Education is controlled by corporate interest and always will be. In fact the education system was founded by wealthy industrialists so they could churn out great factory workers. To learn more about this read Seth Godin's Linchpin. It's not profitable to have a smart populous.
I don't believe there's any evidence at all for what you're claiming regarding "corporate interests." In fact, I think it's obvious that it's wrong.
As far as I know, Otto von Bismarck started modern education so that he could indoctrinate the German youth, but I'm less certain on the details of that.
Word to the wise: don't waste your time on the video. The interviewer ("laborvideo") coaches the interviewees through their interviews. When they lose steam or wander off script, he helpfully coaches them back on topic with dramatic, inflammatory statements/questions.
Oh, by the way, Fox News' coverage of the strike is also poor. News at 11!
Snowden is privacy conscious. I'm sure after seeing all the information regarding PRISM and other NSA spying initiatives, he wasn't too thrilled to make a Facebook profile and show off pictures of him drinking beers with his buddies and what not, haha. He's probably tried to keep as minimal a web shadow as possible.
You obviously aren't familiar with Glenn Greenwald. He's been extremely critical of the Obama administration on a variety of issues. What your claiming makes zero sense. There is a reason why Edward Snowden sought out Greenwald.
PS I think you are reading something I didn't write.
I'm claiming that it makes sense for The Guardian/Greenwald to hold back because they can drip feed information that creates a long running 'scandal'. That has two effects: it keeps The Guardian itself in the news and it prolongs the story.
Perhaps you think that I am equating Obama as a "Democrat" and The Guardian's notion of "Left Wing" as the same thing. I am not.
For example, The Daily Telegraph did a similar thing with revelations about MP's expenses in the UK. They had all the information but over a period of days let out different bits of information. This is the sort of thing newspapers will do, and, for The Guardian, Snowden's leaks are a massive story. They'll milk it as much as they can.
The problem for me isn't the left or right wing nature of the Guardian, just that they, like many papers, don't have a good history when it comes to accuracy and morality.
In the UK there was a scandal when a low end tabloid 'hacked' in to the voice mail of a raped + murdered school girl. They were looking for some story no doubt hoping to hear that she had gone to meet someone.
This was a scandal that ultimately would lead to the closing of the tabloid. It was a shame though, because the Guardian made a claim too many, they asserted that the tabloid journos deleted voice mail messages, as the mailbox was full, and they wanted to hear more gossip. According to them at the time this lead to the family being given false hope about their daughter been alive.
Now, when you consider the questionable value that this untruth added to the story (it is frankly immoral and shocking enough that the tabloid hacked the phone) and ask how was it acquired? Why was no standards of integrity followed, but mostly, why did they not think of the effect it would have on the friends and family of the murdered school girl. I mean come on, is it helping things to print such speculation?
This is the most shocking example I can think of, and why I always take that news outlet with a grain of salt, expecting them to be full of hypocrisy (See auto trader sale and tax campaigning).
I consider that the Guardian performed a great public service in relation to the phone hacking investigation. Without it, the illegal activity at NI and associated corruption in the police and prison service would not have been revealed. Multiple people are in prison right now because of this. The prime minister's former press secretary and the former ceo of nI in the UK are about to stand trial. This is a big deal and good journalism.
The Guardian retracted the claim about NI deleting the messages because it could not be proved, not because it was shown to be false. The police's opinion as given in the Leveson Inquiry report was that "It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted," [1][2]. The Guardian team originally believed, based on police sources, that messages had been deleted. When it couldn't be proved they retracted the claim. How is this not "moral"? Did it really shock you so much?
>that "It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted," [1][2].
Did you read the linked document?
"These events support the suggestion that the voicemail box was full with the 10 messages that could be left, and that on 24th March, some 72 hrs after Millys last sighting, messages could be left again. Mrs Dowler’s call is likely to have been made when one of the previous messages from 21st March had been automatically deleted."
So they probably didn't delete it. People here (including the guy below) have gone to a frankly worrying guilty until innocent mode. If I write something about your firm, I have to be able to prove it, not you disprove it.
Which is my point, they had a scoop, by questionable means they had found out that NoTW had been doing very immoral things. Why not leave it at that, why did they have to crank it up a sensationalist gear?
Oh of course, because when The Guardian does it, it is for the greater good! [1] When anyone else does it, its 'titter tattle'.
This is why I treat the Guardian with a pinch of salt, its not like Sun or Mirror or News of the Screws, they sometimes get some good stuff correct before other sources. It's just often they are very hypocritical, and not quite 100% with the truth. This bugs the crap out of me. Most newspapers are like this. This is why I hate most newspapers. Hell if anyone can recommend something more frequent than the economist I'd be interested!
But on this context of phone hacking, it is funny that their defence is similar to an NSA one isn't it? Intercepting private communications is bad, but when we do it, we have only good motives.
Frankly the GP seemed like one of these special pleaders whose favorite paper or political group can do anything it likes because after all they're good chaps, but if the Guardian or any other media source criticizes the favorite it had better be as pure as the driven snow. Any missteps will be remembered for decades as "proof" of the Guardian's hateful bias. Only angels have standing to criticize the favorite.
Well the courts could not "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the NI employees deleted the VM - they got off that one on a technicality and the fact that the police did not investigate at the time.
The vast majority of the UK public believe this to be the case.
And what's wrong with prolonging the story? If they had dumped all the documents in one go, people would be outraged for a bit and then forget about it. Then it would just be Snowden. I am sure that The Gaurdian is holding out until the focus shifts from Snowden to the leaks. Or at least, I hope they are.
As long as the story is out, so long will the US government have to play defence rather than offence. And that's never good in politics.
Absolutely. Glenn Greenwald is attacked from both the right and left constantly. The Republicans call him a socialist because he's spoken at the Socialism Conference a few times and because he was critical of the Bush administration. Democrats call him a libertarian because he's associated with the Cato Institute and has been critical of the Obama administration. Greenwald has written a really good paper on Portugal and drug decriminalization. [1] I'm assuming it's published by Cato because of the prominence it has on their website.[2], [3] are videos of Glenn Greenwald speaking at Cato conferences. [4] is a video of him doing an interview with Reason.
Without a doubt the Guardian is taking a specific approach to leaking the documents, but I think a big part of it is that they have a lot to process. That's something that Greenwald has continually said on his Twitter feed. I guess what made me so angry about your comment is that it's often used as a smear against Greenwald. Greenwald doesn't prescribe to the left/right paradigm. He is both vilified and exemplified by both the left and right wing media all the time.
I guess what made me so angry about your comment is that it's often used as a smear against Greenwald.
Then I apologize for that. I was not attempting to smear Greenwald. I was attempting to point out that the reason we don't have the 'full story' is that The Guardian/Greenwald are likely sitting on information for the reasons I've outlined elsewhere in this thread.
To be fair to Snowden, he may not have been aware of Duncan Campbell who is well known in the UK and Greenwald being a US citizen who is very critical of the US administration probably looked like a good choice.
Greenwald has written for years about abusive government by both the Republicans and Democrats. He was the best person to pick, in my opinion. Lest us not forget that the Washington Post sat on the documents. So perhaps Snowden did contact other journalists and they weren't interested or just strung him along.
Is the 72 hours counted from when Snowden submitted material, or from when The Guardian published?
Anyway, it's fairly common for WP to publish articles describing events of the last several hours. Presumably a shorter fact-checking interim is required in such cases.
> Presumably a shorter fact-checking interim is required in such cases.
This isn't talking about news reporting about a current event, this is talking about a major scoop of highly secret government programs.
In the event both Guardian and WaPo had to backtrack to various degrees on what they claimed of PRISM, so obviously there was more "fact-checking" yet to do.
...obviously there was more "fact-checking" yet to do.
When is that ever not the case? News media retractions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Occasionally a flawed story will harm a private citizen, but that isn't possible here, as we are talking about the activities of public servants.
Please stop throwing around numbers without citing them. It's not helpful at all. Also, I don't think paid overtime should be considered controversial.
It's not the overtime that's controversial, it's the gaming of the system. For example missing a shift and then taking another one to get overtime. The only people in the entire country who get overtime for working 35 hours are transit operators.
I'm not in the US so I'm not saying your wrong, but I used to get overtime for working a 35 hour week sometimes in my previous job. And I left it, partially because of the hours. Radiographer, 35 hour week, shifts and on call. 35 hours per week (excluding call). So I would get rostered 35 hours in one week, and 35 in the next, back to back, then 4 days off. Most hours were at night. A night rate then applied. If I didn't get 2 days a week off, I'd easily end up doing a 35 hour week all paid at overtime. I still have the pay sheets I think.
It all depends how you spin it, yes, I did 35 hour weeks whilst getting paid overtime. The flip side was 10 consecutive evening/night shifts, with on call in a stressful environment. Even if I wasn't called my sleep was poor. I now take any claim that a job is overpaid/underworked with a pinch of salt as its not always what it seems.
I appreciate the graphic, but it seems like there's a lot of conflicting information being handed around. I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to believe. I'd love to see an uninterested 3rd party gather and verify the facts and what not.
I don't know. This particular local news has a pretty good track record for being factual and "uninterested" (an odd word to use). I would trust them over the striking union's web site. But as others have suggested, you might need to seek out the facts yourself. Not many people are going to give you multiple sources for you the form your own opinion.
> "This particular local news has a pretty good track record for being factual and "uninterested" (an odd word to use)."
The news organization didn't even bother to cite their source. We don't know where they're getting their information from. Seeing a slide doesn't tell us anything. They could be reporting the misleading information that the comment I linked to you goes through. Or information given to them from management over at BART. Especially when there's conflicting information, it makes no sense to trust one side over another. Especially when it's management vs. labor because both sides want to appear as best as they can to the general public.
