Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
KPFA Management pushing and selling Neo-liberal point of view to raise funds! What next?
KPFA is playing and selling the movie "No End in Sight" which is all about how the US didn't handle the invasion/occupation of Iraq properly. It does not condemn the invasion/occupation! Its theme is "We didn't do it right." Folks if you like "We didn't do it right" being sold on KPFA, vote for Concerned Listener in the LSB election, they consistnetly support this management. If you think the invasion/occupation is wrong and want this point of view in governance at the station vote for http://www.peoplesradio.net candidates, Richard Phelps, Attila Nagy, Mara Rivera, Stan Woods, Gerald Sanders, Bob English and Dave Heller.
I was shocked to hear this on our air and now it is going to be run again??? All it does is complain about not handling the occupation properly!! It doesn't deal with the real issue, that we should never have invaded!!! And its focus clearly implies that if we had done it right it would have been OK!!!
Below is a review of this film. There were many others from a neo-liberal point of view congratulating the film maker for exposing all the problems. I remember one part I heard Tuesday morning where they talked about how the State Department had done so much work in developing an understanding of how to occupy and win the locals over and the Defense Department ignored it all. The message is "if we had only done it right"
If you can accept the analogy of our invasion having "raped" Iraq then this movie is the equivalent of some social scientists discussing how you could rape a person and not do too much harm to their wrists and ankles where you put the restraints and how to properly enter so as not to do much internal damage. IF SOMEONE PUT OUT SUCH A FILM WOULD WE AIR IT, PRAISE IT AND SELL IT?? REPEATEDLY??? Rape is WRONG no matter how it is done, the same as an INVASION and OCCUPATION is wrong no matter how done!!!!
SECTION 3. PRINCIPLES (from our Bylaws, or as our IGM calls them, your Bylaws)
"The Foundation is committed to peace and social justice, and seeks to involve in its governance and operations individuals committed to these principles."
It seems to me that this movie has nothing to do with peace or social justice, it is just a film about one group of imperialists trashing another group as incompetent. What does that have to do with our Mission when the movie doesn't support the view that we should never have invaded and occupied. That is what peace and social justice activists are saying, not that we did it wrong. WE WERE WRONG TO DO IT!!! End of story!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No End in Sight
Filed under: Film, Iraq — louisproyect @ 3:28 pm
Last Monday night I made the mistake of attending a press screening for “No End in Sight,” a documentary about the war in Iraq. Expecting a hard-hitting denunciation of U.S. foreign policy, I was instead treated to 102 minutes of people like Richard Armitage, Samantha Power and George Packer explaining why things turned sour. All in all, I felt like I was watching the PBS News Hour but without even the token appearance of a leftist like Juan Cole.
Director Charles Ferguson, upset over blunders in Iraq
The movie is just another example of the “what went wrong” mentality that occurs when an imperialist invasion fails to achieve its stated goals. After Vietnam proved to be unwinnable, “peace politicians” began to speechify about the “tragedy.” If LBJ had been able to accomplish his goals, as he had in the Dominican Republic, there never would have been a peep out of them.
“No End in Sight” hardly goes into the criminality of the invasion, as do many inside-the-beltway studies like Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco.” There is no hand-wringing over nonexistent WMD’s or alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This is not to speak of the film’s utter refusal to even question American material interests in the region, including the desire to control oil. This obviously flows from the world view of director Charles Ferguson, who has a PhD in political science from MIT and who went on to consult for the White House and the Department of Defense. He is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is not exactly the sort of person who will even entertain the idea that the U.S. does not have a right to impose its will on other peoples. His main interest is in figuring out why such a project did not work so as to help the ruling class figure out how to do it better next time.
Drawing upon the dubious insights of General Jay Garner, the head of Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), who was eventually replaced by the infamous Paul Bremer, the film argues that there were three fundamental mistakes:
1. The U.S. failed to pull together a puppet (my word obviously) government in a timely fashion.
2. It decided to purge the bureaucracy of all Baath party members.
3. It dissolved the Iraqi army...."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH OUR PRECIOUS AIR TIME????? WHO DECIDED TO AIR THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE DESIGNED TO DISTRACT FOLKS FROM THE REAL CRIME, INVADING A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOT ATTACKED US AND WAS NOT GOING TO ATTACK US AND WHO DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD'S TO ATTACK US WITH AND WHO WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH BIN LADEN?? OH, EXCUSE ME, THEY HAVE ONE OF THE WORLDS LARGEST OIL RESERVES, I FORGOT, MY BAD. SO ITS OK? NO, NEVER!!!
Is this another example of our current management putting fund raising above our Mission???
Does our current management ever think about what are Mission means in terms of what should be on our air?? Don't you think that plenty of folks with the "No end in sight" mind set are getting corporate media air time, relative to the "We were wrong to invade and occupy." point of view. Isn't the "no end in sight" message what most candidates running for President are saying over and over again as the Dems did in 2004 "I will be able to do it better" How many are saying we were wrong to invade???
So why does this point of view need to be aired on KPFA/Pacifica air time, and more than once is adding insult to injury?????? Much less pushed as if it was deserving and our people should buy it????
Also, if our News didn't sound so much like this we would have many more paying listeners, IMHO.
What will they come up with next to raise money?? I wish they would try consistent progressive programming with the top programs on in prime time. What a novel idea. I guess we can't do that since that might mean some of management's allies might have to move their time or lose their time. And we all know the new Pacifica mentality is that a small group's power is more important than the Mission, democratic principles, transparency and accountability. The realization of this is making me sick, again.
Richard Phelps
P.S. Their usual practice is to come back with anonymous personal atttacks. They never seem to debate the issues?
Below is a review of this film. There were many others from a neo-liberal point of view congratulating the film maker for exposing all the problems. I remember one part I heard Tuesday morning where they talked about how the State Department had done so much work in developing an understanding of how to occupy and win the locals over and the Defense Department ignored it all. The message is "if we had only done it right"
If you can accept the analogy of our invasion having "raped" Iraq then this movie is the equivalent of some social scientists discussing how you could rape a person and not do too much harm to their wrists and ankles where you put the restraints and how to properly enter so as not to do much internal damage. IF SOMEONE PUT OUT SUCH A FILM WOULD WE AIR IT, PRAISE IT AND SELL IT?? REPEATEDLY??? Rape is WRONG no matter how it is done, the same as an INVASION and OCCUPATION is wrong no matter how done!!!!
SECTION 3. PRINCIPLES (from our Bylaws, or as our IGM calls them, your Bylaws)
"The Foundation is committed to peace and social justice, and seeks to involve in its governance and operations individuals committed to these principles."
It seems to me that this movie has nothing to do with peace or social justice, it is just a film about one group of imperialists trashing another group as incompetent. What does that have to do with our Mission when the movie doesn't support the view that we should never have invaded and occupied. That is what peace and social justice activists are saying, not that we did it wrong. WE WERE WRONG TO DO IT!!! End of story!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No End in Sight
Filed under: Film, Iraq — louisproyect @ 3:28 pm
Last Monday night I made the mistake of attending a press screening for “No End in Sight,” a documentary about the war in Iraq. Expecting a hard-hitting denunciation of U.S. foreign policy, I was instead treated to 102 minutes of people like Richard Armitage, Samantha Power and George Packer explaining why things turned sour. All in all, I felt like I was watching the PBS News Hour but without even the token appearance of a leftist like Juan Cole.
Director Charles Ferguson, upset over blunders in Iraq
The movie is just another example of the “what went wrong” mentality that occurs when an imperialist invasion fails to achieve its stated goals. After Vietnam proved to be unwinnable, “peace politicians” began to speechify about the “tragedy.” If LBJ had been able to accomplish his goals, as he had in the Dominican Republic, there never would have been a peep out of them.
“No End in Sight” hardly goes into the criminality of the invasion, as do many inside-the-beltway studies like Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco.” There is no hand-wringing over nonexistent WMD’s or alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This is not to speak of the film’s utter refusal to even question American material interests in the region, including the desire to control oil. This obviously flows from the world view of director Charles Ferguson, who has a PhD in political science from MIT and who went on to consult for the White House and the Department of Defense. He is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is not exactly the sort of person who will even entertain the idea that the U.S. does not have a right to impose its will on other peoples. His main interest is in figuring out why such a project did not work so as to help the ruling class figure out how to do it better next time.
Drawing upon the dubious insights of General Jay Garner, the head of Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), who was eventually replaced by the infamous Paul Bremer, the film argues that there were three fundamental mistakes:
1. The U.S. failed to pull together a puppet (my word obviously) government in a timely fashion.
2. It decided to purge the bureaucracy of all Baath party members.
3. It dissolved the Iraqi army...."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH OUR PRECIOUS AIR TIME????? WHO DECIDED TO AIR THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE DESIGNED TO DISTRACT FOLKS FROM THE REAL CRIME, INVADING A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOT ATTACKED US AND WAS NOT GOING TO ATTACK US AND WHO DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD'S TO ATTACK US WITH AND WHO WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH BIN LADEN?? OH, EXCUSE ME, THEY HAVE ONE OF THE WORLDS LARGEST OIL RESERVES, I FORGOT, MY BAD. SO ITS OK? NO, NEVER!!!
Is this another example of our current management putting fund raising above our Mission???
Does our current management ever think about what are Mission means in terms of what should be on our air?? Don't you think that plenty of folks with the "No end in sight" mind set are getting corporate media air time, relative to the "We were wrong to invade and occupy." point of view. Isn't the "no end in sight" message what most candidates running for President are saying over and over again as the Dems did in 2004 "I will be able to do it better" How many are saying we were wrong to invade???
So why does this point of view need to be aired on KPFA/Pacifica air time, and more than once is adding insult to injury?????? Much less pushed as if it was deserving and our people should buy it????
Also, if our News didn't sound so much like this we would have many more paying listeners, IMHO.
What will they come up with next to raise money?? I wish they would try consistent progressive programming with the top programs on in prime time. What a novel idea. I guess we can't do that since that might mean some of management's allies might have to move their time or lose their time. And we all know the new Pacifica mentality is that a small group's power is more important than the Mission, democratic principles, transparency and accountability. The realization of this is making me sick, again.
Richard Phelps
P.S. Their usual practice is to come back with anonymous personal atttacks. They never seem to debate the issues?
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Sounds like they picked a bad one if any of this is true, but I think anyone who uses such underhanded tactics to disparage political rivals in a race for board seats at kpfa should be very suspect. The mention of a slate of candidates above as if they are in any way associated with this film or its selection is downright dishonest and misleading. It is really sad that the rant above is coming from a current sitting kpfa board member. We need to get some thoughtful and intelligent people on that board or kpfa is in trouble.
Richard, you're upset about the use of this movie as a premium and say it won't happen if your slate is in power.
Are you saying that you will review and approve each premium before it can be offered on a drive ?
That seems like a pretty blatant admission of pushing censorship.
Will there be an actual list of acceptable and 'banned' items or points of view, or will you opt for the "soft" censorship of setting up people who agree with you and banishing people that don't.
KPFA presents a huge spectrum of items, some available no place else. From highly intellectual, to the spiritual, to the wildly speculative. Any one premium doesn't come to representing the range of opinions aired on KPFA. Any change to that may not be a change for the better
Are you saying that you will review and approve each premium before it can be offered on a drive ?
That seems like a pretty blatant admission of pushing censorship.
Will there be an actual list of acceptable and 'banned' items or points of view, or will you opt for the "soft" censorship of setting up people who agree with you and banishing people that don't.
KPFA presents a huge spectrum of items, some available no place else. From highly intellectual, to the spiritual, to the wildly speculative. Any one premium doesn't come to representing the range of opinions aired on KPFA. Any change to that may not be a change for the better
Thank you, Mr. Phelps, for your election slate; this is the first I hear of it. I will certainly vote for all of them and please post to this site the dates and times when they will be giving their candidate statements on the air. Thank you also for your excellent point which is well taken. If the so-called management at KPFA thinks this is a premium that is appropriate for KPFA, then clearly they do not think at all and should resign immediately. There are some issues that are fundamental, and viewing the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as anything other than an illegal invasion and occupation is not acceptable for a DVD premium at KPFA. I do wish that you would get rid of the inspid phrase, "neo-liberal." The idiot who promoted this DVD is clearly reactionary.
The point is that uncritically promoting a flick like '' No end in Sight '' is contrary to Pacifica principles . Being for International Peace doesn't mean looking for alternative tactics to help build the American Empire !
It is related to the KPFA elections because Philip Maderi is a endorser and eager supporter of the '' Concerned Listeners ''. If any Concerned Listener candidates or board members wnat to distance themselves from this '' No end in sight '' speak up now or forever hold your peace !
It is related to the KPFA elections because Philip Maderi is a endorser and eager supporter of the '' Concerned Listeners ''. If any Concerned Listener candidates or board members wnat to distance themselves from this '' No end in sight '' speak up now or forever hold your peace !
My only disagreement with Richard is his use of "WE", as in "we should never have invaded and occupied"! Personally, I don't know anybody who has been involved in invading and occupying Iraq, and, except in passing, I don't know anybody who has supported the invasion and/or occupation!
It may be correct to say that "WE" should have done, and should from this moment on do, a hell of a lot more to stop the U.S. aggression against Iraq and prevent the next one against Iran or whoever, but faulting oneself for failing to stop a rapist or imperialist aggressor is not the same as saying that one is guilty of rape or imperialist aggression.
BTW, as I pointed out elsewhere (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/24/18449474.php?show_comments=1), it may be worthwhile for enemies of the empire to see and even study a discussion among imperialists about how they screwed up. But we certainly shouldn't be presenting such a discussion as if it were anti-imperialist. And we certainly shouldn't be helping the filmmakers make money on it! Wait till there's a bittorrent download or other free copy available if you want to watch it!
It may be correct to say that "WE" should have done, and should from this moment on do, a hell of a lot more to stop the U.S. aggression against Iraq and prevent the next one against Iran or whoever, but faulting oneself for failing to stop a rapist or imperialist aggressor is not the same as saying that one is guilty of rape or imperialist aggression.
BTW, as I pointed out elsewhere (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/24/18449474.php?show_comments=1), it may be worthwhile for enemies of the empire to see and even study a discussion among imperialists about how they screwed up. But we certainly shouldn't be presenting such a discussion as if it were anti-imperialist. And we certainly shouldn't be helping the filmmakers make money on it! Wait till there's a bittorrent download or other free copy available if you want to watch it!
I just read the election pamplet . I will vote for the Peoples Radio slate . But i found the serial collective statement confusing . Like it or not i think you guys should have spent more time writing about you have done instead of focusing on all the sins of the Concerned slate . I still will vote for you. To me the station is only a little better than NPR . We need much more . You seem to fully grasp this . But this narrative was a tactical error that might cost you votes . A friendly critique .
You sued a listener for having an opinion that you disagreed with.
Period.
That action alone shows how dangerous a person you are to have anywhere near KPFA.
Your "outrage" and "ire" on premiums is little different. If you don't like the opinion, you will prevent, pre-empt and preclude it from existance.
You do not support free speech, you support only speech that you personally agree with.
Period.
That action alone shows how dangerous a person you are to have anywhere near KPFA.
Your "outrage" and "ire" on premiums is little different. If you don't like the opinion, you will prevent, pre-empt and preclude it from existance.
You do not support free speech, you support only speech that you personally agree with.
Richard Phelps did not sue a listener for having an opinion he disagreed with.
He sued a listener who brought to each board meeting 4-page attacks on Richard containing lies about him - slander, in other words.
Some of the personal information about Richard was material which someone at the station would have had to have passed along.
This lie about the suit is brought up again and again, along with some others.
Another thing that is said is that he brought the case to small claims court so that the listener couldn't bring a lawyer,
Actually, bringing a case to small claims court means that you save money because you do not have to have a lawyer. That's what small claims court is for.
Also, it is said that the judge threw the case out of court.
The judge said that he could not decide on the details of this case, and that Richard could bring the case to a higher court for a resolution.
Richard did not take the listener - Jim Weber - to a higher court. He tried but failed to get an agreement from Weber to stop the slander and personal remarks and confine his remarks to political criticsm. Though Weber would not agree, Richard did not take him to court again but he subsequently stopped the personal/slanderous print attacks.
All the while, the status quo side of the board warmly welcomed this listener
and said nothing to defend Richard from his attacks. I saw them do it yesterday again at the Local Station Board meeting, after Jim Weber made a public comment which was totally composed of mind boggling lies about what had gone in the LSB, such as that one faction had tried to steal ballots at the last ballot counting. The person sitting next to me had been at that entire counting and could not understand what he was referring to. His other assertions were of the same order.
Any mental incompetence (which is what his staements suggest) is no excuse for tolerating slander on his part.
Do not vote for Jim Weber!
He sued a listener who brought to each board meeting 4-page attacks on Richard containing lies about him - slander, in other words.
Some of the personal information about Richard was material which someone at the station would have had to have passed along.
This lie about the suit is brought up again and again, along with some others.
Another thing that is said is that he brought the case to small claims court so that the listener couldn't bring a lawyer,
Actually, bringing a case to small claims court means that you save money because you do not have to have a lawyer. That's what small claims court is for.
Also, it is said that the judge threw the case out of court.
The judge said that he could not decide on the details of this case, and that Richard could bring the case to a higher court for a resolution.
Richard did not take the listener - Jim Weber - to a higher court. He tried but failed to get an agreement from Weber to stop the slander and personal remarks and confine his remarks to political criticsm. Though Weber would not agree, Richard did not take him to court again but he subsequently stopped the personal/slanderous print attacks.
All the while, the status quo side of the board warmly welcomed this listener
and said nothing to defend Richard from his attacks. I saw them do it yesterday again at the Local Station Board meeting, after Jim Weber made a public comment which was totally composed of mind boggling lies about what had gone in the LSB, such as that one faction had tried to steal ballots at the last ballot counting. The person sitting next to me had been at that entire counting and could not understand what he was referring to. His other assertions were of the same order.
Any mental incompetence (which is what his staements suggest) is no excuse for tolerating slander on his part.
Do not vote for Jim Weber!
Richard Phelps sued a listener for having an opinion.
Without a court hearing and decision that it was in fact libel (not slander), then it stands as the opinion of the listener and nothing more.
Phelps would have to prove it was deliberate, malicious in intent, and that he was harmed by it before the court would even make such a ruling.
Richard Phelps sued a listener in an effort to intimidate him to silence.
Now, you, Phelps and others are engaged in a non-factual smear campaign, and are committing the same acts that he accused the listener of doing.
And you don't see the parallels and irony, which makes you all the less competent and capable.
Without a court hearing and decision that it was in fact libel (not slander), then it stands as the opinion of the listener and nothing more.
Phelps would have to prove it was deliberate, malicious in intent, and that he was harmed by it before the court would even make such a ruling.
Richard Phelps sued a listener in an effort to intimidate him to silence.
Now, you, Phelps and others are engaged in a non-factual smear campaign, and are committing the same acts that he accused the listener of doing.
And you don't see the parallels and irony, which makes you all the less competent and capable.
RP: More BIG LIE attacks from Old Lib with personal attacks now on Mara
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Richard Phelps sued a listener for having an opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: In his/her attempt to libel me for standing up for the truth at KPFA and Pacifica and against the patronage and cronyism that is trying to destroy our democratic process and transparency, Old Lib demonstrates ignorance or malice. Perhaps Old Lib doesn't know the difference between the statement of an opinion and the statement of a fact. An opinion starts out with "I think" or "I believe that Richard Phelps ...." When someone prints "Richard Phelps trashed Amy Goodmans's Democracy Now!" That is an not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. I asked him to support that libelous statement and all Mr. Weber could say was "lots of people trash DN!" I asked him what does that have to do with me and he had no answer but to repeat himself. He could produce NO facts to support his statenment. Everybody that knows me and has read my political writings knows that Weber's statement was a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Without a court hearing and decision that it was in fact libel (not slander), then it stands as the opinion of the listener and nothing more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Again Old Lib trying linguistic slight of hand. A statement of fact attributed to someone is not an opinion, it is a factual allegation and if wrong may be libelous. Since Mr. Weber has NO evedience to establish that I ever "trashed" DN! my point is clear. It was a lie, it was not an opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Phelps would have to prove it was deliberate, malicious in intent, and that he was harmed by it before the court would even make such a ruling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Not exactly true, the point is Weber said lots of thing as facts, not opinions , that were not true. And his failure to stop after being warned for many months constitutes malice. His factual statements that were lies were libelous on their face. The only thing I need a court ruling for would be to collect damages. By the way, how long have you been practicing law? You seem to have that "little bit of knowledge that is dangerous" especially for one who doesn't know the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old LIb: Richard Phelps sued a listener in an effort to intimidate him to silence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Now you are not stating the truth and you are stating it as a fact, not an opinion and you are dead wrong! I sued him to stop him from printing and distributing "Statements of fact about me that were lies". I don't give a damn about his opinions as did none of the Listeners in San Jose on Saturday at the LSB meeting when he did his disinformation campaign.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Now, you, Phelps and others are engaged in a non-factual smear campaign, and are committing the same acts that he accused the listener of doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Notice how Old Lib has only blank allegations??? And no facts to back them up. The truth no, matter how uncomfortable it makes you and your anti-democratic allies, is not a smear campaign. Your folks must be held accountable for what they have done and exposed for how it differs from what they say!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: And you don't see the parallels and irony, which makes you all the less competent and capable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Here we have conclusions with no facts to back up the allegations, how ironic your own BS is. You don't even know how to make a competent argument, which requires facts not just allegations. And actually You probably do know how to do it you just don't have any facts and you want to attack so you do so without facts.
RP: Do you really think that the intelligent people that read these posts will fall for your trite BS? I don't think so. But your aim is to smear me and Mara and anyone that stands up for the truth. The irony is that you accuse me and Mara of smearing people with out any facts and thus you are the one doing the smear campaign. As always I will gladly debate you or any of your allies on any issues regarding KPFA/Pacifica if you aren't too afraid to come out of hiding and let the people judge you by the truth or falsity of your arguements.
Richard Phelps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Richard Phelps sued a listener for having an opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: In his/her attempt to libel me for standing up for the truth at KPFA and Pacifica and against the patronage and cronyism that is trying to destroy our democratic process and transparency, Old Lib demonstrates ignorance or malice. Perhaps Old Lib doesn't know the difference between the statement of an opinion and the statement of a fact. An opinion starts out with "I think" or "I believe that Richard Phelps ...." When someone prints "Richard Phelps trashed Amy Goodmans's Democracy Now!" That is an not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. I asked him to support that libelous statement and all Mr. Weber could say was "lots of people trash DN!" I asked him what does that have to do with me and he had no answer but to repeat himself. He could produce NO facts to support his statenment. Everybody that knows me and has read my political writings knows that Weber's statement was a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Without a court hearing and decision that it was in fact libel (not slander), then it stands as the opinion of the listener and nothing more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Again Old Lib trying linguistic slight of hand. A statement of fact attributed to someone is not an opinion, it is a factual allegation and if wrong may be libelous. Since Mr. Weber has NO evedience to establish that I ever "trashed" DN! my point is clear. It was a lie, it was not an opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Phelps would have to prove it was deliberate, malicious in intent, and that he was harmed by it before the court would even make such a ruling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Not exactly true, the point is Weber said lots of thing as facts, not opinions , that were not true. And his failure to stop after being warned for many months constitutes malice. His factual statements that were lies were libelous on their face. The only thing I need a court ruling for would be to collect damages. By the way, how long have you been practicing law? You seem to have that "little bit of knowledge that is dangerous" especially for one who doesn't know the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old LIb: Richard Phelps sued a listener in an effort to intimidate him to silence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Now you are not stating the truth and you are stating it as a fact, not an opinion and you are dead wrong! I sued him to stop him from printing and distributing "Statements of fact about me that were lies". I don't give a damn about his opinions as did none of the Listeners in San Jose on Saturday at the LSB meeting when he did his disinformation campaign.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: Now, you, Phelps and others are engaged in a non-factual smear campaign, and are committing the same acts that he accused the listener of doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Notice how Old Lib has only blank allegations??? And no facts to back them up. The truth no, matter how uncomfortable it makes you and your anti-democratic allies, is not a smear campaign. Your folks must be held accountable for what they have done and exposed for how it differs from what they say!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Lib: And you don't see the parallels and irony, which makes you all the less competent and capable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Here we have conclusions with no facts to back up the allegations, how ironic your own BS is. You don't even know how to make a competent argument, which requires facts not just allegations. And actually You probably do know how to do it you just don't have any facts and you want to attack so you do so without facts.
RP: Do you really think that the intelligent people that read these posts will fall for your trite BS? I don't think so. But your aim is to smear me and Mara and anyone that stands up for the truth. The irony is that you accuse me and Mara of smearing people with out any facts and thus you are the one doing the smear campaign. As always I will gladly debate you or any of your allies on any issues regarding KPFA/Pacifica if you aren't too afraid to come out of hiding and let the people judge you by the truth or falsity of your arguements.
Richard Phelps
Aaron is not running this year, but please do not let that stop you from writing him in. Maybe this will encourage him to run in 2009.
My kpfa ballot is full of Phelps and his group in their group statement making libelous claims about other people by name, stating claims as though they were fact, several of which are obviously opinion, several of which are so vague as to obviously have several possible interpretations, and a few of which I know to be untrue. You are committing the same act, using Pacifica resources, that you site as the reason you sued a listener who wanted to participate in kpfa's democracy. Are you hoping Richard that those defamed will now follow your example and sue Pacifica for their defamation? Are we witnessing intentional destructive behavior or just ineptitude?
RP: Notice that they do not list ONE single fact to discuss or debate. They just make allegations. We really touched a nerve. They know that if the voters find out the BS that they have been doing under the guise of progressive radio they are in trouble. They want to kill the messenger. Folks, as always i will debates any of these anonymous blow hards who only know how to smear people with allegations. The truth will ste us free and expose the opportunists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My kpfa ballot is full of Phelps and his group in their group statement making libelous claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: NO FACTS stated just accusations withou facts??????? What's the matter did your dog eat your facts???.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
about other people by name, stating claims as though they were fact, several of which are obviously opinion, several of which are so vague as to obviously have several possible interpretations, and a few of which I know to be untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Where are they, the untrue ones, the vague ones????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are committing the same act, using Pacifica resources, that you site as the reason you sued a listener who wanted to participate in kpfa's democracy. Are you hoping Richard that those defamed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: the truth doesn't defame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
will now follow your example and sue Pacifica for their defamation? Are we witnessing intentional destructive behavior or just ineptitude?.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: the truth getting out to the voters really freaks you out. Simple solution, stop the dirty tricks and anti-democratic behavior and we won't have to do it again.
Richard Phelps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My kpfa ballot is full of Phelps and his group in their group statement making libelous claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: NO FACTS stated just accusations withou facts??????? What's the matter did your dog eat your facts???.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
about other people by name, stating claims as though they were fact, several of which are obviously opinion, several of which are so vague as to obviously have several possible interpretations, and a few of which I know to be untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: Where are they, the untrue ones, the vague ones????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are committing the same act, using Pacifica resources, that you site as the reason you sued a listener who wanted to participate in kpfa's democracy. Are you hoping Richard that those defamed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: the truth doesn't defame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
will now follow your example and sue Pacifica for their defamation? Are we witnessing intentional destructive behavior or just ineptitude?.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RP: the truth getting out to the voters really freaks you out. Simple solution, stop the dirty tricks and anti-democratic behavior and we won't have to do it again.
Richard Phelps
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network