well before the collapses. This is a fact these men are ignorant of.
And that fact should not come as a surprise to people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. THE BASIC FACT that steel can be weakened by fire has been understood for a long time (its the reason they spray fireproofing onto steel for example) and I have shown how this fact had been discussed years before 9/11.
"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having 3 or 4-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel." - Sept. 1998, John Norman, captain with the FDNY
Here is my reply to degeneratgambler, I sent this comment:
You didn't or couldn't dispute the facts I went to the trouble of posting over at my blog.
WTC7 sure as hell didn't SOUND like a controlled demolition did it?
(because in CD we hear multiple explosions, with WTC7, right before it collapses we DON'T hear multiple explosions.)
I hear one low rumble (probably an internal failure of the steel column)
and it didn't look like one since CD buildings don't show signs of structural failure well before they collapse. Firemen expected it to collapse due to its condition. Read hat they have to say: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 06, 2010
Sunday, December 05, 2010
MORE Drills!
MORE Drills! South Korea & US are at it AGAIN. I just added two "Recommended Reading" links in the video info. Check out the two articles I posted links to in the video info: "US Ultimately to Blame for Korean Skirmishes in Yellow Sea" and "Wrong country blamed for artillery exchange on Korean peninsula" by Stephen Gowans
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
About North Korea and South Korea
Korea Correction
Some Internet sites are claiming that because CNN's Stan Grant is reporting from onboard the USS George Washington it must mean something. They make this claim on their concocted notion that CNN reporters don't accompany training exercises. The fact that CNN reporter Kyung Lah was aboard the USS George Washington reporting on training exercises debunks their claim. And more, see video!
Some Internet sites are claiming that because CNN's Stan Grant is reporting from onboard the USS George Washington it must mean something. They make this claim on their concocted notion that CNN reporters don't accompany training exercises. The fact that CNN reporter Kyung Lah was aboard the USS George Washington reporting on training exercises debunks their claim. And more, see video!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Beyond Hiroshima!
The doctors who investigated Fallujah in Iraq found levels of cancer beyond what they found in Hiroshima, this hasn't even been reported in the United States. SEE NEW VIDEO: US Media Hides US War of Aggression's Toll on Fallujah's babies and adults.
Please pass it on: http://tinyurl.com/BeyondHiroshima
Please pass it on: http://tinyurl.com/BeyondHiroshima
Friday, October 15, 2010
Media FAIL Again
NEW VIDEO: Media FAIL Again: Ahmadinejad & 9/11
Someone asked, "@representativepress Could I ask what your take on the comments of President Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly, concerning 9/11? I personally found that part of his speech somewhat confusing, but I do not trust for a second, the media's accusation that he claimed 9/11 was an 'inside job.'
Thanks in advance!"
This video is my reply
Friday, September 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
