Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Freedom of Speech in Argentina

Rick Davis wrote...

The next step...
... to silence organized resistance to the Argentine rush to government control of all media was taken:

'President Cristina Fernandez also signed a decree last week ordering newspapers and magazines to be sold exclusively at union-run stands. Editors fear the government now can use friendly unions to prevent the distribution of newspapers that don't follow the ruling party line."They seek the legal tools to silence the press along with a campaign to discredit the media," said Enrique Santos Calderon, president of the press association.'

Hi Rick, I believe this is the classic final step: Government going nuts and simply trying to control the media to hide what's going on.
Have you been following the news on what's going on in Buenos Aires with the various strikes and roadblocks these last few weeks? It's an epic adventure to get in and out of Capital.

Got to go down to 9 de Julio and Obelisco tomorrow, I'll take the "combi" (private little bus) It will take a lot of time to get in and out but at least I wont be doing the driving.



Anonymous said...

Strikes and roadblocks? More news from America's future? Please do elaborate!


EN said...

It may be the final step in the government's suicide, but there's too much media available by other means to make this stick. I know this is true because this blog, and others, exist. It's always amusing to watch a central government try and enforce "primary loyalties", in a first world country. They can't even do it in Africa these days. Next they will have to use force on a massive scale, and they won't get away with it. The end is near my friend, although, I have no idea if what comes next is better or worse. Good luck.

BulgarWheat said...

It's only a matter of time, I imagine. Read a story yesterday about the Department of Justice demanding all IP Address traffic, and customer information from a new site here in America.

Only a matter of time

Ken said...

Yes. I believe the U.S. is on the same path as Argentina (more or less).

The movement towards tyranny in the U.S. will come from both the right and the left. The Republicans and the Democrats are partners in the same corrupt system.

Don Williams said...

1) On the one hand, one does not want the Government controlling all news content and information.

2) But on the other hand, a nation can be in even worse shape if the news content, national debate, and information dissemination is in the hands of a few plutocrats who con and deceive the public for evil ends.

3) In the USA, Fox News went to great lengths to beat the drums for war on Iraq in order to grab Saddam's nukes. Aid and abetted by the NEw York Times. The mouthpiece of Big Oil in bed with the mouthpiece of the Israel Lobby.

4) Several years later, Fox's Bill O'Reilly is $millions richer, 4500 plus American families have buried sons, husbands, and fathers -- and thousands more soldiers are struggling with being crippled for life: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492663/President-Bush-visits-wounded-troops--British-leaders-dare-follow-lead.html

Plus we can't provide healthcare for 45 million Americans because $Trillions have been thrown away in IRaq for no good result.

Anybody found Saddam's nukes yet?

It turned out that the most accurate stories re Iraq in 2002 was put out by a small regional chain of newspapers -- the McClatchly Group. Instead of blasting out pre-determined propaganda, Their reporters had actually talked with mid level CIA and Military officers in Washington --who indicated that there was not that much evidence to support a need for war on Iraq.

So in the USA at least, I personally favor the government ensuring that deceitful scum like Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch can't drive the small truth-tellers out of business.

Liberty Garden said...

The mounted police look like the 7 horsemen of the apocalypse.

Anonymous said...

"Anybody found Saddam's nukes yet?"

Yes, but you were too busy being biased to listen...


I support Fox, and ALL media because that is the only way the people have any CHANCE of learning truth. I'm not saying it's always 100% accurate.

Don Williams said...

1) Re Anon at 12:35pm: Yellowcake --uranium ore -- is not the same as nuclear weapons. Well, Not if you have any knowledge of science -- which admittedly is not a strong point for Fox News viewers.

2) Note also that the Iraq yellowcake was under control of UN inspectors. From your link:

"Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

3) On the other hand, have you heard anybody on the American Right raising an outcry about Israel's many illegal nuclear warheads --which are NOT under IAEA control?

Don Williams said...

PS As the President of the United States has noted, Fox News is not a "News Organization" -- it is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

More specifically, the propaganda arm of the wealthy plutocrats who own the Republican Party.

Bones said...

Attempts to control the press are a bad sign, but then again so was the pension fund seizures. Dunno what you can do other than try to get the word out and resist any way you can. Do you even have viable political opposition anymore?

Don: your comparison of Iraq and Israel doesn't hold water. Saddam invaded or attacked at least 4 neighboring countries and issued continuing threats. Israel has done no such thing. Certainly Israel deserves criticism but there's nothing in common with Iraq. And you do admit that Iraq HAD THE YELLOWCAKE. Certainly it wasn't intended to be eaten with tea, and Saddam went out of his way to make it seem as if they had an ongoing WMD program. He also repeatedly refused to cooperate with inspectors meaning anything could have been done with the raw materials. See North Korea for the results of this path of actions.

Fox News might be biased, but so is the AP, Huffpo, ABC, etc.. It's naive to imply that there was ever truly unbiased reporting. The only difference is today the bias is far less subtle.

Don Williams said...

Re Bones's comments at 5:13 AM:

I think we know the REAL REASONS why George Bush , Dick Cheney, and yes --the Democrats -- went into Iraq.

1) One reason, of course, was to grab the oil:


2) The second reason was that Saddam was annoying Israel. Israel
cut a deal with the Turks to pull water out of the Euphrates River in
the headwaters and divert the water to thirsty Israel. You can't
expand your population if you don't have water.

Iraq, of course, was not pleased at the idea of the Euphrates drying up and Saddam started giving pensions to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

He never had any chance of becoming a threat to the US -- the idea was laughable. But he did have the potential of becoming a threat to Israel.

3) It was brilliant of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to sabotage any Democratic objections to the Big Iraq Oil Grab by casting it as defending Israel. They,
unlike most Americans, know that the Democratic Party is largely funded by a few billionaires who are strong supporters of Israel.

Israeli billionaire Haim Saban, for example, gave almost $15 MILLION to the Democratic
Party in 2000-2002 -- Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that
Haim "saved the Democratic Party". And Haim has always been clear that he is "a one issue man and that issue is Israel" - that it is his duty to use his great wealth -- and his duty free US dual citizenship -- to ensure that American soldiers protect Israel.

When he is not having Bill Clinton fetch him soft drinks in the White House, that is.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban
and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

4) So Cheney couldn't lose --either the Democrats would support Big Oil or they
would lose their major funding sources and disappear --opening the way for lots more Republican tax cuts.

As they say in poker, Read 'em and weep, Rubes.

Don Williams said...

1) PS Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in the 1980s --not 2003. And guess who was cheering him on? With $40 Billion in aid?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

2) And George W Bush's father sent Ambassador April Glaspie to give Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait in 1990:


Anonymous said...

Fox seems to be the only channel reporting on ACORN, the Czars, etc...

If President Bush had these associations he would have been crucified.

But I guess that's how biased liberals roll; they go after the messenger instead of the message.

So go ahead and ignore Fox just like your little dictator told you to. It will all be okay in the end. Trust in him. Socialism/Communism has worked so well in the past, what could go wrong?

Don Williams said...

Re Anon at 12:06 PM "Trust in him. [Obama] Socialism/Communism has worked so well in the past, what could go wrong?"

1) Ha ha ha. Are you kidding?
Obama raised $750 MILLION last year -- do you think that came in as $5 checks from the lowly proletariat?

2) Mmmm. Come to think of it, Let's look at his major donors:

Hmmm. Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs. Where have I heard that name before.

Ah, yes. The Matt Taibbi article I cited a day or so ago re the $24 TRILLION Financial Bailout.
Here was the quote:

"Goldman Sachs, it turns out, was [AIG's] Cassano's biggest customer, with $20 billion of exposure in Cassano's CDS book. Which might explain why Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein was in the room with ex-Goldmanite Hank Paulson that weekend of September 13th, when the federal government was supposedly bailing out AIG.

When asked why Blankfein was there, one of the government officials who was in the meeting shrugs. "One might say that it's because Goldman had so much exposure to AIGFP's portfolio," he says. "You'll never prove that, but one might suppose."

Market analyst Eric Salzman is more blunt. "If AIG went down," he says, "there was a good chance Goldman would not be able to collect." The AIG bailout, in effect, was Goldman bailing out Goldman.

Eventually, Paulson went a step further, elevating another ex-Goldmanite named Edward Liddy to run AIG — a company whose bailout money would be coming, in part, from the newly created TARP program, administered by another Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari."

3) Yeah, I guess Anon is right. We can expect to see Obama leading a Bolshevik mob down the street any day now.

I myself wish I could gain access to those drugs that Glenn Beck says he used to use:

Don Williams said...

Maybe Anon at 12:06 could explain this to me: Why did some many BILLIONAIRES support Obama? Warren Buffet. Peggy Pritzker. Eric Schmidt. David Geffen. etc See

So these billionaires want Obama to set up a Communist state and take all otheir money away? Right?

ha ha ha ha

I ask again: Where can I get some of those Glenn Beck Drugs? That must be some good stuff.

Anonymous said...

"Why did some many BILLIONAIRES support Obama?"

Anyone with so much as an elementary understanding of history can answer your question; the price of admittance.

The communist revolution in America is underway--there is no stopping it. Half this country no longer pays taxes and is poised to vote property (freedom) away from the other half in the name of "social and economic justice" and whatever crisis (opportunity) the government can create.

Most folks will be single-class (poor) citizens conscripted to work in the fields and factories.

But there will be a superclass of elites who will remain incredibly rich. The wealthy who support Obama are hoping to be in that group protected from the resdistribution scheme and shielded from exposure to the unwashed masses.

The surprise is that most of the folks who think they are going to be part of the aristocracy don't make it. And if they represent a threat to that system, they are put against a wall and relieved.

vdavisson said...

Ferfal, Don Williams is a parrot of the left wing, part the same group of grifters as the Kirchners, Obama, Chavez, Zelaya, Castro, Kim Jong Il, etc. He apparently likes spam, too.

Stay safe friend, and hang on to your weapons!