Originally Posted by dohdough When you turn 33, you'll see how it is! Pre-heated oven, door comes out about 2 feet, bottom rack is about 6 inches off the floor, a 10lb roast, and a whole lot of dumb. I was leaning in, felt my left hip tightening, and then pain...lots of it. On the brightside, I didn't drop the roast! Too much cumin though.

I am 38. I hurt myself all the time in the dumbest ways. Pull a muscle in my back drying off from the shower? Yeah I can do that.

Surprise, surprise...

PBS Drone Coverage Brought to You by Drone Makers
Lockheed's Nova sponsorship violates underwriting rules
http://fair.org/take-action/action-a...-drone-makers/

The PBS Nova broadcast "Rise of the Drones" was sponsored by drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin--a clear violation of PBS's underwriting guidelines.
As Kevin Gosztola reported (FireDogLake, 1/24/13), the January 23 broadcast was a mostly upbeat look at surveillance and weaponized drones. "Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history," PBS urged, promising to reveal "the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful."

Some of that technology, unbeknownst to viewers, was created by the company described as giving Nova "additional funding" at the beginning of the broadcast. Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor with $46 billion in 2011 sales, is a manufacturer of drones used in warfare and intelligence, including the Desert Hawk, the Falcon, the Stalker and the Tracer. In December 2012, Lockheed bought AME Unmanned Air Systems, maker of the Fury drone (New Times, 12/19/12).
Nova's history of unmanned flight technology included comments from Abe Karem, dubbed the "father of the Predator" drone. His current company, FireDogLake's Gosztola noted, has a business relationship with Lockheed Martin.

The show did not entirely skirt the controversies over drones. A section of the broadcast dealt with drone pilots firing on targets in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan. Viewers, though, are told that drone pilots have distinct advantage over conventional pilots. One drone operator talks about how, after a strike, a drone can "stick around for another few hours to watch what happens afterwards." A more critical look at drone wars might have mentioned these are the same circumstances under which U.S. drones have attacked rescue workers and funeral processions (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 6/4/12).

The show does not ignore the question of civilian deaths--though it says "the facts are hard to come by" and that "there are not fully reliable counts of civilian deaths." Nova does mention that some estimates are that 30 percent of those killed are civilians, and talks about one attack that killed 23 civilians in Pakistan.

But, in keeping with the generally upbeat tone, Nova tells viewers that technology will help turn things around. "Drones can strike with pinpoint precision," the programs explains, "but their visual sensors are limited in ways that can lead pilots to make mistakes." Not to worry, though; "engineers are working to create new sensors that can see more in greater detail than ever before."

The program's sponsorship tie to the drone industry were never mentioned--though there were opportunities to disclose that relationship. In addition to Lockheed Martin's connection to one of the interview subjects, the show discussed a U.S. drone that was captured by Iran--without mentioning that it was manufactured by Nova's underwriter. And when Nova discusses the drones of the future, it's talking about the kind of miniature drones Lockheed Martin is developing to provide "constant surveillance capabilities" (TPM IdeaLab, 7/4/12).

Though the broadcast included an underwriting announcement at the beginning ("Additional funding from Lockheed Martin: Inspiring tomorrow's engineers and technologists"), that credit was removed from the webcast, and the company is not credited on the Nova website for the episode.

So can a corporation really provide "additional funding" for public TV journalism that discusses its own interests? PBS rules would seem to say no. The network has three tests that "are applied to every proposed funding arrangement in order to determine its acceptability":
* Editorial Control Test: Has the underwriter exercised editorial control? Could it?
* Perception Test: Might the public perceive that the underwriter has exercised editorial control?
* Commercialism Test: Might the public conclude the program is on PBS principally because it promotes the underwriter’s products, services or other business interests?

On the perception test, PBS explains:
When there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder's actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.

On commercialism:
The policy is intended to prohibit any funding arrangement where the primary emphasis of the program is on products or services that are identical or similar to those of the underwriter.

It is difficult to see how PBS could argue that the Nova special does not violate these rules. And PBS wants you the believe they take such matters seriously:
Should a significant number of reasonable viewers conclude that PBS has sold its professionalism and independence to its program funders, whether or not their conclusions are justified, then the entire program service of public television will be suspect and the goal of serving the public will be unachievable.
If PBS really believe these words, why did they allow the Lockheed-funded "Rise of the Drones" to air?

ACTION:
Ask PBS ombud Michael Getler to investigate whether Nova's "Rise of the Drones" violates PBS underwriting guidelines.
CONTACT:
PBS Ombud
Michael Getler
ombudsman@pbs.org
Phone: 703 739 5290

Since we are on the topic of drones... here is mega-zord drone!

Watch the World’s Highest Resolution Drone-Mounted Camera in Action
http://gizmodo.com/5979372/watch-the...mera-in-action

The administration's legal case for drone strikes on Americans was leaked today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us...aeda.html?_r=0
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...americans?lite

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states. Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

What al-Qaida associated force was Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki a senior operational leader of?

That's lovely.

How sad ...... a person who fought against Bush became Bush ...LOL

Originally Posted by joeboosauce

Don't if I'd take it that far, homie.

Originally Posted by Finger_Shocker How sad ...... a person who fought against Bush became Bush ...LOL

And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.

Originally Posted by dohdough Don't if I'd take it that far, homie. And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.

Doh, on your first point, as you know, has had the largest drone campaign ever and it seems like he is leading the charge into this brave new world of "acceptable" warfare. In fact, he's normalized it. Under the fake liberal veneer that you rightly point out. He's expanded the criteria for targets to the point that that is no need for criteria except "I feel it in my gut!" to quote a certain clown prince. Dubya at least had very strict criteria. Now, we can have that Orwellian constant state of war.

Originally Posted by joeboosauce Doh, on your first point, as you know, has had the largest drone campaign ever and it seems like he is leading the charge into this brave new world of "acceptable" warfare. In fact, he's normalized it. Under the fake liberal veneer that you rightly point out. He's expanded the criteria for targets to the point that that is no need for criteria except "I feel it in my gut!" to quote a certain clown prince. Dubya at least had very strict criteria. Now, we can have that Orwellian constant state of war.

You missed my points completely. Honestly, your macro is in very poor taste and you being one of the more educated people in vs. in regards to these types of issues(social and political), I really expect more from you. I shouldn't have to explain the white washing of MLK and that quote, which your characterization employs.

Dropping it all on Obama ignores the fact that if it wasn't Obama, it would've been someone else and the country has been under a constant state of war since it's inception. This is a systemic problem, not an individual one. Hell, I'd blame John Yoo long before I'd blame Obama, but you also have to know how a person like Yoo can come to such an influential position to begin with. And if it wasn't John Yoo, would there have been another person that would come up with the same legal manipulations?

This type of warfare has been in the works for over 30 years and the idea of killer robots is even older. Do I like the situation? No. Does Obama deserve some blame? Hell yes because he has some agency especially now that he's in his second term, but pointing your finger only at him and not at the system is missing the forest for the trees.

Originally Posted by dohdough And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.

Since when does socialism or liberalism get confused with pacifism?

Originally Posted by thrustbucket Since when does socialism or liberalism get confused with pacifism?

Thanks for proving my point and I know what you're getting at. According to your "logic," the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic run by the people of Korea.

McCarthy is dead and the Red Scare is over. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by dohdough You missed my points completely. Honestly, your macro is in very poor taste and you being one of the more educated people in vs. in regards to these types of issues(social and political), I really expect more from you. I shouldn't have to explain the white washing of MLK and that quote, which your characterization employs. Dropping it all on Obama ignores the fact that if it wasn't Obama, it would've been someone else and the country has been under a constant state of war since it's inception. This is a systemic problem, not an individual one. Hell, I'd blame John Yoo long before I'd blame Obama, but you also have to know how a person like Yoo can come to such an influential position to begin with. And if it wasn't John Yoo, would there have been another person that would come up with the same legal manipulations? This type of warfare has been in the works for over 30 years and the idea of killer robots is even older. Do I like the situation? No. Does Obama deserve some blame? Hell yes because he has some agency especially now that he's in his second term, but pointing your finger only at him and not at the system is missing the forest for the trees.

Hey Doh, I think you're inferring a lot which is not there. Or we see that that pic is saying something completely different. I am 110% with you on MLK whitewashing. I hate the MLK Day infinite loop of "I have a dream." Me, I like me some of that MSM censored Beyond Vietnam speech.

Of course, I understand this is a systemic problem. Why would you think that I put all the problems on him? I don't. You clearly know that I am not one of those conservative fools who thinks all these issues started with Obama. I think every post war US president is a war criminal because they are. Even Mr Peace, Jimmy Carter.

I like the juxtaposition of the pic because Obama (and his handlers, supporters, etc) have tried to connect Obama to MLK. He just took the oath of office on MLK's bible! Liberals eat that shit up! The serious problem of Obama is that as a supposed "liberal," or more accurately, the alternative to the lunatic right, he normalizes right-wing policies. All this while seeming like the "reasonable" alternative!!! You know this. Slick Willie did the same. Obama is moving the goalpost. This is a far greater threat to this country than the expected right-winger. I'm sorry, this meme is a great one. I don't see how this picture could be so problematic for you.

I find it problematic because it uses right wing framing...MLK being one of the "good ones" with Malcolm X/Obama being an agitator. I never bought into his cult of personality because he's just another neo-liberal politician, so I guess the message is lost on me, but things like this are always up for interpretation I suppose. It's like when libertarians talk about Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I just find it cynical.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by dohdough I find it problematic because it uses right wing framing. I never bought into his cult of personality because he's just another neo-liberal politician, so I guess the message is lost on me, but things like this are always up for interpretation I suppose. It's like when libertarians talk about Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I just find it cynical.

I don't see it as right-wing framing. It's far left to me. Since when does the right-wing care about drone bombing? I've heard maybe one say something critical about it.

And what do libertarians say about Bernie Sanders???

Originally Posted by joeboosauce I don't see it as right-wing framing. It's far left to me. Since when does the right-wing care about drone bombing? I've heard maybe one say something critical about it.

I edited my post to be more descriptive...or maybe you should stop knee-jerking! Kidding of course.

Most libertarians tend to be right wing regressives, so I just group them together. Only a couple of them on vs. are exceptions...and that's being generous to their numbers.

And what do libertarians say about Bernie Sanders???

About how they'd love to see Paul and Sanders together on a Presidential ticket or how we should be supporting Paul because of superficially being on the same side as liberals on some issues.

Originally Posted by dohdough I edited my post to be more descriptive...or maybe you should stop knee-jerking! Kidding of course. Most libertarians tend to be right wing regressives, so I just group them together. Only a couple of them on vs. are exceptions...and that's being generous to their numbers. About how they'd love to see Paul and Sanders together on a Presidential ticket or how we should be supporting Paul because of superficially being on the same side as liberals on some issues.

Yup, my knee was a jerkin! Well, it's too bad but makes sense that they don't bring up MLK's condemnations such as...
“The evils of capitalism and militarism are as great as the evils of racism.”
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world... my own government."

Now, I take exception to speaking about "Malcolm X/Obama being an agitator" without mentioning that the latter is an agitator only because of his skin color. Malcolm was an agitator due to his skin but mainly because of his views.

Doh, I took a glance at your earlier posts on the misunderstanding of the general public on the liberal/conservative dichotomy here. I agree. It begs the question of what liberalism really is. (Right-wing tards need not apply with their juvenile explanations.) After reading Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789-1914, I got a better understanding of what liberalism was historically and it seems some things do not really change. It was more accurately liberal-imperialism and was a political affiliation which sought to marginalize the working class and advocate for liberties... theirs only. They basically helped to embed liberal values (market-based) in the conservative party. Sound familiar? Chapter 3 of the book has the thick of this. You might be able to find a pdf of it. I highly recommend it.

It's pretty sad that it currently takes more legal justification to hack a cellphone outside the U.S. than it does to kill someone.

Last thing I want is to defend or justify the Obama admin in regards to this. Really do the right wing have any right to denounce and attack Obama on this when Obama is basically following right-wing though process.

We all know right wing gun nuts have long argued that they want their guns in order to shoot any intruder that comes on to their property, that they have no hesitation on pulling a gun out when someone break into their house, or that they will shoot anyone who comes near their family

Well lucky YOU Obama is using that same type of argument to justify Drone Killing, terrorist are the intruders and the USA is your property.. So in Obama's argument and right wing gun nuts argument, if you choose to enter my property in a threatening manner I will KILL YOU, and then we will let the courts sort it out later.

You see any right wing gun nut, ever mention that people who break into their house deserves a trial by jury and that they will always try to capture them to allow them to face justice? NO, many times the gun nuts just say if you enter my property you are DEAD and I maintain my guns so that if someone breaks into my house, I will shoot them dead.

Obama is basically applying right wing thinking on a gov't justification scale.

So right wingers why complain about Obama, he is basically one of you.... except he is black...lol