News Stories

[Arbitres]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Another attempt by the Vatican to take over the world with false, unjustified morals. Boy, am I glad the crusaders no longer exist. Or are they?

There are knight templars everywhere. Haven't you played Assassin's Creed?


I think the pope is an over-privileged religious figure who probably breaks his morals more then support them.

Could be worse, there could be Knight templars.

--wait.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

There are knight templars everywhere. Haven't you played Assassin's Creed?

Of course I have. It's one of the best games I've played. I've yet to play the second, but I hear it's like gold for avid conspiracy theorists such as myself =D

With regards to the Knights Templar, one of my conspiracy theories says that they never really have been disbanded. Instead, they have always been around since they broke away from the Vatican. I believe that while Pope Clement publicly disbanded the order, he never really stopped working with them. There were combatant Templars and other Templars working to manage the economic structure of the Christian society of the day. It's very much possible that some escaped the trials and continued to work in secret, pulling strings from the shadows for the benefit of the Vatican. When you really think about it, the Vatican has vast sums of money coming from somewhere. Who manages charity money? Do we know where it really goes? Do we know what kind of investments the Pope and the Cardinals make? The Vatican has always had a history of secrecy and they're not exactly the most transparent economy either.

For those who believe in Christianity, please do not feel offended by what I said. My grudge isn't with Christianity, the bible and the beliefs it tries to teach. The Bible isn't inherently bad although some of the things within are questionable. My grudge is purely with the Vatican for not following most if not all of that which it preaches.

Originally Posted by Arbitres

I think the pope is an over-privileged religious figure who probably breaks his morals more then support them

I always said that the Vatican is a body of hypocricy. On the surface they preach the words of Jesus and his Father, the Lord. They do this while enjoying life inside their own personal country, living in a very luxurious palace, eating food homeless people would doubtlessly kill for. Jesus worked for a living. They should too if they want to add credibility to their preaching.

Originally Posted by Arbitres

Could be worse, there could be Knight templars.

--wait.

Ever heard of the Masons? Part of my conspiracy theory says that the Masons are a spin-off of the Templar order (if we are to call them the Masons. I somewhat feel "Masons" is just a label)

[NinjaYali]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The dark side of the force is hard to see, youngling. Just like how Palpatine corrupted the Chosen One through weasel words, you shall not underestimate the malice within the lines!

Palpatine manipulated the Chosen One through his marriage to his wife. So what if Anakin was eloped with another man

[SaintessHeart]

Then his husband. Obviously. What else?

Anyway we are off topic so much, and we would be branded as heretics by the Holey Roman Empire if we don't stop. Here's something to chew on today......

BP Reports Breakthrough in Controlling Oil Spill

BP Plc made a breakthrough in controlling oil gushing from a damaged Gulf of Mexico well as U.S. officials said the effort is a stop-gap measure and increased pressure on the company to do more.

BP, battling a leak that threatens the wildlife and economy of the country’s Gulf Coast, said yesterday it connected a mile- long funnel to start capturing some of the leaking oil and carry it to a ship at the surface. BP said the fix, which will catch only part of the spillage, is an “important step.”

Obama administration officials said the technique isn’t a solution and Representative Edward Markey accused BP of refusing to provide information about the size of the oil flow. BP, which has already spent at least $450 million responding to the spill, came under pressure from the U.S. government last week to confirm it will pay for all damage related to the incident.

The company is drilling two relief wells to stem the flow of crude, BP said today in a statement. Both wells, which will allow BP to pump mud and cement down to permanently seal the leaking well, will take about three months to complete, it said.

BP, led by Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward, reaffirmed its estimate that 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) are gushing out each day. Independent researchers have suggested the leak could be more than 10 times bigger. Scientists say getting a better grasp of the magnitude of the spill is crucial.

“We can’t evaluate the impact until we know exactly how much oil and gas is coming out the pipe,” said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia, who is part of a group of scientists gathering details about the spill.

During their mission on the research ship Pelican, backed by the Obama administration, the group found submerged pools of oil-contaminated water in the Gulf of Mexico as big as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in some parts, Joye said.

The findings raise more questions about BP’s estimate of the flow.

“I think now that this leak is a lot bigger,” Joye said in an interview yesterday. “There’s much more material flowing out of this pipe than was previously expected or accepted.”

Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement that BP should provide more video to help independent researchers gauge the size of the spill, which was triggered by an April 20 explosion and fire aboard Transocean Ltd.’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, leased to London-based BP.

BP spokesman Mark Proegler said the company is looking into the scientists’ claims about the size of the flow, though the main focus remains on “stopping the leak and minimizing the impact on the surface.” The oil producer declined to comment immediately on Markey’s statement.

Joye said BP’s use of chemicals to disperse the oil below the surface may be contributing to formation of the pools of oil-contaminated water deep undersea.

The subsea dispersants, which have been approved by the Obama administration, break up the oil so that it sinks below the water’s surface, where BP and government officials say it will do less harm to the environment. BP said it has applied 600,000 gallons of the chemicals above and below the surface.

The submerged oil has prompted discussion about how the method may affect sea life.

“It’s unclear at this point what’s going to happen,” Joye said. “Everybody has been focusing on the surface impacts, which is normal. But now we’ve got to switch gears and start thinking about the deep water.”

To make its funnel, BP inserted a 4-inch (10.2-centimeter) pipe wrapped with rubber flanges into the leaking pipe. The tube is connected to larger pipes that channel the oil to a drill ship at the surface, where the liquid is separated for processing at a refinery. Natural gas from the well is burned on the ship through flares.

The amount of oil captured as of yesterday by the funnel system is “not measureable,” BP Senior Executive Vice President Kent Wells said during a press conference in Houston. A video monitor of the area at BP’s Houston office showed most of the leaking oil was still flowing into the water yesterday.

BP will gradually increase the amount of oil captured by the funnel during the next few days, Wells said.

Obama’s administration expressed skepticism. “This technique is not a solution to the problem, and it is not yet clear how successful it may be,” said U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in a joint statement yesterday.

BP continues to work on other methods to plug the well and stop the leak. In the next 7 to 10 days, the company said it will try shooting specially formulated drilling mud into the well, at a rate of 40 barrels a minute, to slow or shut off the oil flow. BP may later use its “junk shot” method to plug the well with an injection of rubber scrap.

“Federal scientists are continuing to provide oversight and expertise to BP as they move forward with other strategies,” Napolitano and Salazar said in their statement.

The government has asked for clarification of BP’s commitment to pay for all damages related to the leak.

“The public has a right to a clear understanding of BP’s commitment to redress all of the damage that has occurred or that will occur in the future as a result of the oil spill,” Salazar and Napolitano said in a May 14 letter to Hayward.

[Vexx]

One of the sad facets of the Thai situation is there's been literally zero coverage from the US corporate mainstream media ... at most a one-liner here and there. All the information I'm getting comes from the BBC or Asian news outlets. From my research, it appears that US-based transnational corporate interests are aligned with the elite wealthy and current government factions in the Thai fracas - therefore the lack of coverage in US press and the silence from the White House (which is just about as corporatist in some ways as the previous administration, along with the long historical trail in US foreign policy before that).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8688299.stm

I can't say I side with the redshirts or the government (lots of "hmmmmmm" from me on the stances on both sides) but the lack of media coverage in the US doesn't improve my opinion of the "government" storyline.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

One of the sad facets of the Thai situation is there's been literally zero coverage from the US corporate mainstream media ... at most a one-liner here and there. All the information I'm getting comes from the BBC or Asian news outlets. From my research, it appears that US-based transnational corporate interests are aligned with the elite wealthy and current government factions in the Thai fracas - therefore the lack of coverage in US press and the silence from the White House (which is just about as corporatist in some ways as the previous administration, along with the long historical trail in US foreign policy before that).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8688299.stm

I can't say I side with the redshirts or the government (lots of "hmmmmmm" from me on the stances on both sides) but the lack of media coverage in the US doesn't improve my opinion of the "government" storyline.

Check the Wall Street Journal. Not all US-based news agencies are that corporatist.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Check the Wall Street Journal. Not all US-based news agencies are that corporatist.

You're kidding. You do realise who owns the Wall Street Journal?

In 2007 News Corporation reached an agreement to purchase Dow Jones, publishers of the Wall Street Journal, for an estimated US$5.6 billion.

[Vexx]

WSJ -- Rupert Murdoch. Stopped being a credible news source a few years ago. I *used* to read it often over the decades (its always been big business biased, but usually at least factual or at worst omitted other points of view. Now its tabloid BS that serves Murdoch's agenda).

Here - read the lead sentence on today's WSJ website:

A government deadline for opposition demonstrators to call off marathon street protests came and went Monday with the Thai army still struggling to contain rioting and street battles that have killed at least 37 people since Thursday.

That has the doublethink characteristic of being "true" while also being completely misleading. Compare that with leading paragraphs from the BBC or other news agencies which don't cast the government in such a shiny "good guy" light. Also, I do believe those people were killed by government troops, not "rioting and street battles". And that the red-shirt opposition call for peaceful talks was rejected by the government out-of-hand ("the deadline came and went") but that isn't mentioned.

[SeijiSensei]

Japanese Immigration Policies

Read this today in my print copy while waiting for my car to be fixed:

Originally Posted by The Economist

ABUBAKAR AWUDU SURAJ was already unconscious when the cabin crew of EgyptAir MS965 saw him on board, before the Tokyo-to-Cairo flight. Shortly later he was dead. A Ghanaian who had lived illegally in Japan, Mr Suraj was being deported on March 22nd, when he was lifted and forced onto the plane in handcuffs with a towel gagging him and knotted in the back to restrain him. An autopsy failed to determine a cause of death, yet his widow saw facial injuries when she identified the body. Three days later an Immigration Bureau official admitted: “It is a sorry thing that we have done.”

The death is putting Japan’s controversial immigration policy under a sharper spotlight. The country has long eschewed immigration. In recent months, however, its resistance has become even tougher. Families have been broken apart as parents of children born in Japan have been detained and deported. People who seemed to qualify for a special residency permit (SRP), designed for those who overstay their visa but wish to remain, have been denied. Forced deportations have become more frequent and rougher, according to the Asian People’s Friendship Society, a Japanese immigrant-support group. Japan’s Immigration Control Centres, where many illegal residents are detained, have faced special criticism. This year alone, two detainees have committed suicide, one has publicly complained of abuse, and 70 inmates staged a hunger strike demanding better treatment.

The Economist attributes the crackdown to factional disputes between reformers and traditionalists within the Japanese Government.

Why the tougher policy now? Koichi Kodama, an immigration lawyer assisting Mr Suraj’s widow, believes it is a reaction to the appointment last year as justice minister of Keiko Chiba, a pro-immigration reformer; the old guard is clamping down.

For those of you "on the ground" in Japan, does this seem like a plausible explanation?

[Vexx]

In the "om nom nom" department (via Slashdot):
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ough-life-son/

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Vexx

WSJ -- Rupert Murdoch. Stopped being a credible news source a few years ago. I *used* to read it often over the decades (its always been big business biased, but usually at least factual or at worst omitted other points of view. Now its tabloid BS that serves Murdoch's agenda).

Here - read the lead sentence on today's WSJ website:
That has the doublethink characteristic of being "true" while also being completely misleading. Compare that with leading paragraphs from the BBC or other news agencies which don't cast the government in such a shiny "good guy" light. Also, I do believe those people were killed by government troops, not "rioting and street battles". And that the red-shirt opposition call for peaceful talks was rejected by the government out-of-hand ("the deadline came and went") but that isn't mentioned.

I don't think there's a news outlet alive in America that isn't biased heavily anymore. One way or another.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't think there's a news outlet alive in America that isn't biased heavily anymore. One way or another.

Daliy Show and the Colbert report?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't think there's a news outlet alive in America that isn't biased heavily anymore. One way or another.

Most of them in the US .. whether they profess to be "left" or "right" or whatever... are owned by large transnational corporate interests. I don't think much of MSNBC either or CNN... but in the case of anything Murdoch owns -- I've reached the point of immediately finding how he's screwing the public to line his pockets with anything he does. He's like some of the media monsters that Arthur C. Clarke dreamed up in his science fiction writings.

But even allowing for some liberal bias in the Stewart/Colbert show... I feel like I get more satirical "truth" in two minutes from them than I get on an entire day of CNN/Fox/MSNBC/ABC/blargh. Anymore the media packages "what sells" instead of "what is going on?"

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You're kidding. You do realise who owns the Wall Street Journal?

Originally Posted by Vexx

WSJ -- Rupert Murdoch. Stopped being a credible news source a few years ago. I *used* to read it often over the decades (its always been big business biased, but usually at least factual or at worst omitted other points of view. Now its tabloid BS that serves Murdoch's agenda).

Here - read the lead sentence on today's WSJ website:
That has the doublethink characteristic of being "true" while also being completely misleading. Compare that with leading paragraphs from the BBC or other news agencies which don't cast the government in such a shiny "good guy" light. Also, I do believe those people were killed by government troops, not "rioting and street battles". And that the red-shirt opposition call for peaceful talks was rejected by the government out-of-hand ("the deadline came and went") but that isn't mentioned.

Oh. Thanks for the heads-up. I didn't know that. I need to stop speed/skim reading news articles.

Then again, you don't just read from a single news agency right? It is my personal belief that any news-publisher will serve whoever pays them : it is a matter of survival, be it the state or the corporation. And yes, I don't really believe fully in whatever news I read anymore today, not after 9/11/2001 where the news agencies were rushing for news that snowballed into a mess and daily shortnotes on the mainpage apologising for errors in their news the previous day.

Alternatively, since the conflict is in Asia, I would suggest that you look for something closer to the region. Like Today from Singapore (it's free ), but it can be too comprehensive at times. The other one which I think is okay is Bloomberg.

There are probably a few other English publications in Asia which you can refer to after going through Google.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Then again, you don't just read from a single news agency right? It is my personal belief that any news-publisher will serve whoever pays them : it is a matter of survival, be it the state or the corporation.

Indeed. It pays to learn about an event from as many perspectives as possible. This is so even if you are there in person to observe the event at first hand, because personal bias may, for all you know, colour the way you observe the event unfold.

As for the news publishers putting out whatever brings in money, to a certain extent, yes, that's true. It's not a charity operation after all. The business has to bring in money otherwise the it flops, plain and simple. But that's also an oversimplification of how different journalists seek to uphold professional standards of telling a story as truthfully and as objectively as possible.

Let's just say the onus is not just on the reporter to tell the story, but also on the reader to cherry pick from as many sources as possible to get to the "whole truth".

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Alternatively, since the conflict is in Asia, I would suggest that you look for something closer to the region. Like Today from Singapore (it's free ), but it can be too comprehensive at times. The other one which I think is okay is Bloomberg.

A large part of Today's content is aggregated from various news wires. So, it's no better or worse than all the other English-language news publishers in Singapore, which broadly do the same thing.

As for Bloomberg, I'm iffy about its quality of reporting. But that's a subjective bias on my part. I'd sooner rely on the Financial Times or The Economist for financial/economic news and analysis. As for news wires, Reuters tends to appear to be the most reliable, compared to AP or AFP.

I'm curious to know, though, is the New York Times still considered a "newspaper of record" in the United States? From what I understand, The Times of London used to hold that status among British readers, but has since lost that prestige thanks to its takeover by (who else?) News Corp.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

A large part of Today's content is aggregated from various news wires. So, it's no better or worse than all the other English-language news publishers in Singapore, which broadly do the same thing.

As for Bloomberg, I'm iffy about its quality of reporting. But that's a subjective bias on my part. I'd sooner rely on the Financial Times or The Economist for financial/economic news and analysis. As for news wires, Reuters tends to appear to be the most reliable, compared to AP or AFP.

I'm curious to know, though, is the New York Times still considered a "newspaper of record" in the United States? From what I understand, The Times of London used to hold that status among British readers, but has since lost that prestige thanks to its takeover by (who else?) News Corp.

What about Reuters? I used to read it every now and then for the past 2 years because it has got one of the fastest loading main pages.

I don't enjoy The Economist's way of writing about economics because it didn't really quote much of fundamentals or technical analysis to support their inferences. Just words, words and words. Although the SDP (supply, demand, price) is considered common sense in the economic world, they could have done better to make clearer writing.

Regarding it behind partially hosted by the "Illuminati" (Rothschild)....I shall not comment. But I do believe that Bloomberg is a pretty credible source since they usually report approximately-as-is, and then again, there is always the need for cross-referencing.

[Vexx]

Associated Press (AP) has taken a small dive in credibility thanks to its new CEO who has a stated agenda. Unfortunately, far too many other news outlets (newspapers) who might have been more neutral still rely on AP as part of the cooperative and pass it on unedited.
I dropped it from my google news portal about six months ago.

Reuters at least just reports information mostly rather than spinning it but you won't get much analysis out of them. The Economist writings are good analysis... but theirs is a business perspective and business happens whether society is left/right/statist/anarchy. Bloomberg I find somewhat tabloidish and suspicious at times. The BBC tends to be dicey in regard to British interests so it is fun to place next to Deutsche Weekly (European Journal).

I'll check those links as my Southeast Asian feeds are pretty spotty and the Chinese feeds are both good for chuckles and useful when understanding why individuals in China have the opinions they might have.

[Joojoobees]

One source I enjoy is Democracynow.org. They have a left-wing perspective (that is left of the corporatist MSNBC), and they include a lot of international news that is not covered by typical American media. I watch via the podcast (M-F). Otherwise they are broadcast on satellite, I think, and are carried by Pacifica radio, which has very limited coverage.

For comparison, here is how they reported on Thailand today:

35 Die in Thailand in Bangkok Clashes

In Thailand at least thirty-five people died over the weekend after the Thai military attempted to crush protests organized by the anti-government Red Shirts. The Thai military is threatening to make a final push this week to end the street protests that have paralyzed Bangkok for two months. Today and tomorrow have been declared “holidays” in an effort to keep Bangkok residents at home and off the streets. On Sunday the Thai government rejected a call by the Red Shirts for a ceasefire and UN-moderated talks.

Panitan Wattanayagorn, Thai government spokesperson: "We reject their demands for UN mediation or for them to do to any activities in Thailand. No Thailand government has ever let anyone intervene with our internal affairs. We can solve our problems ourselves, but we are willing to listen."

Since last week, the Thai military has been firing live ammunition at the anti-government protesters. CNN aired footage of Thai soldiers shooting at Canadian journalist Nelson Rand, who was working for France 24 news channel. The journalist, Nelson Rand, was hit by three bullets. Doctors said he was gravely wounded. Meanwhile, the rogue Thai general who was shot by a sniper last week has died from his wounds. The general, Seh Daeng, was a leader of the Red Shirts.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Joojoobees

One source I enjoy is Democracynow.org. They have a left-wing perspective (that is left of the corporatist MSNBC), and they include a lot of international news that is not covered by typical American media. I watch via the podcast (M-F). Otherwise they are broadcast on satellite, I think, and are carried by Pacifica radio, which has very limited coverage.

For comparison, here is how they reported on Thailand today:

One thing at the end that pretty much made me want to throw it out of the window :

..The general, Seh Daeng, was a leader of the Red Shirts.

He wasn't. He controls a paramilitary group that supports the Red Shirts, but he's not a leader.

[Vexx]

Yeah, I saw many misstatements by a lot of different press reports about Daeng's position and his relationship to the Red Shirts.