This is truly worth watching - a quick but to the point comparison of two post-corporatism options:

Presidential candidate's, congressman Ron Paul's free market versus Peter Joseph's resource based (money free) economy (Zeitgeist-movement/Venus project)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE

There is a third option: Michael Albert's Participatory Economy which is also supported by Noam Chomsky. You find various hip hop songs and some videos here: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/lonnieatkinson
The maker of these songs, Lonnie Ray Atkinson, is encouraging other artists to take these and create their own version.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/ … n-orlando/

this time does not even mention Ron Paul even though he won its own online poll again (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/ … on-debate/)
Instead their headline is Romney wins in Orlando.

Below are the results of various measured results - online polls are not perfect but at least they have some base.

Of course the media as usual don't depend on any such measures and pick their candidates which just can't be someone who wants to hand back America to the people not corporations.

The Sydney Morning Herald published today 22. August 2011 the following:

Wiki war: 3500 unpublished leaks destroyed forever as Assange hits out


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's former right-hand man has irrevocably destroyed 3500 unpublished files leaked to the whistleblower site including the complete US no-fly list, five gigabytes of Bank of America documents and detailed information about 20 neo-Nazi groups.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who left WikiLeaks last year after a falling out with Assange, revealed the document destruction in an interview with Der Spiegel.

WikiLeaks has hit back, accusing Domscheit-Berg of being in bed with US intelligence agencies and of jeopardising the leaking of “many issues of public importance, human rights abuses, mass telecommunications interception, banking and the planning of dozens of neo-nazi groups”.

Along with the thousands of files, Domscheit-Berg also took the entire Wikileaks encrypted submission system with him on his way out to start a rival site, OpenLeaks. It has resulted in WikiLeaks being unable to receive leaked documents online for a year, with the site instead resorting to snail mail via an Australian P.O. Box at the University of Melbourne.


read the full article there: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno … 1j5gw.html

--------------------------
This looks pretty much as if the US and perhaps other secretive governments with a bad conscious have changed strategies to beat Wikileaks. Did they succeed to corrupt one of Wikileaks members to damage it's credibility and divert future leaks to better controlled organization?

It would be quite a feat by the media to manage persuade both the public and future whistle-blowers to divert its effort to seek the truth away from proven Wikileaks towards another "Openleaks". Openleaks so far has the opposite of a reliable track record here - its founder Domscheit-Berg stole and destroyed information that informants have submitted risking their lives - then he created a new site..

..highly suspicious and only strengthening Wikileaks position in my opinion.

Being pro war and pro civil liberties is always a bad marketing move in a society controlled by corporate media.

Any smaller or bigger security or terrorist events would be blamed on a president who reduces a military budget even by a tiny amount.
After decades of corporate media exposure, the American people have become to think that this tragedy would be the "weak" government/ president's fault that did not secure the country enough.

On the other hand, if nothing happens, no terrorist attack and suddenly no wars in the world -it will be because of the higher military budget that secured everyone so much that this problem is solved.
World peace, should it ever happen, could then be seen as a result of the military efforts of the UN (i.e. USA) - not despite it.

Either way, provided most people listen to corporate media, a president supporting the military industrial complex will have it much easier because he:

- can never be blamed for security problems - see argument above (unless people understand the concept of "blow back" which mainstream media do not want them to know about or take seriously)

- will get financial and media support from the rich and powerful (some corporations have more net worth than the 14 trillion $ debt of the US in 2011)

- will crush any serious competitor already in the pre-elections with various propaganda techniques

- will intimidate possible powerful anti-war politicans with threats, ridiculing, bribes or whatever it takes including assassination (possibly like John F Kennedy)


Considering the above points it might be easier to appreciate the efforts of the only serious (a decade long pro constitution track record) anti-war presidential candidate.
Ron Paul would certainly not go to war without asking for a majority of the congress as required in the constitution. This alone would be revolution to reintroduce democracy in this country.

Note: It may be possible to win an election being officially anti-war. Bush Junior is the best example. I am talking about actually cutting military budgets - not promising anything.
A real pro peace president will also likely face attempts to create friction and stimulate aggression amongst the US citizens. The stimulators (who would have a motive here?) would just need to send an underwear bomber to a rock-concert to sell more TSA nude scanners and a higher military budget..

In order to "stimulate" peace one would need to take the power away from those "stimulators" - slightly more challenging perhaps.

Thankfully, this weird problem is mostly restricted to the US as war there is a great business for the upper class and only a tax issue for the middle and lower class (a few thousand dead American soldiers and a few more traumatized and maimed for life are surely worth the benefits of "securing" the country of 300 million..will the media "remind" them)

In most other countries wars involve entire populations witnessing and experiencing atrocities while most have no large weapon industry benefiting at all. Other large weapon industries like Germany's cannot risk active wars as they are geographically to vulnerable - so they tend to behave better these days.

When will the US government start to behave better? Perhaps when they run out of money or the population realizes where their money goes?

I certainly am and proudly so.

Even though according to one published email where someone asked Chomsky if he would vote for Ron Paul over Sarah Palin, Chomsky answered with a "no".

Note he did not say he would vote for Palin or anyone else here.  I could imagine Chomsky has never had a chance to vote for someone whose overall policies he would support. If he does not believe in voting for the lesser evil - he may not vote anybody.

They are absolutely on the same page in terms of probably the most important issue: Foreign politics in particular wars and interventions.

Both have very reasonable although quite different approaches to solving US internal issues.

The horrific unconstitutional and expensive six wars the US is fighting now worldwide, are for me by far the biggest issue as it also directly linked to the debt/inflation problem and making the USA a target for terrorism.

As president, Ron Paul would not even need the approval of Congress or any Generals to withdraw the troops and bases - this is the one thing he could definitely do.

For anything else he would have to convince Congress. Ron Paul would not start another war without asking Congress first as the constitution demands. Ron Paul would do his best to return America to a democracy.

I am with Chomsky and for his participatory economics but I would be extremely happy if we "only" get rid of the decade long war business that created so much hatred against the US and weakened the dollar to a soon unavoidable collapse.

Both Chomsky and Paul are for less government, no wars for profit of a few, and more power to the people in particular the middle class and poor.

After reading dozens of comments on the Internet and talking to people I know, I now realize I must have misunderstood what the purpose of voting was. Now I know:

Voting is about predicting and betting on the likely winner! Same as in a dog race or football game - of course!

Stupid me, I seriously thought elections were surveys to gather opinions and lifestyle preferences of the population so we have proportional representation of the people in the government.

Today, this is old fashioned. Voting for someone who stands exactly for what we believe in is a mistake. It is more important to be able to say "I voted for the winner - therefore I won!"

Of course we need to have at least two parties for that "game" - otherwise everyone will be a winner - like in a dictatorship. That would be too easy.

In other words, our votes are wasted if we don't use them on someone, who the media tell us, has a "realistic" chance of winning.

Thank you mainstream media for telling us who to vote for! I finally got it right.

It is good to feel needed and taken care of,

the people.

I am glad corporate media put so much effort into telling us that e.g. Ron Paul has no chance - they really want us to bet on - ahem vote for their winner and not waste a precious vote. They know this game so much better than us stupid people.

After reading dozens of comments on the internet and talking to people I know, I now realize I must have misunderstood what the purpose of voting was. Now I know.

Voting is about predicting and betting on the likely winner! Same as in a dog race or football game - of course!

Stupid me, I seriously thought elections were surveys to gather opinions and lifestyle preferences of the population so we have proportional representation of the people in the government.

Today, this is old fashioned. Voting for someone who stands exactly for what I believe in is a mistake. It is more important to be able to say I voted for the winner - therefore I won!
Of course we need to have at least two parties for that "game" - other wise everyone will be a winner - like in a dictatorship.

In other words, my vote is wasted if don't use it on someone who the media tell me has a good chance of winning.

Thank you mainstream media for telling us who to vote for!

It is good to feel needed and taken care of,

the people

Why would anyone trust people like Romney (a business man - hello?), Perry or Bachmann?

Why would they be more suitable to change and fix the system than a man with a decade long track record, a peace loving expert in economics and foreign policy and an incredibly skilled debater with all the facts on his side?

Ron Paul continues to amaze me. Despite the many years of outrageous, respect-less and undemocratic hostility from corporate media which would have crushed any of the other candidates many times over -  he comes out stronger again!

Had any of the other candidates experienced similar treats they would have become angry, bitter, aggressive and likely given up on their principles. After all they are all rich and would not need to work at all. Not so Ron Paul - he clearly does it for his children and the future generations - he personally has little reason to want that job - but knows he has the obligation to go for it as their is nobody else who would seriously end the wars or fix the economy not just short term.

Despite or maybe because of the higher age he is clearly more suitable to resist  to fight established cancer in this country like the FED, the fiat system and trillions of spending on contra-productive military action - than any other politician I can remember.

After Iowa the media will have to switch tactics and probably concentrate on the "unelectable" card (a card they had to create since they have nothing else) - a no-argument with zero facts but at least the power to create a myth is naturally on the media side.

For someone in the media to call or even suggest a political candidate is not "electable" would be unthinkable and probably illegal in most democracies in Europe and even Australia. Why? Because it undermines democracy. No so in the US.

Ron Paul has more skills for this job than any of his competitors - how come they are not the unelectable ones?

If Paul had a similar media support than Bachmann or Perry he would be light years ahead and major challenge for Obama's 1 billion dollar campaign. In fact according to various polls he is already Obama's biggest challenger.

Congress man Ron Paul's skills and "assets" amongst others:

1) understands economics (see his books)
2) understands foreign politics (see his books)
3) knows and respects the constitution (consistent decades long voting record in congress)
4) impeccable personal history
5) world class debating and communication skills (watch any videos on youtube)
6) 30 years of experience in politics, debating, writing bills, fighting and dealing with strong opposition
7) respects everyone and treats everyone fair - even his (and ours) biggest enemy: Ben Bernanke
8) values peoples liberties, trusts in their abilities and wants to end the economy and life crushing war activities
9) appears instantly trustworthy to everyone who gets a chance to learn about him
10) not afraid to talk straight, tell the truth even if this could lead to his assassination

Who would be better suited to change America for the better?

Perry, Bachmann or Obama - how many ticks on that list do they get? Who is unelectable?

For any one studying media propaganda this is a great article in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/po … p;emc=tha2

Its title is "After Iowa, Republicans Face a New Landscape" and is listed under "Top News" in "Today's Headlines" which I receive as an email alert.


These are 1254 words about a bunch of people who are trying to win a "Miss wet shirt 2011 contest" or a not serious dog race (where nobody cares about the dog's backgrounds and skills).

Just replace the names with unknown names and you see what I mean.

It is full of general rhetoric with virtually no information on the candidates positions (or changes thereof) and qualification  whatsoever other than incomplete strategic positioning against each other mixed with propaganda:

  • As he entered the room, P declared: “Man, y’all got a crowd here; this is awesome.” 

  • X applauded politely when Y criticized Z, but otherwise sat quietly during her speech. 

  • “We’ve got three to four debates in September,” he said. “We will all be on the same stage, and everybody gets to make their judgments.” 

  • and on and on and...

This "Top News" article in supposedly one of the best papers in the country is not only ignoring and harming the only anti war and pro sound money candidate but has virtually zero news / information value - oh, not quite:

There is really only message (not even factual information) in this 2 page article we are made to believe: After Iowa it is a Romney (placed 6)-Perry(side stepped proper polling) -Bachmann (close 1st) race while the near winner of the last poll is not worth mentioning - the one who keeps winning virtually all on-line polls and is hard to beat with anything factual in any serious debates.

That's it. Nothing what any candidates stands for their (or a link to their positions), are they consistent, believable, background, some personal history....- who would care?

In even a rudimentary democracy, if Ron Paul or anyone else would be promoting Americans should build a colony on Mars and move there asap the person would deserve more mentioning than he currently does being the only one believably promoting peace, sound money and return to the constitution and true democracy.

Ron Paul's name was only mentioned once - in the third last sentence of a 1254 word article: "Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who finished a close second in the straw poll, could also influence the race with his strain of libertarian views that have become more popular in this economic climate."

Names mentioned in the article:
Bachmann 15x
Perry 19x
Romney 14x
Paul 1x

New York Times readers could save a lot of time reading long articles if they just published names and repeat them to their liking. It will be the same message and the article would only be 49 words long (without the title).   

Even during elections in Nicaragua about 10 years ago,  I feel I got more information about the candidates from the songs they were singing in the streets (while handing out candies) and the hard to hear and short speeches of politicians who try to appeal to people most of which could (or did) read any news papers.

Faces of politicians where painted on rocks with the hope voters would recognize them when make their cross... I used to think this is not much different than in the US and some other countries - I am beginning to wish the US would do at least something like that these days.

Democratic elections for the chief executive (with already near dictatorial powers) of the world's largest economy and war industry have become a mere joke and an embarrassment for other democracies in the world. It is exactly as Noam Chomsky said about the 2008 elections: "Obama was sold like toothpaste". This time round it is more like winning Miss Wet Shirt 2012 - with daily mainstream  media coverage.

Given this kind of media atmosphere.. it must sound utterly bizarre and out of this world if someone suggested a simple website with the candidates positions and qualifications. No media coverage at all - anyone interested can look up the info there. This would be a 1000 $ dollar campaign with a decent web-host and one part time site administrator.

Everyone would get nearly the same chance and a billion dollar of campaign donations could be saved . Of course just this thought must appear equally out of this world as fair (meaning: not heavily biased) media coverage or peace and sound money.

The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.

In many cases, these giant companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution.

90% of the US Media is Owned by Six Corporations:
CBS, Disney, GE, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom

Here are interactive charts listing the hundreds of companies owned by these corporations
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

You can actually chose to see the biggest companies in the categories:
The Big Six   Cable   TV   Print   Telecom   Radio   

I would like to see the biggest in Europe and Asia - will update when I find something.

Thanks to http://www.sprword.com/ for pointing to the above and many other must see websites.

Here is an interesting website / startup that offers videos with subtitles in many languages: DotSub.com.  http://dotsub.com

Anyone can upload and translate transcripts. The company dotsub has recently become the platform to translate the popular TED talks in many languages using its crowd sourcing according to

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/ … its-talks/


Here is a interview with the founder of dotsub.com http://vimeo.com/13042693

So this is not only a good source for videos but also a chance to actively contribute to help distributing important documentaries throughout different cultures - if you speak anotehr language or simply create the first transcript or even just upload a video there - so someone else may volunteer to the next step.

Here is a very recent warning issued by congressman Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHCkFPaePPQ

He says the US is gettting very close to a collapse of its currency. When it happens it is likely to bring down other courencies like the Euro too as they hold US dollars as reserves.

Here is a piece on NATO's war in Libya, titled "The West is doing the right thing" t
Read the full story at http://www.redress.cc/global/nsabir20110321
--------------------------
By Nureddin Sabir

Editor, Redress Information & Analysis

[excerpt]

Right suspicion, wrong opposition

Some of our friends accuse the United States, France and Britain of hypocrisy and double standards, arguing that these same countries shrugged their shoulders or tacitly supported similar or worse crimes committed by Israel, notably in Gaza, and are only willing to offer weasel word in the case of gross human rights violations committed by the regimes in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, among others.

That is very true. The United States and its allies in Britain, France and elsewhere are hypocrites who decry crimes against humanity in one place while simultaneously ignoring or supporting them in another. But that does not mean that we should denounce them when they actually do the right thing just because they are not doing the right thing across the board.

We have every right to be suspicious of the ulterior motives that may lie behind Barack Obama’s, Nicolas Sarkozy’s and David Cameron’s sudden dash for the moral high ground in Libya.

But it does not follow that our suspicion should automatically translate into opposition even when these leaders do the right thing to fulfill an urgent need, in this case protecting the Libyan people from a brutal, amoral, traitor who only a few days ago, on Thursday 17 March, promised to occupy Benghazi – a city of one million people – within hours and drown its inhabitants in blood.

this was just an excerpt from http://www.redress.cc/global/nsabir20110321
Read the full article there.

Finally there is an official study of the ridiculous media blackout the only serious anti-war candidate Ron Paul has received:

"Study says it's official: The media is ignoring Ron Paul" at the SanFrancisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov … y_id=95608

According to the study:

"Paul's coverage also lags far behind (Donald) Trump (94 stories), who dallied with a run before opting out in mid-May and (former Alaska Gov. Sarah) Palin (85 stories), who has given no indication to date that she will enter the race. In addition, Paul trails longshot candidate and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman (44 stories) and Texas Governor, Rick Perry (33 stories) who only announced his candidacy on August 13."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov … z1VkEDNrt4

I suspect, if a crazy beggar from the streets with the aim to sell America to China would run for president, he would probably beat Obama in terms of news coverage. This may stop though the moment he gets a significant following... and all other candidates talk air with no real ambition to change the current road to disaster..

Ron Paul won the California Straw poll http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing … mann-.html

Surprise, a few days later the Texas straw poll has been canceled for lack "of interest" by the candidates. Read more here: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-cheate … -poll-win/

Following a September 12 Republican debate in Cincinnati, a straw poll found Ron Paul to be the winner. However, CNN refused to release the results of the poll and instead published an online poll, omitting Ron Paul from the list of candidates.

See a list of all polls here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll … ries,_2012

I find it hard to believe it can get more obvious. US media do not even pretend anymore to provide information without propaganda. Do they really think the American people are that stupid? Looking at the chart below ... I don't think so.

Below is the visual representation of the latest straw poll winners (but remember the media tell you that the yellow one is the only who is not "electable") according to wikipedia (appears more democratic than the US mainstream media).

Here are some important videos which you will not likely see on television in many countries. All of which can be watched online (search free documentaries, try youtube or google-videos or search in this forum) - even better pay for a dvd or download, it is money well spent. If you have only time for one or two documentaries this year - we recommend the first two parts of "The Century of Self" and as a bonus "Manufacturing consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" or "Pyramides of Waste".

"Pyramids of Waste" also known as "The light bulb conspiracy"
.. is a 2010 documentary by Cosima Dannoritzer that tells the untold story of Planned Obsolescence (the deliberate shortening of product life spans by manufacturers to guarantee consumer demand.

It provides astonishing evidence that the leading manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs have conspired already in the early 20th century to keep the lifetime of their bulbs far below their real technological capabilities. This way, they ensure the continuous demand for more bulbs and hence, long-term profit for themselves. Planned obsolescence has continued until today with self disabling printers (that could be hacked with software written by a russian engineer to work again) and more.

"The Century of Self"
.. is an award winning British television (BBC) documentary film in 4 (55min) parts by Adam Curtis that focuses on the family of Sigmund Freud, particularly his daughter and nephew, who influenced the way corporations and governments throughout the 20th century have thought about, and dealt with, people.
Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy, commodification and its implications. It also questions the modern way we see ourselves, the attitudes to fashion and superficiality.

"Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media"
..is a 1992 documentary film that explores the political life and ideas of Noam Chomsky, a linguist, intellectual, and political activist. Created by two Canadian filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, it expands on the ideas of Chomsky's earlier book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which he co-wrote with Edward S. Herman.

The film presents and illustrates Chomsky's and Herman's thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination of the history of The New York Times' coverage of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky says exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally of the elite.

"Capitalism: A Love Story"
.. is a 2009 American documentary film directed, written by and starring Michael Moore. The film centers on the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and the recovery stimulus, while putting forward an indictment of the current economic order in the United States and capitalism in general.

Topics covered include Wall Street's "casino mentality", for-profit prisons, Goldman Sachs' influence in Washington, D.C., the poverty-level wages of many workers, the large wave of home foreclosures, corporate-owned life insurance, and the consequences of "runaway greed".
The film also features a religious component where Moore examines whether or not capitalism is a sin and if Jesus would be a capitalist.

"The War on Democracy"
.. is a 2007 award-winning documentary film directed by Christopher Martin and John Pilger.
The film uses archive footage to support its claim that democracy has been wiped out in country after country in Latin America since the 1950s. Testimonies from those who fought for democracy in Chile and Bolivia are also used.  It allows viewers to understand the true nature of the so-called war on terror.

Pilger traveled through Venezuela with its president, Hugo Chavez, who he regards as an example for an oil-producing nation who has used its resources democratically for the education and health of its people.

The Venezuelan segment of the film features the coup of 2002, captured in archival footage. The film holds that the 2002 coup against Chavez was backed by rich and powerful interests under U.S. support and that Chavez was brought back to power by the Venezuelan people. Pilger describes the advances in Venezuela’s new social democracy.

Watch at http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e18236.htm

[I found "The War on Democracy" perhaps even more informative and convincing than the 2009 documentary by Oliver Stone "South of the Border" where Stone travels throughout Latin America interviewing its presidents trying to show a different Angle than the mainstream media.]

"Zeitgeist: Addendum"
..is a 2008 sequel  by Peter Joseph divided into 4 parts.

Part One states that money is the most corrosive societal tradition and explains the monetary system and its policies in the United States through the fractional reserve banking system as illustrated in the pamphlet, "Modern Money Mechanics". In clarifying, Part One explains how money creation as an exchange between the government and the central bank (Federal Reserve in the U.S.), creates a perpetual cycle of interest and inflation, summarizing that money and debt are necessarily correlated and increasing.

Part Two shares an interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit-man, who explains his own role in the facilitation of subjugation of Latin American economies by multinational corporations, including the United States government's involvement in the overthrow and installation of various Latin American heads-of-state. Perkins asserts that there are three steps required to conquer the target nation:

   1. Arranging loans that will be impossible to repay,
   2. Using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank to force the host nation to renegotiate the debt through agreements that result in currency devaluation, resources being made available at a low cost, selling of public services to foreign corporations, support in foreign conflicts, etc. When these steps fail, the second measure taken is to overthrow the government, through assassinations, staged protests, and bribery. The history of Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, and the Shah in Iran, are used as asserted examples of economic subjugation.
   3. As a last resort, the military is sent to topple regimes, and Iraq is shown as one of these cases.

Part Three introduces Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project, and asserts a need to move away from the current socioeconomic paradigms. Fresco states that free market enterprise and capitalism do not promote efficiency, abundance nor human progress.

Part Four suggests several means of social change, largely via non-violent boycotting and educating, in order to oppose rigid social institutions.

"Who killed the electric car"
.. is a 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent recall and destruction of the several thousands of the the electric vehicles in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid 1990s.
Director Chris Paine announced that he had started a new documentary about electric cars with a working title of "Who Saved the Electric Car?" later renamed "Revenge of the Electric Car".

"The story of stuff" 
.. is a 20-minute video by Filmmaker Annie Leonard presenting a critical vision of consumerist society, primarily American. It purports to expose "the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world.
The video is divided into seven chapters: Introduction, Extraction, Production, Distribution, Consumption, Disposal, and Another Way.

To articulate the problems in the system, Leonard adds people, the government, and corporations.
Leonard's thesis, "you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely" is supported throughout the video by statistical data. This video and some more recent ones (about recent legislation to remove donation limits for political candidates, the selling of water bottles, electronic waste etc..) are available for free on http://www.storyofstuff.com/


"Hacking Democracy"
.. is a 2006 documentary film by producer Robert Carrillo Cohen and producer / directors Russell Michaels and Simon Ardizzone, shown on HBO. Filmed over three years it documents American citizens investigating anomalies and irregularities with 'e-voting' (electronic voting) systems that occurred during America's 2000 and 2004 elections, especially in Volusia County, Florida. The film investigates the flawed integrity of electronic voting machines, particularly those made by Diebold Election Systems, and the film culminates dramatically in the on-camera hacking of the in-use / working Diebold election system in Leon County, Florida.

On Dec 18th 2004, US voting machine manufacturer Diebold Election Systems was to pay a $2.6 million settlement to the State of California over the lawsuit filed by the state in September alleging that Diebold was not truthful about the security and reliability of its electronic voting machines. No further consequences. They or others can do it again - only this time they have a reference for the price tag to allow hacking democracy. Side note: the 2012 US presidential election campaign of Obama is expected to cost about 1000 million US.

In 2007 Hacking Democracy was nominated for an Emmy award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism.

"911 In Plane Sight"
..is a 2004 documentary which explains a number of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Photographs and video footage from the September 11 attacks are presented as evidence that the public was not given all of the facts surrounding the "worst terrorist attack in U.S. history". The full-length version of documentary was released on Google Video in January 2007.

"Wag the dog"
.. is a 1997 black comedy film (in this case "a might be" documentary) starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro, about a Washington spin doctor who, merely days before a presidential election, distracts the electorate from a sex scandal by hiring a Hollywood film producer to construct a fake war with Albania.

The film differs significantly from the book it is loosely based on. In the book, the president is specifically George H. W. Bush, while in the movie the president is unnamed; the fake war operation is explicitly Desert Storm, and the war actually occurs, instead of being entirely falsified. The film was nominated for two Academy awards.

"Sicko"
.. is a 2007 documentary film by American filmmaker Michael Moore. The film investigates health care in the United States, focusing on its health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry. The movie compares the for-profit, non-universal U.S. system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba.

"America: Freedom to Fascism"
.. is a 2006 film by Aaron Russo, covering many subjects, including: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines,[1] globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the alleged use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.