John Edwards Hates Christians
Patriot Games
Monday, Feb. 12, 2007 11:19 p.m. EST
Blogger Quits Edwards Campaign
One of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate
John Edwards quit Monday after conservative critics raised questions about
her history of provocative online messages.
Amanda Marcotte posted on her personal blog, Pandagon, that the criticism
"was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was
risking the Edwards campaign." Marcotte said she resigned from her position
Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.
Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, confirmed that
Marcotte was "no longer working for the campaign." She declined additional
comment.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil
Rights, demanded last week that Edwards fire Marcotte and a second blogger,
Melissa McEwan, for remarks he deemed anti-Catholic. Edwards, a former North
Carolina senator, called the messages personally offensive, but decided to
keep Marcotte and McEwan on staff.
"No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter
and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to
do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time
than harass me, then I won't do it," Marcotte wrote Monday night.
Earlier Monday, Marcotte wrote on her personal Web site, "The Christian
version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal,
where ... women are nothing but vessels."
Donohue called both Marcotte and McEwan "foul-mouthed bigots." He did not
return a phone call seeking comment Monday night.
McEwan remains on the Edwards campaign staff. She did not return messages
left Monday.
BC
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/12/232018.shtml?s=ic
>
> Monday, Feb. 12, 2007 11:19 p.m. EST
> Blogger Quits Edwards Campaign
>
> One of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate
> John Edwards quit Monday after conservative critics raised questions about
> her history of provocative online messages.
>
> "was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was
> Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.
>
> comment.
>
> Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil
> Melissa McEwan, for remarks he deemed anti-Catholic. Edwards, a former North
> Carolina senator, called the messages personally offensive, but decided to
>
> "No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter
> and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to
> do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time
> than harass me, then I won't do it,"Marcottewrote Monday night.
>
> version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal,
> where ... women are nothing but vessels."
>
> return a phone call seeking comment Monday night.
>
> McEwan remains on the Edwards campaign staff. She did not return messages
> left Monday.
I'm not entirely surprised -- the right wing part of the blogosphere
is much, much more unified than the moderate/leftist section,
and when they get their smear on, they attack like cracked-up
hornets. Still it's very disappointing that both Amanda Marcotte
and Melissa McEwan ended up resigning -- while I'm not exactly
a fan, Marcotte's blogs at least weren't written as though the
intended audience hasn't a friggin clue about what actually is
going on in the world -- which is much more typical of right wing
blog sites. The bad guys like that clown Donohue, as well as
the usual malicious fools like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin,
win another one unfortunately....
-BC
Patriot Games
news:1171434244.6...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 6:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/12/232018.shtml?s=ic
>> Monday, Feb. 12, 2007 11:19 p.m. EST
>> Blogger Quits Edwards Campaign
> is much, much more unified than the moderate/leftist section,
> and when they get their smear on, they attack like cracked-up
> hornets.
"Cracked-up hornets"!! I like that...
> Still it's very disappointing that both Amanda Marcotte
> and Melissa McEwan ended up resigning -- while I'm not exactly
> a fan, Marcotte's blogs at least weren't written as though the
> intended audience hasn't a friggin clue about what actually is
> going on in the world -- which is much more typical of right wing
> blog sites. The bad guys like that clown Donohue, as well as
> the usual malicious fools like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin,
> win another one unfortunately....
But try to see the bigger picture... This notion that zillions of people
are getting their news from the Internet is BULLSHIT. It was invented by
several newspapers when the print circulation started declining.
Edwards was an idiot, or he hired an idiot, (or both). Both of those
bloggers shouldn't be associated with anyone's campaign.
Even if you like those bloggers you should be smart enough to know that
America considers itself to be about 80% Christian, with the majority being
in the South. Its just a fact.
You can't be President without winning the South, Edwards is southern,
Christians are southern, and that dumbass Edwards just shot himself in the
head....
BC
> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have to say that he did mishandle it badly. Whoever gets
nominated to run as President on the Democratic side will
have to deal with many months of attacks by the "cracked
up hornets" from the right. This thing with the bloggers was
just a taste of things to come. While it may have seemed
like a good, idealistic idea at the time on paper at least, the
idea of hiring a couple of liberal hipster bloggers should have
had a reality check on the nature of the blogosphere. It's not
"the new media" -- it's mostly a land of confusion, urban
legends and cultural hostility where people, especially those
on the right, don't play nice or fair, with logic, science and
facts be damned. The right wing blog sites are very much
linked together and often behave as a unified block on things
they don't like, for better or worse. And Democrat who fails
to recognize this and prepare for it will be screwed over
royally. This maybe grossly unfair, but that's the reality of
it.
This, by the way, makes Hilary Clinton a much stronger
candidate than is generally recognized -- her husband Bill
got it right with his "war room" approach to dealing with the
inevitable Republican campaign of smears and disinformation.
The addition of a unified and hostile right wing blogger front
combined with the ever increasing timidity of the mainstream
corporate press will require an even more aggressive and
comprehensive "war room" approach on the next go round,
and I don't think Obama will be able to pull that off. Edwards
has shown he sure can't.
-BC
Patriot Games
That's business as usual. It'll be a nasty-dirty campaign.
> This thing with the bloggers was
> just a taste of things to come.
I think you're correct.
> While it may have seemed
> like a good, idealistic idea at the time on paper at least, the
> idea of hiring a couple of liberal hipster bloggers should have
> had a reality check on the nature of the blogosphere. It's not
> "the new media" -- it's mostly a land of confusion, urban
> legends and cultural hostility where people, especially those
> on the right, don't play nice or fair, with logic, science and
> facts be damned.
The Left is equally guilty.
> The right wing blog sites are very much
> linked together and often behave as a unified block on things
> they don't like, for better or worse. And Democrat who fails
> to recognize this and prepare for it will be screwed over
> royally. This maybe grossly unfair, but that's the reality of
> it.
> This, by the way, makes Hilary Clinton a much stronger
> candidate than is generally recognized -- her husband Bill
> got it right with his "war room" approach to dealing with the
> inevitable Republican campaign of smears and disinformation.
> The addition of a unified and hostile right wing blogger front
> combined with the ever increasing timidity of the mainstream
> corporate press will require an even more aggressive and
> comprehensive "war room" approach on the next go round,
> and I don't think Obama will be able to pull that off. Edwards
> has shown he sure can't.
Obama is a babe in woods here... He's done.
BC
No. Not even remotely close. Rummage through
any of the most popular right wing blog sites and
then do likewise for popular leftist/progressive
ones -- you'll find a huge difference in tone, use of
full, proper context, quality of cites and supporting
evidence, general reasoning, and overall grasp of
facts, and how one uses outright insults and crude,
cruel smears and how the other uses satire,
caricature, and smartalecky but usually insightful
quips.
Also the right wing blogs are far more connected
to each other and the general right wing media,
including Fox News, with a network of links, than
their left/progressive counterparts. You have people
like Michelle Malkin functioning as sort of a general
nexus for the right, connecting bloggers with Fox
News and right wing publications.
The end result is typically much like what happened
those two liberal "bloggers" of Edwards, Amanda
Marcotte and Melissa McEwan (actually McEwan
was just a part-time technical advisor): just pick any
right wing blog site that had something to say about
them and just follow the links to the other right blog
sites. Either Wizbangblog.com or MichelleMalkin.com
would be a good place to start.
>
>
>
> > The right wing blog sites are very much
> > linked together and often behave as a unified block on things
> > they don't like, for better or worse. And Democrat who fails
> > to recognize this and prepare for it will be screwed over
> > royally. This maybe grossly unfair, but that's the reality of
> > it.
> > This, by the way, makes Hilary Clinton a much stronger
> > candidate than is generally recognized -- her husband Bill
> > got it right with his "war room" approach to dealing with the
> > inevitable Republican campaign of smears and disinformation.
> > The addition of a unified and hostile right wing blogger front
> > combined with the ever increasing timidity of the mainstream
> > corporate press will require an even more aggressive and
> > comprehensive "war room" approach on the next go round,
> > and I don't think Obama will be able to pull that off. Edwards
> > has shown he sure can't.
>
> Obama is a babe in woods here... He's done.
It depends if he gets the nomination and Hilary
and Bill decide and are allowed to help. He may
be the babe, but the Clintons would make for a
good pair of wolves to have at your side.
-BC
Patriot Games
> On Feb 14, 5:38 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171479540.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No. Not even remotely close. Rummage through
> any of the most popular right wing blog sites and
> then do likewise for popular leftist/progressive
> ones -- you'll find a huge difference in tone, use of
> full, proper context, quality of cites and supporting
> evidence, general reasoning, and overall grasp of
> facts, and how one uses outright insults and crude,
> cruel smears and how the other uses satire,
> caricature, and smartalecky but usually insightful
> quips.
You're not even remotely close. Rummage through any of the most popular left
wing blog sites and then do likewise for popular rightest/conservative
ones -- you'll find a huge difference in tone, use of full, proper context,
quality of cites and supporting evidence, general reasoning, and overall
grasp of facts, and how one uses outright insults and crude, cruel smears
and how the other uses satire, caricature, and smartalecky but usually
insightful quips.
> Also the right wing blogs are far more connected
> to each other and the general right wing media,
> including Fox News, with a network of links, than
> their left/progressive counterparts. You have people
> like Michelle Malkin functioning as sort of a general
> nexus for the right, connecting bloggers with Fox
> News and right wing publications.
The Right is more organized, more united along a few tight common themes.
>> Obama is a babe in woods here... He's done.
> It depends if he gets the nomination and Hilary
> and Bill decide and are allowed to help. He may
> be the babe, but the Clintons would make for a
> good pair of wolves to have at your side.
A couple of days ago Obama said that the sons and daughters of the voters in
the Bible Belt WASTED their lives..... Nevermind that he apologised, nobody
will remember that.
Obama is done but he hasn't admitted it yet.
Edward, on the other hand, is done BUT he admitted it. His response to
having two anti-Christian employees was to go FARTHER Left by demanding
funding cuts for the troops. Let me rephrase that:
'Dear Christian Middle Americans & Bible Belters. My opponent, that colored
guy from up north, who said your sons and daughters lives were WASTED didn't
tell you the whole story. The whole story is that I will make sure they are
WASTED because I will leave them on the other side of the world with LESS
FUNDING and NO political support. Thanks, and please vote for me.'
Yeah, Edwards is done.
BC
> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171495836.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 14, 5:38 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1171479540.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> The Left is equally guilty.
> > No. Not even remotely close. Rummage through
> > any of the most popular right wing blog sites and
> > then do likewise for popular leftist/progressive
> > ones -- you'll find a huge difference in tone, use of
> > full, proper context, quality of cites and supporting
> > evidence, general reasoning, and overall grasp of
> > facts, and how one uses outright insults and crude,
> > cruel smears and how the other uses satire,
> > caricature, and smartalecky but usually insightful
> > quips.
>
> You're not even remotely close. Rummage through any of the most popular left
> wing blog sites and then do likewise for popular rightest/conservative
> ones -- you'll find a huge difference in tone, use of full, proper context,
> quality of cites and supporting evidence, general reasoning, and overall
> grasp of facts, and how one uses outright insults and crude, cruel smears
> and how the other uses satire, caricature, and smartalecky but usually
> insightful quips.
You must have gotten a bad supply of hillbilly crack.
Here is a dandy example showing how the right wing
uses tone, out of context excerpts, and a crass
presentation to make a smear (what they would label
a point): it's Michelle Malkin on the blogger that
Edwards has hired:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006823.htm
If you go through any of most popular right wing
blog sites like The Free Republic, LGF, Wizbang,
Powerline, Instapundit, whatever and randomly
fact check any of their articles, discussions, or
whatever, it's pretty much all BS nonsense with
anything they touch on other than anecdotal human
interest stuff. If it's politics, you can be sure that it
will involve words taken out of context or just
completely misquoted, utterly non-credible sources,
snide insults, a distrust of science and the well-
educated, along with a depiction of a scary enemy
slash world where only voting for lying-ass
incompetent, idea & ideal-less Republicans and
good old conservative values can save you.
Seriously, you literally might as well be listening
to a bunch of office workers in a sports bar on a
Friday night before them all getting into their SUV's
to head back home out to the suburbs. This is not
news nor well-informed commentary. It's a bunch of
opinionated people with snippets of info and a very
fuzzy overall grasp of facts shooting their mouths off
about things they have little if any knowledge or
understanding of.
>
> > Also the right wing blogs are far more connected
> > to each other and the general right wing media,
> > including Fox News, with a network of links, than
> > their left/progressive counterparts. You have people
> > like Michelle Malkin functioning as sort of a general
> > nexus for the right, connecting bloggers with Fox
> > News and right wing publications.
>
> The Right is more organized, more united along a few tight common themes.
>
> >> Obama is a babe in woods here... He's done.
> > It depends if he gets the nomination and Hilary
> > and Bill decide and are allowed to help. He may
> > be the babe, but the Clintons would make for a
> > good pair of wolves to have at your side.
>
> A couple of days ago Obama said that the sons and daughters of the voters in
> the Bible Belt WASTED their lives..... Nevermind that he apologised, nobody
> will remember that.
>
> Obama is done but he hasn't admitted it yet.
Nah, it way too premature for that. He should be taking
a good hard look at what Edwards just went through
and try to really understand what he's signed on for.
>
> Edward, on the other hand, is done BUT he admitted it. His response to
> having two anti-Christian employees was to go FARTHER Left by demanding
> funding cuts for the troops. Let me rephrase that:
>
> 'Dear Christian Middle Americans & Bible Belters. My opponent, that colored
> guy from up north, who said your sons and daughters lives were WASTED didn't
> tell you the whole story. The whole story is that I will make sure they are
> WASTED because I will leave them on the other side of the world with LESS
> FUNDING and NO political support. Thanks, and please vote for me.'
>
> Yeah, Edwards is done.
It's still kind of early to call anyone done, even Edwards.
If he truly learns from this and runs a much more heads
up campaign from now on, you never know. Of course
if pigs sprouted wings....
-BC
Patriot Games
> On Feb 15, 11:50 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The Left and the Right are IDENTICAL in their ranting.
The difference is YOU are romanced by the Left, their ranting appeals to
you, so you fail to see it objectively.
Fine. Most people lean one way or the other AND don't think they're
leaning...
>> Obama is done but he hasn't admitted it yet.
> Nah, it way too premature for that. He should be taking
> a good hard look at what Edwards just went through
> and try to really understand what he's signed on for.
Obama, if he can get some money, if he can make not one single mistake or
mis-statement, just maybe be able to hang in there and get picked as a VP.
>> Edward, on the other hand, is done BUT he admitted it. His response to
>> having two anti-Christian employees was to go FARTHER Left by demanding
>> funding cuts for the troops. Let me rephrase that:
>> 'Dear Christian Middle Americans & Bible Belters. My opponent, that
>> colored
>> guy from up north, who said your sons and daughters lives were WASTED
>> didn't
>> tell you the whole story. The whole story is that I will make sure they
>> are
>> WASTED because I will leave them on the other side of the world with LESS
>> FUNDING and NO political support. Thanks, and please vote for me.'
>> Yeah, Edwards is done.
> It's still kind of early to call anyone done, even Edwards.
C'mon. Then explain to me how a Christian is going to accept being ATTACKED
by Edwards' employees whom he SUPPORTED??? You can't.... Its unacceptable
to them and they will never forgive that attack.
The same thing is true for Obama. His mis-statement directly insulted the
families of our war dead. You can't really think he'll ever be forgiven for
that do you?
Some things can be pushed aside because its early in the process. But ask
yourself this: Even if nothing is mentioned for 9 months would a Christian
or the mother of a dead soldier EVER forget what was said to and about them?
Of course not. THOSE type of things come back to haunt ya....
> If he truly learns from this and runs a much more heads
> up campaign from now on, you never know. Of course
> if pigs sprouted wings....
Its Hillary all the way.....
And the campaign is going to be the Clash of the Century: Socialism vs.
Capitalim.
BC
> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171568602.7...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:50 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > You must have gotten a bad supply of hillbilly crack.
>
> The Left and the Right are IDENTICAL in their ranting.
>
> The difference is YOU are romanced by the Left, their ranting appeals to
> you, so you fail to see it objectively.
Hardly. I fact check and research all the time. There
is a huge difference in quality. Although, to be fair, I
consider blogs in general, regardless of their political
bents, to be unreliable sources of information compared
to even our increasingly timid and journalistically
messed-up mainstream media. But in the context of
just the blogosphere, the leftist/progressive site are far
better sources of info than the right wing ones. Feel
free to try to refute this: just pick any topic that's been
commented on at length by bloggers. I'll take the latest
threads from 3 of the top right wing bloggers and do
likewise with those from the left. I guarantee this will
underscore and boldface my point.
[Note: this is a repost -- the new friggin Google
Groups sent my original post to the Phanom Zone or
whatever. Since I had lost another long posting very
recently, I thought to make a quick save just before
posting to be on the safe side. I added a few things
since. FYI.]
>
> Fine. Most people lean one way or the other AND don't think they're
> leaning...
>
> >> Obama is done but he hasn't admitted it yet.
> > Nah, it way too premature for that. He should be taking
> > a good hard look at what Edwards just went through
> > and try to really understand what he's signed on for.
>
> Obama, if he can get some money, if he can make not one single mistake or
> mis-statement, just maybe be able to hang in there and get picked as a VP.
I'm leaning towards agreement here, but I don't know
enough about him to see if he can rise/not rise to the
challenge.
>
> >> Edward, on the other hand, is done BUT he admitted it. His response to
> >> having two anti-Christian employees was to go FARTHER Left by demanding
> >> funding cuts for the troops. Let me rephrase that:
> >> 'Dear Christian Middle Americans & Bible Belters. My opponent, that
> >> colored
> >> guy from up north, who said your sons and daughters lives were WASTED
> >> didn't
> >> tell you the whole story. The whole story is that I will make sure they
> >> are
> >> WASTED because I will leave them on the other side of the world with LESS
> >> FUNDING and NO political support. Thanks, and please vote for me.'
> >> Yeah, Edwards is done.
> > It's still kind of early to call anyone done, even Edwards.
>
> C'mon. Then explain to me how a Christian is going to accept being ATTACKED
> by Edwards' employees whom he SUPPORTED??? You can't.... Its unacceptable
> to them and they will never forgive that attack.
Let's make this clear -- Amanda Marcotte is *not* anti-
Christian. That's just a garbage charge brought up by
Bill Donahue, the anti-gay, anti-jew head bigot of the
so-called Catholic League.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210001
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19389
Marcotte is actually a Catholic who is sometimes, if not
often very critical of her church's policies -- this
doesn't exactly make her anti-Christian, does it? That
"hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" semi-quote of hers that's
been regurgitated over and over again in the right wing
media was taken completely out of context from a long, 2-
piece article of hers that paints a slightly different and
probably more accurate picture of her true feelings and
beliefs:
http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar/
http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii/
I wonder if the right wing's central problem is that their
eyes glaze over when it comes to anything long, overly
metaphorical, or having to do with math, science, philosphy
and theology.
>
> The same thing is true for Obama. His mis-statement directly insulted the
> families of our war dead. You can't really think he'll ever be forgiven for
> that do you?
I only just realized how being for or against the war
is not at all symmetrical in that it puts anyone who is
against a given casualty-filled war in a very awkward
position. For instance, my very, VERY strong belief is
that Bush not misled by poor intel before the war -- I
personally simply parsed out some of the the main
points in Colin Powell's UN Powerpoint and ran a
Google to fact check, much like I do in these Usenet
debates, and guess what I found? Bright red flags that
indicated that Colin's presentation was utter BS -- it
might as well has been a right-wing Usenet post with
info pulled out of someone's butt. One very key point
involved Ansar Al-Islam, a violently fundmentalist
Kurdish group with ties to then Hussein's mortal enemy,
Iran, and apparently al-Qaeda as well. Ansar fought
with the other Kurdish groups and wanted to form an
Islamic republic in Iraq. Given this, grade school logic
tells you that Hussein would have wiped out Ansar if
he could, but they operated in Kurdish territory and
hence were protected by the no-fly zone that US very
firmly and harshly enforced, especially under Clinton.
And further research indicated that Hussein's support
for terrorism began and ended with the Palestinians.
This made a Hussein a big problem for Israel but not
for us. Crackheads like Stephen Hayes have made all
sorts of claims that Hussein supported all these other
terrorist organization, but again if you fact check, which
I've done several times with Hayes, you again find a pile
of BS. Hayes even went so far as writing a piece about
Hussein's terrorist training camps and not once even
mentioning the Palestinians, who were apparently their
near exclusive users! WTF! -- go see:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
So from my perspective, this all made Bush and his
people big time friggin liars, especially when you factor
in the no-WMD fiasco, which again should not have been
a surprise to any paying attention to what the UN
Inspectors were not finding, as well as our cover agents
and spy planes and satellites. So I have good reason to
feel very strongly that Bush should have been impeached
and booted out on his sorry, lying ass well before the last
election. Lies are one thing when they involve personal
matters, but when they result in the deaths of thousands
of US soldiers, and many, many times that in Iraqi civilian
deaths....
With that long preface, do I feel also that the lives of those
dead US troops who died were "wasted"? Intellectually,
there is no question that they lost their lives for no good
reason, ensuring Bush a dark place in history, but that
doesn't change how each of those deaths was a terrible
tragedy for family and friends. It's sort of like when a
carload of teenagers die in a car crash and alcohol was
to blame -- you should always try to find something
positive to say about even the most needless and avoidable
of tragedies. When you are a public official, you especially
have to check your description of anything that involves
lives lost.
Getting back to my symmetry point, in terms of Iraq, the
right wing has it very easy -- just buy the lies about how
Hussein was indeed a immediate threat to this country
that had to be dealt with via a preemptive invasion, which
makes all of the troop deaths noble sacrifices. But if you
think the war was wholly unjustified and then very badly
run to boot, things are much more difficult in that you have
to walk a very, very thin line between being supportive of
the troops and highly respectful and sympathetic towards
the deaths of soldiers, and criticizing the invasion and
how the war has been run. It's very tricky and perhaps
impossible to not avoid phrasing things from time to time
in a way that makes it sound like you're saying those
dead soldiers lives were wasted.
And then when that does happen, you can fully expect the
right wing bloggers and media to pounce and make it into
a big a BFD of it as they can, and which unfortunately now
often spreads to the corporate media.. Witness the
consequences of Kerry's rather mild quip that went "You
know, education, if you make the most of it, you study
hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be
smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
That prepared "joke" was was suppose to have ended with
"Just ask President Bush," but Kerry left that off, now to
his eternal dismay thanks to the right wing running it bigtime
with their own malicious spin on it, which in turn spread to
the mainstream media, and the finally to Mr. and Mrs.
Vaguely Informed living in Kansas and Private F*ckin' "A"
over in Iraq, who all end up thinking what a jerk that awful
Kerry is for saying such a cruel thing. It was piddly thing
by any sane standards, but in today's world....
So you really have to be on guard and totally heads up
about what a sneaky, malicious enemy the right wing is,
and how everything, even what would be normally an utterly innoculous
botched quip, will be twisted and used against
you if you don't respond aggressively in time. It isn't so
much a conspiracy as much just an association of networked
like-minded individuals who work together on anything that
suits their insouciant, group-think mentality.
> Some things can be pushed aside because its early in the process. But ask
> yourself this: Even if nothing is mentioned for 9 months would a Christian
> or the mother of a dead soldier EVER forget what was said to and about them?
> Of course not. THOSE type of things come back to haunt ya....
>
> > If he truly learns from this and runs a much more heads
> > up campaign from now on, you never know. Of course
> > if pigs sprouted wings....
>
> Its Hillary all the way.....
>
> And the campaign is going to be the Clash of the Century: Socialism vs.
> Capitalim.
Hardly. Pure capitalism doesn't work very well; but neither
does pure socialism -- you need a smart mix of the two. And
for a President, you want someone smart who will be bring
along an army of smart, competent people to pepper and season
the US government with. People forget that when you elect a
President, you also get a huge number of often faceless people
taking up important posts. Republicans tend to bring in a lot
of political hacks owed favors -- think of the two Michael's
of the Katrina fiasco -- while the Democrats still tend to bring
a lot of the "best and brightest" type of do-gooders.
While you might think of idealistic do-gooders as being
hopelessly naive, at least they care, pay attention, and try
to make things better. What is the point otherwise?
-BC
Patriot Games
> On Feb 16, 12:08 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171568602.7...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 15, 11:50 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > You must have gotten a bad supply of hillbilly crack.
>> The Left and the Right are IDENTICAL in their ranting.
>> The difference is YOU are romanced by the Left, their ranting appeals to
>> you, so you fail to see it objectively.
> Hardly. I fact check and research all the time. There
> is a huge difference in quality. Although, to be fair, I
> consider blogs in general, regardless of their political
> bents, to be unreliable sources of information compared
> to even our increasingly timid and journalistically
> messed-up mainstream media. But in the context of
> just the blogosphere, the leftist/progressive site are far
> better sources of info than the right wing ones. Feel
> free to try to refute this: just pick any topic that's been
> commented on at length by bloggers. I'll take the latest
> threads from 3 of the top right wing bloggers and do
> likewise with those from the left. I guarantee this will
> underscore and boldface my point.
What would be proved? We would prove the Left is the Left and the Right is
the Right... We already know that...
Bloggers are sources of opinions. Which are worthless.
Blogs are NOT sources of facts. So they, too, are worthless.
The MSM is all we got and most of it leans Left.
>> > It's still kind of early to call anyone done, even Edwards.
>> C'mon. Then explain to me how a Christian is going to accept being
>> ATTACKED
>> by Edwards' employees whom he SUPPORTED??? You can't.... Its
>> unacceptable
>> to them and they will never forgive that attack.
> Let's make this clear -- Amanda Marcotte is *not* anti-
> Christian. That's just a garbage charge brought up by
> Bill Donahue, the anti-gay, anti-jew head bigot of the
> so-called Catholic League.
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210001
> http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19389
> Marcotte is actually a Catholic who is sometimes, if not
> often very critical of her church's policies -- this
> doesn't exactly make her anti-Christian, does it? That
> "hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" semi-quote of hers that's
> been regurgitated over and over again in the right wing
> media was taken completely out of context from a long, 2-
> piece article of hers that paints a slightly different and
> probably more accurate picture of her true feelings and
> beliefs:
> http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar/
> http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii/
She wrote it. That's that.
> I wonder if the right wing's central problem is that their
> eyes glaze over when it comes to anything long, overly
> metaphorical, or having to do with math, science, philosphy
> and theology.
See what I mean?
>> The same thing is true for Obama. His mis-statement directly insulted
>> the
>> families of our war dead. You can't really think he'll ever be forgiven
>> for
>> that do you?
> I only just realized how being for or against the war
> is not at all symmetrical in that it puts anyone who is
> against a given casualty-filled war in a very awkward
> position.
Some people can't see the difference between oppossing the war, which is a
legitimate position, and betraying our troops, which is unacceptable.
Even Jane Fonda, albeit years later, apologised for betraying the troops
during Vietnam.
Obama's (mis-) statement burned him. The families will never forgive him
for it.
> For instance, my very, VERY strong belief is
> that Bush not misled by poor intel before the war [...]
Then how did four separate investigations clear Bush of lying?
> So I have good reason to
> feel very strongly that Bush should have been impeached
Then why is there no impeachment process underway?
> Getting back to my symmetry point, in terms of Iraq, the
> right wing has it very easy -- just buy the lies about how
> Hussein was indeed a immediate threat to this country
> that had to be dealt with via a preemptive invasion, which
> makes all of the troop deaths noble sacrifices. But if you
> think the war was wholly unjustified and then very badly
> run to boot, things are much more difficult in that you have
> to walk a very, very thin line between being supportive of
> the troops and highly respectful and sympathetic towards
> the deaths of soldiers, and criticizing the invasion and
>how the war has been run. It's very tricky and perhaps
> impossible to not avoid phrasing things from time to time
> in a way that makes it sound like you're saying those
> dead soldiers lives were wasted.
> And then when that does happen, you can fully expect the
> right wing bloggers and media to pounce and make it into
> a big a BFD of it as they can, and which unfortunately now
> often spreads to the corporate media.. Witness the
> consequences of Kerry's rather mild quip that went "You
> know, education, if you make the most of it, you study
> hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be
> smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
I think I see what you're missing....
Edwards' anti-Christian employees DIDN'T insult YOU, Obama DIDN'T insult
YOU, and Kerry DIDN'T insult YOU.
Kerry said: Dear Mr. & Mrs. America, you did a horrible job of raising your
children, you brought them up to be stupid, probably because you're stupid,
and now they'll have to die in a foreign war because you are failures as
parents.
Of course he didn't say those WORDS. But that is what the people TO WHOM IT
MATTERS heard him say - TO THEM.
> That prepared "joke" was was suppose to have ended with
> "Just ask President Bush," but Kerry left that off,
So, you think this was the joke: "You know, education, if you make the most
of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be
smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq, just ask
President Bush."
And that somehow eliminates the insult AND makes a funny joke?
> his eternal dismay thanks to the right wing running it bigtime
> with their own malicious spin on it, which in turn spread to
> the mainstream media, and the finally to Mr. and Mrs.
> Vaguely Informed living in Kansas and Private F*ckin' "A"
> over in Iraq,
Gosh, I wonder if "Mr. and Mrs. Vaguely Informed" living anywhere would be
pleased with that? Or do you think they might be insulted by that?
> who all end up thinking what a jerk that awful
> Kerry is for saying such a cruel thing. It was piddly thing
> by any sane standards, but in today's world....
An insult is an insult. Kerry never intended to make a joke. He intended
to make an insult. Life sucks even if your wife is rich...
> So you really have to be on guard and totally heads up
> about what a sneaky, malicious enemy the right wing is,
> and how everything, even what would be normally an utterly innoculous
> botched quip, will be twisted and used against
> you if you don't respond aggressively in time.
Of course you have to be on guard. However, try to remember, that we're
ONLY talking about what people ACTUALLY wrote or ACTUALLY said.
> It isn't so
> much a conspiracy as much just an association of networked
> like-minded individuals who work together on anything that
> suits their insouciant, group-think mentality.
And the Left is the same way. Unfortunately for the Left, they've been
tripping up more lately.
>> Its Hillary all the way.....
>> And the campaign is going to be the Clash of the Century: Socialism vs.
>> Capitalim.
> Hardly. Pure capitalism doesn't work very well; but neither
> does pure socialism -- you need a smart mix of the two.
"I'll take those profits..." is not representative of a "smart mix."
> think of the two Michael's of the Katrina fiasco --
> while the Democrats still tend to bring
> a lot of the "best and brightest" type of do-gooders.
The Katrina fiasco was an excellent example of Democrats acting in unity.
One of the few in fact. The only city the Federal gov't is responsible for
is Washington, DC. The Federal gov't is not responsible for the city of New
Orleans. The stupid mayor knew he had a few hundred thousand people who
couldn't or wouldn't evacuate. He knew he had several hundred buses sitting
around and didn't use them. He orders an evacuation that fails, then orders
those who wouldn't evacuate to go to a place he failed to supply.
Meanwhile, FEMA can't get in to help because everything is flooded. And we
already know that over half the money earmarked for levee work was mis-spent
by the same stupid mayor.
But the Democrats turned it into Bush's fault. That was a brilliant piece
of work except for one thing. Most Americans aren't black, aren't poor, are
responsible for themselves, and didn't buy the Its-Bush's-Fault claim as
regards Katrina.
> While you might think of idealistic do-gooders as being
> hopelessly naive, at least they care, pay attention, and try
> to make things better. What is the point otherwise?
Getting paid is the actual point.
BC
We would show that not all opinions have equal
weight in terms of credibility.
I've been thinking a lot lately about how useful it
would be be to have something akin to a "Credibility
Index" for media sources, be they newpapers, radio
talk shows, TV, or blog sites. You take say the top
100 most popular sources, sample their contents,
and then tally up the percentages of time and/or
words given to: 1) news meeting journalistic standards
for fact checking; 2) commentary and analysis based
on cited and footnoted sources; 3) editorial opinions
based on verified stories; 4) opinions and commentary
based on unverified stories and rumors; 5) stories and
commentaries based on a misrepresentation of facts;
and 6) mocking and insulting remarks based solely on
the personal biases of the commentators. You then
combine all this into a numeric score from, say, 0 to
100, that indicates how overall credible the source is.
A score of 0 would mean that the source is always
wrong all the time, a score of 100 would mean the
source is always right all the time. I guesstimate that
the worst news sources would score in the 20-30's
while the best in the 70-80's.
>
> Bloggers are sources of opinions. Which are worthless.
>
> Blogs are NOT sources of facts. So they, too, are worthless.
>
> The MSM is all we got and most of it leans Left.
I'm not so sure it even leans left anymore. The proper
term should be "The Corporate Media" and it's become
rather supportive of the establishment, whatever that
might be. Which would make sense for a profit-oriented
company since pissing off important people in goverment
can be bad for business.
One of the strongest early supporters of an Iraq invasion
was the NY Times via Judith Miller:
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226
The Times also sat on its domestic spying article for
a full year, waiting until after the last Presidential
election to run it:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html
CBS is owned by Viacom, and its CEO Sumner
Redstone supported Bush:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669
And have you ever checked out ABC's Sunday morning
talk show, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
lately? It sounds and looks more and more like
something that ought to be on Fox.
And I'm seeing more and more stories of highly
dubious credibility originating from bloggers and
getting played in the general corporate/mainstream
media.
The thing is that even if you are hard core right
wing, you really should always want your press to
be truly free and not beholden to a profit-minded
corporate master, and you should alsowant it to be
always skeptical and investigative of government and
big business. People being people will always try to
get away with stuff, especially when there is big
time power and money involved. And while you may
get annoyed and pissed off by the editorial leanings
of truly liberal/progressive press, nobody else is
going to agressively ferret out misbehavior involving
big government and business. The big Catholic
Church priest scandal started with an investigation
by a liberal alternative weekly, The Boston Phoenix,
which led to further investigation by The Boston
Globe, which in turn spread to other news media
and further investigation. It was disheartening and
disgusting stuff, but would you have rathered that it
never came out? That why you need an aggressive,
truly *liberal* media, which unfortunately is not in
the best of shape these days. The Boston Globe is
suffering, and even the Phoenix has become more
corporate in tone.
>
>
>
> >> > It's still kind of early to call anyone done, even Edwards.
> >> C'mon. Then explain to me how a Christian is going to accept being
> >> ATTACKED
> >> by Edwards' employees whom he SUPPORTED??? You can't.... Its
> >> unacceptable
> >> to them and they will never forgive that attack.
> > Let's make this clear -- Amanda Marcotte is *not* anti-
> > Christian. That's just a garbage charge brought up by
> > Bill Donahue, the anti-gay, anti-jew head bigot of the
> > so-called Catholic League.
> >http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210001
> >http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19389
> > Marcotte is actually a Catholic who is sometimes, if not
> > often very critical of her church's policies -- this
> > doesn't exactly make her anti-Christian, does it? That
> > "hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" semi-quote of hers that's
> > been regurgitated over and over again in the right wing
> > media was taken completely out of context from a long, 2-
> > piece article of hers that paints a slightly different and
> > probably more accurate picture of her true feelings and
> > beliefs:
> >http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-...
> >http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-...
>
> She wrote it. That's that.
Words without their context are meaningless.
That's what's that.
>
> > I wonder if the right wing's central problem is that their
> > eyes glaze over when it comes to anything long, overly
> > metaphorical, or having to do with math, science, philosphy
> > and theology.
>
> See what I mean?
Have you checked lately on how the sides of
evolution and global warming line up?
>
> >> The same thing is true for Obama. His mis-statement directly insulted
> >> the
> >> families of our war dead. You can't really think he'll ever be forgiven
> >> for
> >> that do you?
> > I only just realized how being for or against the war
> > is not at all symmetrical in that it puts anyone who is
> > against a given casualty-filled war in a very awkward
> > position.
>
> Some people can't see the difference between oppossing the war, which is a
> legitimate position, and betraying our troops, which is unacceptable.
It's tricky business, like I said. Here, try this as an
experiment: pretend you really believe that the Iraq
war was based on lies, and that it has been badly
mismanaged. Now, try to make a comment that
reflects these beliefs without it somehow at least
implying that lives of our dead troops were wasted.
>
> Even Jane Fonda, albeit years later, apologised for betraying the troops
> during Vietnam.
>
> Obama's (mis-) statement burned him. The families will never forgive him
> for it.
See my previous comment. He just has to be very
careful and very aware that he's on very thin ice with
that subject matter.
>
> > For instance, my very, VERY strong belief is
> > that Bush not misled by poor intel before the war [...]
>
> Then how did four separate investigations clear Bush of lying?
I can give a flying sh*t about those so-called
investigations. At this point, it's beyond a shadow
of a doubt that the best evidence Bush and his
people had to have had in their hands either gave
little or no support to their public statements or
else even directly contradicted them. Take this
press conference transcript for instance:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html
And this excerpt:
****
Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld
both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence
that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.
Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President
said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and
he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when
asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say
that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the
line and confuse people. How would you answer that?
THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved with the September
11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he
has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al
Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that
ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man
who is still running loose, involved with the poisons
network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no
question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.
****
Check the date on that transcript: Sept. 17, 2003
Also check what Bush and Cheney claimed in June
of the following year:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/
But reports by the 9/11 Commission and the grossly
delayed, and still partial, Phase II Report (thanks to
deliberate stonewalling by its useless f*ckhead of a
chairman, Pat Roberts) by the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence clearly showed that Bush and his
people never had any good evidence for a link between
Hussein and al-Qaeda:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html
Which makes all of his public statements to the
contrary utterly BS lies by any definition.
>
> > So I have good reason to
> > feel very strongly that Bush should have been impeached
>
> Then why is there no impeachment process underway?
You're asking the wrong person.
I see your confusion:
A: Amanda Marcotte isn't anti-Christian. She's a
Catholic, which makes her a Christian. She does
have issues with Catholic Church policies, but
disagreeing with your church's policies does not
make you anti-Christian or even anti-Church. Which
makes everyone claiming Marcotte to be anti-Christian
liars, which ironically makes them sinners. Religion
can be a bitch at times, eh?
B: Kerry was taking a swipe at Bush's failed policies
in Iraq, and not at the troops. Those people who
misrepresented Kerry's remark as being a swipe at
the troops even after it was well demonstrated that
he had no such intention are also sinners. I suspect
that they are also guilty of "A" and numerous other
sins as well and therefore will likely end being toasted
and roasted in Hell for eternity. Like I said, religion
can be a bitch at times, eh?
And those gullible souls who bought into the smears
that Marcotte is anti-Christian and that Kerry insulted
the troops....they should be thankful that being stupid
and easily played for a fool is not a sin.
>
> Kerry said: Dear Mr. & Mrs. America, you did a horrible job of raising your
> children, you brought them up to be stupid, probably because you're stupid,
> and now they'll have to die in a foreign war because you are failures as
> parents.
>
> Of course he didn't say those WORDS. But that is what the people TO WHOM IT
> MATTERS heard him say - TO THEM.
Like I said, those people should be thankful that
stupidity isn't a sin; otherwise, they would be in
deep, hot doo-doo.
>
> > That prepared "joke" was was suppose to have ended with
> > "Just ask President Bush," but Kerry left that off,
>
> So, you think this was the joke: "You know, education, if you make the most
> of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be
> smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq, just ask
> President Bush."
>
> And that somehow eliminates the insult AND makes a funny joke?
Taking a quipping swipe at your opponent is fair
game, especially when it's Bush (don't forget who
works for him -- Karl "Smear 'n' Slime" Rove) And
making a lame, piddly joke is generally not grounds
for stoning the last I checked. The thing with Kerry
joke wasn't a case of making a mountain out of a
molehill -- it was more along the lines of making
a Grand Canyon out of wormhole.
>
> > his eternal dismay thanks to the right wing running it bigtime
> > with their own malicious spin on it, which in turn spread to
> > the mainstream media, and the finally to Mr. and Mrs.
> > Vaguely Informed living in Kansas and Private F*ckin' "A"
> > over in Iraq,
>
> Gosh, I wonder if "Mr. and Mrs. Vaguely Informed" living anywhere would be
> pleased with that? Or do you think they might be insulted by that?
I don't care. I'm personally pretty fed up with
dumbasses not caring enough to make even the
slightest effort to get the facts on things they
mouth off about or, worse, base their votes on,
especially with computers, the Internet and
Google making such a thing pretty damn easy.
If I had my way, there would be an 11th
Commandment: Thou shall not dwell in ignorance
when knowledge is at hand.
>
> > who all end up thinking what a jerk that awful
> > Kerry is for saying such a cruel thing. It was piddly thing
> > by any sane standards, but in today's world....
>
> An insult is an insult. Kerry never intended to make a joke. He intended
> to make an insult. Life sucks even if your wife is rich...
An insult is an insult only when it is an insult,
and not just some ill-phrased remark twisted into
and presented as an insult by adversaries up to
no good.
>
> > So you really have to be on guard and totally heads up
> > about what a sneaky, malicious enemy the right wing is,
> > and how everything, even what would be normally an utterly innoculous
> > botched quip, will be twisted and used against
> > you if you don't respond aggressively in time.
>
> Of course you have to be on guard. However, try to remember, that we're
> ONLY talking about what people ACTUALLY wrote or ACTUALLY said.
Now, what did I say about context? If you have a
blackboard, please write 500 times: "I will not ignore
context." Failing to do so will likely mean eternal
damnation -- did I ever mention that religion can be
a bitch?
>
> > It isn't so
> > much a conspiracy as much just an association of networked
> > like-minded individuals who work together on anything that
> > suits their insouciant, group-think mentality.
>
> And the Left is the same way. Unfortunately for the Left, they've been
> tripping up more lately.
Nope. The left has nowhere that type of unity.
>
> >> Its Hillary all the way.....
> >> And the campaign is going to be the Clash of the Century: Socialism vs.
> >> Capitalim.
> > Hardly. Pure capitalism doesn't work very well; but neither
> > does pure socialism -- you need a smart mix of the two.
>
> "I'll take those profits..." is not representative of a "smart mix."
>
> > think of the two Michael's of the Katrina fiasco --
> > while the Democrats still tend to bring
> > a lot of the "best and brightest" type of do-gooders.
>
> The Katrina fiasco was an excellent example of Democrats acting in unity.
> One of the few in fact. The only city the Federal gov't is responsible for
> is Washington, DC. The Federal gov't is not responsible for the city of New
> Orleans. The stupid mayor knew he had a few hundred thousand people who
> couldn't or wouldn't evacuate. He knew he had several hundred buses sitting
> around and didn't use them. He orders an evacuation that fails, then orders
> those who wouldn't evacuate to go to a place he failed to supply.
> Meanwhile, FEMA can't get in to help because everything is flooded. And we
> already know that over half the money earmarked for levee work was mis-spent
> by the same stupid mayor.
Umm, that bus story is an urban myth:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120005
Also I kind of went over the details over who did
their jobs and who screwed up in another long
post from last year: http://tinyurl.com/yuj5c5
Have I even mentioned that I do my homework?
>
> But the Democrats turned it into Bush's fault. That was a brilliant piece
> of work except for one thing. Most Americans aren't black, aren't poor, are
> responsible for themselves, and didn't buy the Its-Bush's-Fault claim as
> regards Katrina.
See the previous.
>
> > While you might think of idealistic do-gooders as being
> > hopelessly naive, at least they care, pay attention, and try
> > to make things better. What is the point otherwise?
>
> Getting paid is the actual point.
I always thought having a safe, orderly, prosperous, fair
and free society that protects the innocent and helps the
poor, elderly and unfortunate was the true actual point.
I guess I missed the last memo....
-BC
Patriot Games
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> What would be proved? We would prove the Left is the Left and the Right
>> is
>> the Right... We already know that...
> We would show that not all opinions have equal
> weight in terms of credibility.
There is no such thing as a credible opinion. Every opinion is
automatically 100% credible - and 100% worthless - to anyone more interested
in facts.
> I've been thinking a lot lately about how useful it
> would be be to have something akin to a "Credibility
> Index" for media sources, be they newpapers, radio
> talk shows, TV, or blog sites. You take say the top
> 100 most popular sources, sample their contents,
> and then tally up the percentages of time and/or
> words given to: 1) news meeting journalistic standards
> for fact checking; 2) commentary and analysis based
> on cited and footnoted sources; 3) editorial opinions
> based on verified stories; 4) opinions and commentary
> based on unverified stories and rumors; 5) stories and
> commentaries based on a misrepresentation of facts;
> and 6) mocking and insulting remarks based solely on
> the personal biases of the commentators. You then
> combine all this into a numeric score from, say, 0 to
> 100, that indicates how overall credible the source is.
> A score of 0 would mean that the source is always
> wrong all the time, a score of 100 would mean the
> source is always right all the time. I guesstimate that
> the worst news sources would score in the 20-30's
> while the best in the 70-80's.
Isn't the real problem too much opinion (frequently called "news analysis"
and "news commentary") and not enough facts?
If the public really is so stupid that they need facts analyzed and
commented upon then who shares a large part of that blame? The MSM for
skewing the facts in the first place.
>> Bloggers are sources of opinions. Which are worthless.
>> Blogs are NOT sources of facts. So they, too, are worthless.
>> The MSM is all we got and most of it leans Left.
> I'm not so sure it even leans left anymore. The proper
> term should be "The Corporate Media" and it's become
> rather supportive of the establishment, whatever that
> might be. Which would make sense for a profit-oriented
> company since pissing off important people in goverment
> can be bad for business.
I'm not convinced that the MSM has become the CM yet, but I agree that sure
looks to be the trend.
> One of the strongest early supporters of an Iraq invasion
> was the NY Times via Judith Miller:
> http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226
> The Times also sat on its domestic spying article for
> a full year, waiting until after the last Presidential
> election to run it:
> http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html
And then something happenned to switch them to ranting anti-war? What
happenned?
> CBS is owned by Viacom, and its CEO Sumner
> Redstone supported Bush:
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669
And then Danny lost his mind....
> And have you ever checked out ABC's Sunday morning
> talk show, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
> lately? It sounds and looks more and more like
> something that ought to be on Fox.
Nope. George is a goofball in my opinion.... I actually don't watch any of
those interview shows.
> And I'm seeing more and more stories of highly
> dubious credibility originating from bloggers and
> getting played in the general corporate/mainstream
> media.
When they lack facts to report, or facts they want to report, they have to
resort to bullshit. The only rule seems to be that the bullshit MUST have a
reference. Nevermind that the reference is a blog.... As long as they can
say it without having to be responsible for originating it they're happy.
> The thing is that even if you are hard core right
> wing, you really should always want your press to
> be truly free and not beholden to a profit-minded
> corporate master, and you should alsowant it to be
> always skeptical and investigative of government and
> big business.
I couldn't agree more.
> People being people will always try to
> get away with stuff, especially when there is big
> time power and money involved. And while you may
> get annoyed and pissed off by the editorial leanings
> of truly liberal/progressive press, nobody else is
> going to agressively ferret out misbehavior involving
> big government and business.
I disagree. There was a time, say around 20 years ago, after Vietnam and
before Clinton, when the MSM did go after corruption (etc.) without regard
to ideology. Today the MSM goes after corruption that leans right (because
they're left) and Fox (pretty much alone) goes after corruption that leans
left...
There really isn't a solution to this problem, yet.
> The big Catholic
> Church priest scandal started with an investigation
> by a liberal alternative weekly, The Boston Phoenix,
> which led to further investigation by The Boston
> Globe, which in turn spread to other news media
> and further investigation. It was disheartening and
> disgusting stuff, but would you have rathered that it
> never came out?
Hell no!
> That why you need an aggressive,
> truly *liberal* media, which unfortunately is not in
> the best of shape these days. The Boston Globe is
> suffering, and even the Phoenix has become more
> corporate in tone.
By "liberal" you mean independent. I couldn't agree more.
>> She wrote it. That's that.
> Words without their context are meaningless.
> That's what's that.
Ask the people who were insulted. They are the ONLY people in this equation
that actually matter because everybody else's opinions were not changed.
The people who were insulted remain insulted.
Every mis-statement has a number of different players. The person who
misspoke, the people trying to spin is nice, the people trying to spin it
worse, the people trying to out the people who tried to spin it nice or
worse, etc.
Everybody seems to forget its the INSULTED folks who don't give a damn what
anybody else thinks..... Apologising doesn't remove the insult, spinning it
nice doesn't make it less, spinning it worse doesn't make it worse, and
raving about it on TV doesn't mean much at all.
>> See what I mean?
> Have you checked lately on how the sides of
> evolution and global warming line up?
I'm not qualified to discuss either topic, because I'm over-qualified. (I
have a BS and two MS.)
Evolution is simple: God invented it. The Left likes to pick on an
incredibly small number of Creationists because they can cast that as
representative of the Right. The MSM loves this because anything kookie
gets attention and sells ads and they support anything anti-Right. Its all
bullshit.
Global warming is pretty simple too. Its a planetary cycle that has been
happenning ever since the planet cooled and developed an atmosphere. It has
always ended in an ice age. Its happenning again. Yes, man has contributed
to it. But man didn't contribute much and it doesn't matter since the end
result cannot be prevented. Global warming is an income redistribution
ideology. The Far Left loves it because they support Socialism and its main
components. The MSM loves it because its pro-Left, gets attention and sells
ads. Meanwhile, pollution, the ACTUAL problem, gets ignored...
>> Some people can't see the difference between oppossing the war, which is
>> a
>> legitimate position, and betraying our troops, which is unacceptable.
> It's tricky business, like I said. Here, try this as an
> experiment: pretend you really believe that the Iraq
> war was based on lies, and that it has been badly
> mismanaged. Now, try to make a comment that
> reflects these beliefs without it somehow at least
> implying that lives of our dead troops were wasted.
Simple. We invaded Iraq to effect regime change, to liberate 25 million
people living under one of the worst dictatorships in the world, who also
developed, used and continues to stockpile enormous quantities of WMD. We
didn't find the WMDs. Sorry. We did liberate 25 million people. You're
welcome.
Fighting, and dying, for freedom and liberty is as honorable as it gets...
>> Obama's (mis-) statement burned him. The families will never forgive him
>> for it.
> See my previous comment. He just has to be very
> careful and very aware that he's on very thin ice with
> that subject matter.
You could be right, it might blow over.
You see something that you want to see in the Q&A above. I see two
different sets of facts and someone trying to squeeze them together.
The only person who has ever actually directly linked Iraq and 9/11 is some
idiot Senator from (I think) North or South Carolina who WAS NOT authorized
to speak for the Admin or the Congress or the Pentagon.
We had bad intel. Plain and simple. But we even asked our intel
counterparts in France, Germany, Russia, the UK and Saudi Arabia and they
ALL AGREED with our intel... So what were we supposed to do, ignore that?
> Also check what Bush and Cheney claimed in June
> of the following year:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/
> But reports by the 9/11 Commission and the grossly
> delayed, and still partial, Phase II Report (thanks to
> deliberate stonewalling by its useless f*ckhead of a
> chairman, Pat Roberts) by the Senate Select Committee
> on Intelligence clearly showed that Bush and his
> people never had any good evidence for a link between
> Hussein and al-Qaeda:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html
> Which makes all of his public statements to the
> contrary utterly BS lies by any definition.
The Admin never made a 9/11 link. The Admin DID make an Al Qaeda link,
which for reasons I can't understand always seem to be the same thing to the
Left...
>> > So I have good reason to
>> > feel very strongly that Bush should have been impeached
>> Then why is there no impeachment process underway?
> You're asking the wrong person.
Its a rhetorical question. There is no basis or grounds for an impeachment
process...
>> I think I see what you're missing....
>> Edwards' anti-Christian employees DIDN'T insult YOU, Obama DIDN'T insult
>> YOU, and Kerry DIDN'T insult YOU.
> I see your confusion:
> A: Amanda Marcotte isn't anti-Christian. She's a
> Catholic, which makes her a Christian. She does
> have issues with Catholic Church policies, but
> disagreeing with your church's policies does not
> make you anti-Christian or even anti-Church. Which
> makes everyone claiming Marcotte to be anti-Christian
> liars, which ironically makes them sinners. Religion
> can be a bitch at times, eh?
Who says Amanda is a Catholic? Amanda or the Catholic Church?
> B: Kerry was taking a swipe at Bush's failed policies
> in Iraq, and not at the troops. Those people who
> misrepresented Kerry's remark as being a swipe at
> the troops even after it was well demonstrated that
> he had no such intention are also sinners. I suspect
> that they are also guilty of "A" and numerous other
> sins as well and therefore will likely end being toasted
> and roasted in Hell for eternity. Like I said, religion
> can be a bitch at times, eh?
Kerry misspoke. I know exactly what Kerry WANTED to say. The problem isn't
what he WANTED to say, its what he actually said...
> And those gullible souls who bought into the smears
> that Marcotte is anti-Christian and that Kerry insulted
> the troops....they should be thankful that being stupid
> and easily played for a fool is not a sin.
Have far do you think you can get blaming the people who were insulted for
being insulted?
>> Kerry said: Dear Mr. & Mrs. America, you did a horrible job of raising
>> your
>> children, you brought them up to be stupid, probably because you're
>> stupid,
>> and now they'll have to die in a foreign war because you are failures as
>> parents.
>> Of course he didn't say those WORDS. But that is what the people TO WHOM
>> IT
>> MATTERS heard him say - TO THEM.
> Like I said, those people should be thankful that
> stupidity isn't a sin; otherwise, they would be in
> deep, hot doo-doo.
But that's irrelevant isn't it?
>> > That prepared "joke" was was suppose to have ended with
>> > "Just ask President Bush," but Kerry left that off,
>> So, you think this was the joke: "You know, education, if you make the
>> most
>> of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be
>> smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq, just ask
>> President Bush."
>> And that somehow eliminates the insult AND makes a funny joke?
> Taking a quipping swipe at your opponent is fair
> game, especially when it's Bush (don't forget who
> works for him -- Karl "Smear 'n' Slime" Rove) And
> making a lame, piddly joke is generally not grounds
> for stoning the last I checked. The thing with Kerry
> joke wasn't a case of making a mountain out of a
> molehill -- it was more along the lines of making
> a Grand Canyon out of wormhole.
You and I both know that Kerry never had or intended a "joke." He had a
comment, and he screwed it up. Shit happens.
>> Gosh, I wonder if "Mr. and Mrs. Vaguely Informed" living anywhere would
>> be
>> pleased with that? Or do you think they might be insulted by that?
> I don't care.
Which is probably exactly what Obama was thinking, and Kerry, and
Edwards....
People, especially with some extra special power and/or money, frequently
tend to think that the world between their ears mirrors the real one - it
infrequently does.
>> An insult is an insult. Kerry never intended to make a joke. He
>> intended
>> to make an insult. Life sucks even if your wife is rich...
> An insult is an insult only when it is an insult,
> and not just some ill-phrased remark twisted into
> and presented as an insult by adversaries up to
> no good.
But this is a crucial point you're not getting. An insult is an insult if
someone is insulted. And if you toss in a couple of more FACTS: Did Kerry
apologise immediately (like Obama did)? No. Kerry ducked. Kerry's people
ducked. Then Kerry's people, too late of course, came up with a pretty weak
excuse but no apology. And when Edwards was confronted what did he do? He
ducked, then insisted that he wouldn't fire those two bloggers. Then didn't
fire them. And only secretly invited them to leave, but not at the same
time. Edwards didn't learn from Kerry but Obama did, to his credit.
But the point is if someone says they were insulted, and the words came from
your face, then you are responsible and you immediately apologise. Its
simple. OF COURSE you didn't intend to insult that person, but that fact is
irrelevant.
>> Of course you have to be on guard. However, try to remember, that we're
>> ONLY talking about what people ACTUALLY wrote or ACTUALLY said.
> Now, what did I say about context? If you have a
> blackboard, please write 500 times: "I will not ignore
> context." Failing to do so will likely mean eternal
> damnation -- did I ever mention that religion can be
> a bitch?
Context is a crutch or an excuse.
>> And the Left is the same way. Unfortunately for the Left, they've been
>> tripping up more lately.
> Nope. The left has nowhere that type of unity.
The Right is more unified, at least that's my observation, but they can both
be equally nasty. We're seeing the Left trip up more right now because they
are and because they're out campaigning more. As soon as the Right gets
more into campaigning they'll be tripping up just as much. They always do.
>> The Katrina fiasco was an excellent example of Democrats acting in unity.
>> One of the few in fact. The only city the Federal gov't is responsible
>> for
>> is Washington, DC. The Federal gov't is not responsible for the city of
>> New
>> Orleans. The stupid mayor knew he had a few hundred thousand people who
>> couldn't or wouldn't evacuate. He knew he had several hundred buses
>> sitting
>> around and didn't use them. He orders an evacuation that fails, then
>> orders
>> those who wouldn't evacuate to go to a place he failed to supply.
>> Meanwhile, FEMA can't get in to help because everything is flooded. And
>> we
>> already know that over half the money earmarked for levee work was
>> mis-spent
>> by the same stupid mayor.
> Umm, that bus story is an urban myth:
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120005
Read your cite again. The school buses existed. Does it significantly
matter if it was 700 buses or 2,000? The mayor screwed up. He called for
an evacuation. And his school bus drivers evacuated. And the next day had
no way to respond to the people who he (or his NO-EMA or LA-EMA) knew would
still be there needing help.
There wouldn't have been an issue if the mayor had evacuated his people.
There wouldn't have been an issue if the mayor had supplied the Dome.
And neither of those are Federal responsibilities.
> Also I kind of went over the details over who did
> their jobs and who screwed up in another long
> post from last year: http://tinyurl.com/yuj5c5
> Have I even mentioned that I do my homework?
Yep, you seem to.
>> But the Democrats turned it into Bush's fault. That was a brilliant
>> piece
>> of work except for one thing. Most Americans aren't black, aren't poor,
>> are
>> responsible for themselves, and didn't buy the Its-Bush's-Fault claim as
>> regards Katrina.
> See the previous.
I doesn't appear to me that the majority of Americans blame Bush for
Katrina. However, I'm a lifelong Floridian so I have a pretty good
understanding of hurricanes and all that surrounds them. Maybe many
Americans DO think these are Federal responsibilities?
>> > While you might think of idealistic do-gooders as being
>> > hopelessly naive, at least they care, pay attention, and try
>> > to make things better. What is the point otherwise?
>> Getting paid is the actual point.
> I always thought having a safe, orderly, prosperous, fair
> and free society that protects the innocent and helps the
> poor, elderly and unfortunate was the true actual point.
> I guess I missed the last memo....
Yes, you missed the memo!! If we could find another 60 million of you
memo-missers we could steal the entire Center-Left, the entire Center-Right,
and we could ask the Far-Left to move to Canada and the Far-Right to move to
who-fucking-knows-where, and we could have a fine new political party.
BC
> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171830858.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Patriot Games wrote:
> >> What would be proved? We would prove the Left is the Left and the Right
> >> is
> >> the Right... We already know that...
> > We would show that not all opinions have equal
> > weight in terms of credibility.
>
> There is no such thing as a credible opinion. Every opinion is
> automatically 100% credible - and 100% worthless - to anyone more interested
> in facts.
>
Actually I should have phrased that a little
differently -- maybe more like "not all so called
news has equal weight in terms of credibility."
Still though, since "news" these days seems to
be composed of various ratios of news-news,
commentary, opinion and discussion, with the
"news" bit often being more the garnish than the
main dish, as with cable news, talk radio & Sunday
morning TV talk shows, opinion in some form is
often what people hear most. And there is a
*huge* difference in credibilty between honest,
knowledgeable, fact-based opinion &
commentary and that loaded with agenda, bias,
and cherry-picked or misrepresented facts.
There are an awful lot of very misinformed people
out there, and they got that way not because of
sourced news or knowledgeable opinion, but
because of BS rumors, misreprestend "facts" and
commentators talking out of their butts.
>
> > I've been thinking a lot lately about how useful it
> > would be be to have something akin to a "Credibility
> > Index" for media sources, be they newpapers, radio
> > talk shows, TV, or blog sites. You take say the top
> > 100 most popular sources, sample their contents,
> > and then tally up the percentages of time and/or
> > words given to: 1) news meeting journalistic standards
> > for fact checking; 2) commentary and analysis based
> > on cited and footnoted sources; 3) editorial opinions
> > based on verified stories; 4) opinions and commentary
> > based on unverified stories and rumors; 5) stories and
> > commentaries based on a misrepresentation of facts;
> > and 6) mocking and insulting remarks based solely on
> > the personal biases of the commentators. You then
> > combine all this into a numeric score from, say, 0 to
> > 100, that indicates how overall credible the source is.
> > A score of 0 would mean that the source is always
> > wrong all the time, a score of 100 would mean the
> > source is always right all the time. I guesstimate that
> > the worst news sources would score in the 20-30's
> > while the best in the 70-80's.
>
> Isn't the real problem too much opinion (frequently called "news analysis"
> and "news commentary") and not enough facts?
A girl from Kazakhstan and another girl from mainland
China -- and bear in mind that both ot those countries
still impose limitations on their news media -- both
told me how much inferior in content they found the US
TV news to be compared to what their were use to in
their respective home countries. They were both use
to watching something like a half-hour of no-nonsense
news items being straightforwardly rattled off quickly
and efficiently. They both especially noted that the US
media is especially poor in covering world news and
events.
I personally remember as a kid news having a pretty
straightforward format of 1/2 hour local news followed
by 1/2 hour of national/international, which sounds a
lot like how they still do it in other countries. But that
was from the days when news was an obligated public
service by local TV stations and the national networks,
and it was never considered something to make a
profit from. TV news morphed somehow into profit-
making programming, hence leading to both a very
sharp rise in "news programming" and a diffusion of
content.
Still, though, there is no reason whatsoever not to be
using elementary journalistic standards for fact-
checking and fairness. Newspaper columnists still get
fired for making up crap or for even simply not properly
sourcing their material, and aren't even part of the news
section.
Whether you are an investigative reporter, a newspaper
columnist, or even a political commentator, there is or
should be an obligation to at the very least better inform
your readers and viewers, and not make them more
confused.
Unfortunately, it's been legally ruled by at least one
state supreme court that news organizations are free
to lie without legal repercussions. I know that sounds
absurd, but...here you go:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
http://archives.cjr.org/year/01/2/grossman.asp
I suppose there's no point in mentioning which news
organization wanted the freedom to lie and distort.
>
> If the public really is so stupid that they need facts analyzed and
> commented upon then who shares a large part of that blame? The MSM for
> skewing the facts in the first place.
Let's get back to "Mr. and Mrs. Vaguely Informed."
They probably think they are actually pretty well
informed: they have their kitchen TV on in the
morning while getting ready for work and having a
quick breakfast; they listen to a radio talk show
with news and traffic info while driving; they watch
an hour or so of local and national TV news when
they come home in the evening, as well as watch a
few hours each week of news "magazines" and
specials, and then of course read the Sunday
newspapers. In theory, that's a lot of content and
they should have pretty idea of what's going on --
but chances are they don't.
As I said before, the proper term is "the corporate
media" and not the "MSM". Like any proper
corporate business, they are interested primarily in
profit and market share. Their product is "news
content" but straightforward news is somewhat
boring to average people, so it needs to be spiced
up and made more visually appealing. People love
gossip, cool graphics and pretty and handsome
people, so.... Also news production, especially if
you don't have a lot of that annoyingly resource-
consuming and often lawsuit provoking "journalistic
research" stuff going on in the background, can
bring in a pretty good return on investment in terms
of advertising dollars. It's basic capitalism and market
forces in their full glory -- so conservatives at least
should be praising them rather than criticizing.
>
> >> Bloggers are sources of opinions. Which are worthless.
> >> Blogs are NOT sources of facts. So they, too, are worthless.
> >> The MSM is all we got and most of it leans Left.
> > I'm not so sure it even leans left anymore. The proper
> > term should be "The Corporate Media" and it's become
> > rather supportive of the establishment, whatever that
> > might be. Which would make sense for a profit-oriented
> > company since pissing off important people in goverment
> > can be bad for business.
>
> I'm not convinced that the MSM has become the CM yet, but I agree that sure
> looks to be the trend.
>
> > One of the strongest early supporters of an Iraq invasion
> > was the NY Times via Judith Miller:
> >http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226
> > The Times also sat on its domestic spying article for
> > a full year, waiting until after the last Presidential
> > election to run it:
> >http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admits_it_held_1215.html
>
> And then something happenned to switch them to ranting anti-war? What
> happenned?
They apparently became journalists again and got
around to belatedly checking the credibility of their
sources, especially Miller's, and looking at what real
evidence was indicating. To be fair, 9/11 had the most
dramatic emotional effect on New Yorkers, and it ain't
called the "New York" Times for nothing. They likely
let their emotions and desire to strike back cloud their
judgements, at least initially.
>
> > CBS is owned by Viacom, and its CEO Sumner
> > Redstone supported Bush:
> >http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669
>
> And then Danny lost his mind....
Now, now.....
Actually, I happen to know one or two things not too
commonly known about the Killian memos situation
and guess what -- it's not exactly what people were
led to believe, surprise, friggin surprise:
http://aheckofa.com/FoolMeOnce/CBSBushMemos.html
>
> > And have you ever checked out ABC's Sunday morning
> > talk show, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
> > lately? It sounds and looks more and more like
> > something that ought to be on Fox.
>
> Nope. George is a goofball in my opinion.... I actually don't watch any of
> those interview shows.
If you haven't done so in a while -- do so. You'd be very
surprised at how conservative they've all become. I sure
was.
>
> > And I'm seeing more and more stories of highly
> > dubious credibility originating from bloggers and
> > getting played in the general corporate/mainstream
> > media.
>
> When they lack facts to report, or facts they want to report, they have to
> resort to bullshit. The only rule seems to be that the bullshit MUST have a
> reference. Nevermind that the reference is a blog.... As long as they can
> say it without having to be responsible for originating it they're happy.
Like I already described, they are just maximizing
profit. You cut back on your internal research stuff
and out-source your "news gathering" -- bingo, more
profit. That the out-sourced news gathering is of lower
quality is not germane to the bottom line if the
consumer doesn't seem to care enough to complain
or switch "brands"..
>
> > The thing is that even if you are hard core right
> > wing, you really should always want your press to
> > be truly free and not beholden to a profit-minded
> > corporate master, and you should also want it to be
> > always skeptical and investigative of government and
> > big business.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
Good. The founding fathers understood the value of
a truly free press, even if too many politicians after
them have forgotten.
>
> > People being people will always try to
> > get away with stuff, especially when there is big
> > time power and money involved. And while you may
> > get annoyed and pissed off by the editorial leanings
> > of truly liberal/progressive press, nobody else is
> > going to agressively ferret out misbehavior involving
> > big government and business.
>
> I disagree. There was a time, say around 20 years ago, after Vietnam and
> before Clinton, when the MSM did go after corruption (etc.) without regard
> to ideology. Today the MSM goes after corruption that leans right (because
> they're left) and Fox (pretty much alone) goes after corruption that leans
> left...
No, think about it -- there are two fundamental reasons
for a news person to expose corruption in government
and in big business: idealism in wanting to set things
right for its sake and the sake of good, responsible
journalism; and it makes for a good, engaging story that
sells papers and makes people watch the news.
The two reasons are not exactly on the philosophical
level -- one is for higher ideals, the other is for profit,
but they work together, and idealists have to eat to.
And idealists are also usually very liberal and
progressive as is generally the case with most people
in the arts and sciences. That's just how it is.
Now in terms of exposing corruption on the right
versus exposing corruption on the left -- that's pretty
much a completely different game -- that's based much
more on just rivalry and wanting to make your opponent
look bad.The problem with this is that it's mostly
composed of mud-slinging, with little differentiation
between BS rumors and stuff that actually has a least
a smidgeon of truth to it. It's like listening to a loud
public argument between a couple who are getting
divorced -- it's going to be mostly stuff meant primarily
to defend and hurt as much as possible. You might
hear some factual stuff, but that's not journalism.
>
> There really isn't a solution to this problem, yet.
>
> > The big Catholic
> > Church priest scandal started with an investigation
> > by a liberal alternative weekly, The Boston Phoenix,
> > which led to further investigation by The Boston
> > Globe, which in turn spread to other news media
> > and further investigation. It was disheartening and
> > disgusting stuff, but would you have rathered that it
> > never came out?
>
> Hell no!
>
> > That why you need an aggressive,
> > truly *liberal* media, which unfortunately is not in
> > the best of shape these days. The Boston Globe is
> > suffering, and even the Phoenix has become more
> > corporate in tone.
>
> By "liberal" you mean independent. I couldn't agree more.
Yeah. I never thought of it much before, but a classical
liberal mindset -- as in the liberal arts -- tends to be very
independent. I use to know a bunch of people who worked
at an international relief organization. You'll never meet a
more harder working, better educated, and more
committed group of individuals. But they were also very
opinionated and they all had their own ideas about how
best to go about things -- it was almost like a mini-UN at
times, but once they were on the same page, however
reluctantly, they became a whirl of activity and purpose. I
also know some people in the finance industry who think
think they are pretty well-educated and that they work
hard, but they truly have no clue what "well-educated"
and "hard work" really means. One of my friends was
class valedictorian at Harvard, but you won't be seeing her
driving a Beamer or Lexus or contemplating her portfolio
investments anytime soon, and she won't exactly be
poorer because of it.
This is probably why liberal/leftist bloggers will never be
unified the way conservative/right wing bloggers are --
it's just their nature to be independent. Which is a trait
you want for a journalist or news reporter.
>
> >> She wrote it. That's that.
> > Words without their context are meaningless.
> > That's what's that.
>
> Ask the people who were insulted. They are the ONLY people in this equation
> that actually matter because everybody else's opinions were not changed.
> The people who were insulted remain insulted.
>
> Every mis-statement has a number of different players. The person who
> misspoke, the people trying to spin is nice, the people trying to spin it
> worse, the people trying to out the people who tried to spin it nice or
> worse, etc.
>
> Everybody seems to forget its the INSULTED folks who don't give a damn what
> anybody else thinks..... Apologising doesn't remove the insult, spinning it
> nice doesn't make it less, spinning it worse doesn't make it worse, and
> raving about it on TV doesn't mean much at all.
One time I apparently insulted the jazz department of a
fairly prominent music school. By "apparently" I literally
didn't and still don't remember doing that, but a friend was
with me at the time -- a straight-up ex-Navy Seal -- and
he said I had totally ragged on them. I thought I was just
making conversation and don't really remember the exact
details of what I said, but there you go....
Now this was minor and all was forgiven, but suppose I
had rivals of sorts and they got their hands on a recording
of my comments, and then tried to make it into a BFD by
excerpting out the part that was taken as an insult and
sending it out all over. So now a whole bunch of new
people associated with that music school now think I
insulted them, but who is really the bad guy here? Bear
it mind that I was just making conversation and the
comment that ticked people off, once I hear exactly what
I said, was simply awkwardly phrased and then taken
in a way far different from what was intended.
As far I'm concerned, if I explain all this, and apologize
for inadvertently pissing off people, and some people are
still angry, it's now their problem and not mine. Mistakes
and misunderstandings happen all the time -- you owe
up to them, explain, apologize, resolve to be more careful
and aware the next time, and then move on. That's all
anyone needs to do. If that's not enough for some people,
again, that's their problem -- they likely the type who likes
being the victim and blaming everything and everyone
else for why they are not happy.
>
> >> See what I mean?
> > Have you checked lately on how the sides of
> > evolution and global warming line up?
>
> I'm not qualified to discuss either topic, because I'm over-qualified. (I
> have a BS and two MS.)
>
> Evolution is simple: God invented it. The Left likes to pick on an
> incredibly small number of Creationists because they can cast that as
> representative of the Right. The MSM loves this because anything kookie
> gets attention and sells ads and they support anything anti-Right. Its all
> bullshit.
Umm...when school textbooks get changed to give
equal weight to evolution and "intelligent design"
nonsense in this day and age, there is good reason
to be concerned:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education
>
> Global warming is pretty simple too. Its a planetary cycle that has been
> happenning ever since the planet cooled and developed an atmosphere. It has
> always ended in an ice age. Its happenning again. Yes, man has contributed
> to it. But man didn't contribute much and it doesn't matter since the end
> result cannot be prevented. Global warming is an income redistribution
> ideology. The Far Left loves it because they support Socialism and its main
> components. The MSM loves it because its pro-Left, gets attention and sells
> ads. Meanwhile, pollution, the ACTUAL problem, gets ignored...
Umm, I also happen to know a few bits about global
warming and it's the right that has transformed it into
a BFD of a political issue. As far as who's who in terms
of pro and con, theres a little ditty "line up" ditty I
periodically update and post. I don't want to get too far
afield here, so I'll just post a link to my last posting on
the matter: http://tinyurl.com/ysbbj2
>
> >> Some people can't see the difference between oppossing the war, which is
> >> a
> >> legitimate position, and betraying our troops, which is unacceptable.
> > It's tricky business, like I said. Here, try this as an
> > experiment: pretend you really believe that the Iraq
> > war was based on lies, and that it has been badly
> > mismanaged. Now, try to make a comment that
> > reflects these beliefs without it somehow at least
> > implying that lives of our dead troops were wasted.
>
> Simple. We invaded Iraq to effect regime change, to liberate 25 million
> people living under one of the worst dictatorships in the world, who also
> developed, used and continues to stockpile enormous quantities of WMD. We
> didn't find the WMDs. Sorry. We did liberate 25 million people. You're
> welcome.
Umm, "regime change" was not the reason given for
invading and it's certainly not what the troops themselves
think why they were sent over:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
>
> Fighting, and dying, for freedom and liberty is as honorable as it gets...
Then why do I suspect that if you tried to telling the
grieving parents of dead soldiers that the real reason
their kids died was to just go regime-change on a guy
who was no longer a good ally and to liberate 25 million
people who didn't ask us to liberate themwant, but that
it's good and noble, they may not take it very nicely?
>
> >> Obama's (mis-) statement burned him. The families will never forgive him
> >> for it.
> > See my previous comment. He just has to be very
> > careful and very aware that he's on very thin ice with
> > that subject matter.
>
> You could be right, it might blow over.
Like I said, it's tricky business, You didn't exactly do so
well justifying the soldiers' deaths.
>From all the bits and pieces that have been gathered so
far, it's very apparent that Bush *never* had any good
evidence that wasn't contradicted by more and better
evidence to support any of his public statements and
charges regarding Iraq, before, during and after the
invasion. If you go to buy a used car and ask the
salesperson if the car he's trying to sell you was
ever in an accident and he says no, not to his knowledge,
but there is a mechanic's report back on his desk saying
that, yes, it had been in an accident, did the salesperson
lie? What if the salesperson claims that he didn't lie
because what he meant by "not to his knowledge" was
that he didn't know personally that the car was in an
accident and that the person who traded it in said it was
only driven on Sundays and never out of 2nd gear so he
had no doubt it wasn't in an accident? Would you buy
that?
Bush lied. Enough said. The only question is whether he
will get away with it with little more than an unflattering
comment in future history textbooks.
>
> > Also check what Bush and Cheney claimed in June
> > of the following year:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush...
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/
> > But reports by the 9/11 Commission and the grossly
> > delayed, and still partial, Phase II Report (thanks to
> > deliberate stonewalling by its useless f*ckhead of a
> > chairman, Pat Roberts) by the Senate Select Committee
> > on Intelligence clearly showed that Bush and his
> > people never had any good evidence for a link between
> > Hussein and al-Qaeda:
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
> >http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/20...
> > Which makes all of his public statements to the
> > contrary utterly BS lies by any definition.
>
> The Admin never made a 9/11 link. The Admin DID make an Al Qaeda link,
> which for reasons I can't understand always seem to be the same thing to the
> Left...
True, technically (although Cheney came awfully close to
saying al-Qaeda used Iraq as a base of operations for the
attack), but what they did with 9/11 was intermix so
frequently when talking about Iraq and Hussein that Mr,
and Mr's Vaguely Informed just assumed that they were
connected, to the point that very nearly 70% of the US
public at one time indeed thought Hussein had something
to do with 9/11:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Who's fault is that? Well:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Even now, many still believe Hussein was connected:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13081
>
> >> > So I have good reason to
> >> > feel very strongly that Bush should have been impeached
> >> Then why is there no impeachment process underway?
> > You're asking the wrong person.
>
> Its a rhetorical question. There is no basis or grounds for an impeachment
> process...
Need I remind you that Clinton was impeached on the basis
that he lied over a bit of naughty office behavior? (Actually
Clinton may have misled but not technically lied since a
blowjob is considered by many to not be the same as having
real sex.) There is far more evidence for Bush lying outright
on many more numerous occasions and on matters of far,
FAR greater import and consequence. If Bush doesn't get
impeached and removed, the Democrats are likely going to
pay to it big time down the road.
>
> >> I think I see what you're missing....
> >> Edwards' anti-Christian employees DIDN'T insult YOU, Obama DIDN'T insult
> >> YOU, and Kerry DIDN'T insult YOU.
> > I see your confusion:
> > A: Amanda Marcotte isn't anti-Christian. She's a
> > Catholic, which makes her a Christian. She does
> > have issues with Catholic Church policies, but
> > disagreeing with your church's policies does not
> > make you anti-Christian or even anti-Church. Which
> > makes everyone claiming Marcotte to be anti-Christian
> > liars, which ironically makes them sinners. Religion
> > can be a bitch at times, eh?
>
> Who says Amanda is a Catholic? Amanda or the Catholic Church?
Hmmm....I thought I saw in one of her Pandagon pieces
a reference to her being raised Catholic, but that looks
to be a follow-up post by someone else. There is a passing
comment by another Pandagon writer about how there are
a few ex-Catholics at their blog site, but no names are
mentioned. And I can't find anything by Marcotte herself
about her background. She sounds and behaves very much
like a fallen Catholic, but that's not exactly evidence either.
The same with Melissa McEwan -- no personal info aside
from her being "born and raised in Indiana" which implies
a Christian background, but again, that's not enough.
There is now way too much noise on Google regarding
both of them to easily pull up any useful info prior to their
Edwards notoriety. I did find some early bits by Marcotte
from when she was still in college:
http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/99.02.18/news/jubilee.html
http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/98.11.5/edop/commentary.html
Obviously she thinks about religion a lot, which implies
some sort of religious childhood, but....
>
> > B: Kerry was taking a swipe at Bush's failed policies
> > in Iraq, and not at the troops. Those people who
> > misrepresented Kerry's remark as being a swipe at
> > the troops even after it was well demonstrated that
> > he had no such intention are also sinners. I suspect
> > that they are also guilty of "A" and numerous other
> > sins as well and therefore will likely end being toasted
> > and roasted in Hell for eternity. Like I said, religion
> > can be a bitch at times, eh?
>
> Kerry misspoke. I know exactly what Kerry WANTED to say. The problem isn't
> what he WANTED to say, its what he actually said...
It's still piddly poo in terms of importance, roughly
along the lines of saying "I'm going to drain the
dragon" as exuse to go pee. Seriously.
>
> > And those gullible souls who bought into the smears
> > that Marcotte is anti-Christian and that Kerry insulted
> > the troops....they should be thankful that being stupid
> > and easily played for a fool is not a sin.
>
> Have far do you think you can get blaming the people who were insulted for
> being insulted?
I've met and known enough of those types of people
over the years to know they may have caused the
exasperated expression, "Whatever!" to be born. You
are dealing mostly with deliberately dense people who
can't seem to get over anything.
>
> >> Kerry said: Dear Mr. & Mrs. America, you did a horrible job of raising
> >> your
> >> children, you brought them up to be stupid, probably because you're
> >> stupid,
> >> and now they'll have to die in a foreign war because you are failures as
> >> parents.
> >> Of course he didn't say those WORDS. But that is what the people TO WHOM
> >> IT
> >> MATTERS heard him say - TO THEM.
> > Like I said, those people should be thankful that
> > stupidity isn't a sin; otherwise, they would be in
> > deep, hot doo-doo.
>
> But that's irrelevant isn't it?
No. If people want to make Grand Canyons out of
wormholes, that's their perogative, but it's still a
stupid thing nevertheless.
>
> >> > That prepared "joke" was was suppose to have ended with
> >> > "Just ask President Bush," but Kerry left that off,
> >> So, you think this was the joke: "You know, education, if you make the
> >> most
> >> of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be
> >> smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq, just ask
> >> President Bush."
> >> And that somehow eliminates the insult AND makes a funny joke?
> > Taking a quipping swipe at your opponent is fair
> > game, especially when it's Bush (don't forget who
> > works for him -- Karl "Smear 'n' Slime" Rove) And
> > making a lame, piddly joke is generally not grounds
> > for stoning the last I checked. The thing with Kerry
> > joke wasn't a case of making a mountain out of a
> > molehill -- it was more along the lines of making
> > a Grand Canyon out of wormhole.
>
> You and I both know that Kerry never had or intended a "joke." He had a
> comment, and he screwed it up. Shit happens.
Like I said, it was suppose to be a quipping snipe at
Bush, but he delivered it awkwardly. But it was then
rather nicely if grossly immorally repackagesd by
Kerry haters into a insult aimed at our brave troops,
90% of whom think they're over there because of Hussein's
involvement in 9/11 (many are perhaps not the swiftest
shooters in the room)
>
> >> Gosh, I wonder if "Mr. and Mrs. Vaguely Informed" living anywhere would
> >> be
> >> pleased with that? Or do you think they might be insulted by that?
> > I don't care.
>
> Which is probably exactly what Obama was thinking, and Kerry, and
> Edwards....
>
> People, especially with some extra special power and/or money, frequently
> tend to think that the world between their ears mirrors the real one - it
> infrequently does.
Umm, you kind of clipped off a wee bit too much of my
response. Here it is again in context:
"I don't care. I'm personally pretty fed up with
dumbasses not caring enough to make even the
slightest effort to get the facts on things they
mouth off about or, worse, base their votes on,
especially with computers, the Internet and
Google making such a thing pretty damn easy.
"If I had my way, there would be an 11th
Commandment: Thou shall not dwell in ignorance
when knowledge is at hand."
>
> >> An insult is an insult. Kerry never intended to make a joke. He
> >> intended
> >> to make an insult. Life sucks even if your wife is rich...
> > An insult is an insult only when it is an insult,
> > and not just some ill-phrased remark twisted into
> > and presented as an insult by adversaries up to
> > no good.
>
> But this is a crucial point you're not getting. An insult is an insult if
> someone is insulted. And if you toss in a couple of more FACTS: Did Kerry
> apologise immediately (like Obama did)? No. Kerry ducked. Kerry's people
> ducked. Then Kerry's people, too late of course, came up with a pretty weak
> excuse but no apology. And when Edwards was confronted what did he do? He
> ducked, then insisted that he wouldn't fire those two bloggers. Then didn't
> fire them. And only secretly invited them to leave, but not at the same
> time. Edwards didn't learn from Kerry but Obama did, to his credit.
It's a tough call -- did you ever make a comment that
someone took too much the wrong way and then tried
to twist further to make you seem like a jerk? You don't
really feel like apologizing under those circumstances,
even when it is the quick and easy way out.
>
> But the point is if someone says they were insulted, and the words came from
> your face, then you are responsible and you immediately apologise. Its
> simple. OF COURSE you didn't intend to insult that person, but that fact is
> irrelevant.
See my previous. I don't like apologizing for stuff that
I said but was pretty stupidly misinterpreted.
>
> >> Of course you have to be on guard. However, try to remember, that we're
> >> ONLY talking about what people ACTUALLY wrote or ACTUALLY said.
> > Now, what did I say about context? If you have a
> > blackboard, please write 500 times: "I will not ignore
> > context." Failing to do so will likely mean eternal
> > damnation -- did I ever mention that religion can be
> > a bitch?
>
> Context is a crutch or an excuse.
Context is tied to meaning. Like when you took my
"I don't care" comment out of context, it changed its
meaning and that's a fundamental no-no when claiming
someone said or wrote blah, blah blah...
>
> >> And the Left is the same way. Unfortunately for the Left, they've been
> >> tripping up more lately.
> > Nope. The left has nowhere that type of unity.
>
> The Right is more unified, at least that's my observation, but they can both
> be equally nasty. We're seeing the Left trip up more right now because they
> are and because they're out campaigning more. As soon as the Right gets
> more into campaigning they'll be tripping up just as much. They always do.
I have little use for either. Things tend to degrade to
name calling and mocking regardless of who is more
"right". But the right has been taking maliciousness
and rumor mongering to new heights.
>
> >> The Katrina fiasco was an excellent example of Democrats acting in unity.
> >> One of the few in fact. The only city the Federal gov't is responsible
> >> for
> >> is Washington, DC. The Federal gov't is not responsible for the city of
> >> New
> >> Orleans. The stupid mayor knew he had a few hundred thousand people who
> >> couldn't or wouldn't evacuate. He knew he had several hundred buses
> >> sitting
> >> around and didn't use them. He orders an evacuation that fails, then
> >> orders
> >> those who wouldn't evacuate to go to a place he failed to supply.
> >> Meanwhile, FEMA can't get in to help because everything is flooded. And
> >> we
> >> already know that over half the money earmarked for levee work was
> >> mis-spent
> >> by the same stupid mayor.
> > Umm, that bus story is an urban myth:
> >http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120005
>
> Read your cite again. The school buses existed. Does it significantly
> matter if it was 700 buses or 2,000? The mayor screwed up. He called for
> an evacuation. And his school bus drivers evacuated. And the next day had
> no way to respond to the people who he (or his NO-EMA or LA-EMA) knew would
> still be there needing help.
>
> There wouldn't have been an issue if the mayor had evacuated his people.
Go check to see how people *were* successfully
evacuated. Blanco and Nagin executed their part of
the preexisting evacuation plan. Not perfectly, but well
enough to get 350-400,000 evacuated, and the rest who
stayed behind and willing to leave their homes to shelters.
Bear in mind that New Orleans is pretty remote from
the other towns and that using school buses to ferry
people to places 8-10+ hours away was not an attractive
option.
The National Guard, Army Corp of Engineers, and FEMA
were all notified in time and all confirmed that they were
prepped and ready. Blanco also used the Stafford Act to
request emergency assistence from Bush and FEMA
when it became apparent that Louisiana would not have the
resources to deal with a CAT 4 or 5 hurricane hit.
It was FEMA and the rest of the Bush-led federal f*ckups
that dropped the ball afterwards.
>
> There wouldn't have been an issue if the mayor had supplied the Dome.
>
> And neither of those are Federal responsibilities.
>
> > Also I kind of went over the details over who did
> > their jobs and who screwed up in another long
> > post from last year:http://tinyurl.com/yuj5c5
> > Have I even mentioned that I do my homework?
>
> Yep, you seem to.
>
> >> But the Democrats turned it into Bush's fault. That was a brilliant
> >> piece
> >> of work except for one thing. Most Americans aren't black, aren't poor,
> >> are
> >> responsible for themselves, and didn't buy the Its-Bush's-Fault claim as
> >> regards Katrina.
> > See the previous.
>
> I doesn't appear to me that the majority of Americans blame Bush for
> Katrina. However, I'm a lifelong Floridian so I have a pretty good
> understanding of hurricanes and all that surrounds them. Maybe many
> Americans DO think these are Federal responsibilities?
Well, think about it, we have a hierarchal fallback
system of sorts for most emergencies -- if your
town can't handle the problem, there is usually a
cooperative response by neighboring towns; if they
can't handle it, the State is suppose to come in and
help; if they can't handle it with normal means, they
bring in the National Guard; if they still can't handle
it, the Feds are suppose to come in; and even if the
Feds can't handle it, other countries will likely come
in to help.
While you can't and shouldn't expect the Feds to
come in all the time for things like hurricanes, you
can and should expect them to be at the ready when
they are really needed.
>
> >> > While you might think of idealistic do-gooders as being
> >> > hopelessly naive, at least they care, pay attention, and try
> >> > to make things better. What is the point otherwise?
> >> Getting paid is the actual point.
> > I always thought having a safe, orderly, prosperous, fair
> > and free society that protects the innocent and helps the
> > poor, elderly and unfortunate was the true actual point.
> > I guess I missed the last memo....
>
> Yes, you missed the memo!! If we could find another 60 million of you
> memo-missers we could steal the entire Center-Left, the entire Center-Right,
> and we could ask the Far-Left to move to Canada and the Far-Right to move to
> who-fucking-knows-where, and we could have a fine new political party.
I almost got the impression that there was a
compliment in there someplace. For all my
personal moaning and bitching about right wingers
and even the left, I kind of prefer a diverse society
with lots of differing opinions, even if it frequently
leads to arguments and descends into mocking and
name callling. Maybe I've been corrupted by the Star
Trek notion that yes, we all can get along, Vulcans
and Klingons alike, if not too smoothly at times -- it
leads to a much more interesting world. 60 million
of me would be 59,999,999 too many. For every
Amanda Marcotte, I actually wouldn't mind a
Michelle Malkin. Even libertarian global warming
skeptics like apparently yourself -- diversity always
makes for a stronger species if nothing else.
-BC
Patriot Games
> On Feb 19, 12:52 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "BC" <callm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171830858.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> automatically 100% credible - and 100% worthless - to anyone more
>> interested
>> in facts.
> Actually I should have phrased that a little
> differently -- maybe more like "not all so called
> news has equal weight in terms of credibility."
It should.
> And there is a
> *huge* difference in credibilty between honest,
> knowledgeable, fact-based opinion &
> commentary and that loaded with agenda, bias,
> and cherry-picked or misrepresented facts.
Its still opinion.
> There are an awful lot of very misinformed people
> out there, and they got that way not because of
> sourced news or knowledgeable opinion, but
> because of BS rumors, misreprestend "facts" and
> commentators talking out of their butts.
I agree. They were never in a position to differentiate so-called
"knowledgeable opinion" from any other kind. Basically, if the talking head
says something that you agree with its wonderful, otherwise its crap....
>> Isn't the real problem too much opinion (frequently called "news
>> analysis"
>> and "news commentary") and not enough facts?
> A girl from Kazakhstan and another girl from mainland
> China -- and bear in mind that both ot those countries
> still impose limitations on their news media -- both
> told me how much inferior in content they found the US
> TV news to be compared to what their were use to in
> their respective home countries.
I'm not surprised. They get a limited set of facts, but they get more facts
than political opinion.
> They were both use
> to watching something like a half-hour of no-nonsense
> news items being straightforwardly rattled off quickly
> and efficiently.
I'd welcome that! But I'd also like ALL the facts.
> They both especially noted that the US
> media is especially poor in covering world news and
> events.
The Big Dawg is more interested in itself, the Puppies are more interested
in each other and where the nipple is.....
> I personally remember as a kid news having a pretty
> straightforward format of 1/2 hour local news followed
> by 1/2 hour of national/international, which sounds a
> lot like how they still do it in other countries.
I was raised on Walter and then on Peter Jennings.
> But that
> was from the days when news was an obligated public
> service by local TV stations and the national networks,
> and it was never considered something to make a
> profit from. TV news morphed somehow into profit-
> making programming, hence leading to both a very
> sharp rise in "news programming" and a diffusion of
> content.
True enough. I don't mean this as it being their fault but CBS started this
with 60 Minutes. When a news show beats an entertainment show for ratings
the rest is predictable.
> Unfortunately, it's been legally ruled by at least one
> state supreme court that news organizations are free
> to lie without legal repercussions. I know that sounds
> absurd, but...here you go:
> http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
> http://archives.cjr.org/year/01/2/grossman.asp
> I suppose there's no point in mentioning which news
> organization wanted the freedom to lie and distort.
That's not exactly what the lawsuit was about, and it was a local station,
and there was huge support via 'Amici Curiae.' However, this precedent is
what kept CBS and Dan Rather out of even hotter water later.
>> If the public really is so stupid that they need facts analyzed and
>> commented upon then who shares a large part of that blame? The MSM for
>> skewing the facts in the first place.
> Let's get back to "Mr. and Mrs. Vaguely Informed."
> They probably think they are actually pretty well
> informed: they have their kitchen TV on in the
> morning while getting ready for work and having a
> quick breakfast; they listen to a radio talk show
> with news and traffic info while driving; they watch
> an hour or so of local and national TV news when
> they come home in the evening, as well as watch a
> few hours each week of news "magazines" and
> specials, and then of course read the Sunday
> newspapers. In theory, that's a lot of content and
> they should have pretty idea of what's going on --
> but chances are they don't.
That's more content then I get...
> As I said before, the proper term is "the corporate
> media" and not the "MSM".
I'll agree to that probably right after the 2008 elections...
>> > CBS is owned by Viacom, and its CEO Sumner
>> > Redstone supported Bush:
>> >http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669
>> And then Danny lost his mind....
> Now, now.....
> Actually, I happen to know one or two things not too
> commonly known about the Killian memos situation
> and guess what -- it's not exactly what people were
> led to believe, surprise, friggin surprise:
> http://aheckofa.com/FoolMeOnce/CBSBushMemos.html
Hahahhaha!!! That site isn't biased, no way......
If they were real documents where are the originals?
>> Nope. George is a goofball in my opinion.... I actually don't watch any
>> of
>> those interview shows.
> If you haven't done so in a while -- do so. You'd be very
> surprised at how conservative they've all become. I sure
> was.
With an important election coming its not a surprise they all want to drift
toward the Center which makes them appear to be conservative from a Far Left
perspective.
Its not journalism but its what we are left with. The NYT has attacked Bush
10 times as much as they attacked Clinton and Fox (only example I know of)
is the reverse.
>> By "liberal" you mean independent. I couldn't agree more.
> Yeah. I never thought of it much before, but a classical
> liberal mindset -- as in the liberal arts -- tends to be very
> independent.
Fully independent. Beholden to no one. Willing and able to go after a
story for the sake of the story no matter who is involved...
> This is probably why liberal/leftist bloggers will never be
> unified the way conservative/right wing bloggers are --
> it's just their nature to be independent. Which is a trait
> you want for a journalist or news reporter.
We'll see. Let's wait and see how they rally (or not) around the obvious
Dem frontrunner in about exactly a year... Part of me hopes they do because
that makes for a great campaign and race and part of me hopes they don't
because outting the actual euro-socialists from the traditional democratic
party is something that needs to happen.
>> Ask the people who were insulted. They are the ONLY people in this
>> equation
>> that actually matter because everybody else's opinions were not changed.
>> The people who were insulted remain insulted.
>> Every mis-statement has a number of different players. The person who
>> misspoke, the people trying to spin is nice, the people trying to spin it
>> worse, the people trying to out the people who tried to spin it nice or
>> worse, etc.
>> Everybody seems to forget its the INSULTED folks who don't give a damn
>> what
>> anybody else thinks..... Apologising doesn't remove the insult, spinning
>> it
>> nice doesn't make it less, spinning it worse doesn't make it worse, and
>> raving about it on TV doesn't mean much at all.
> One time I apparently insulted the jazz department of a
> fairly prominent music school. By "apparently" I literally
> didn't and still don't remember doing that, but a friend was
> with me at the time -- a straight-up ex-Navy Seal -- and
> he said I had totally ragged on them. I thought I was just
> making conversation and don't really remember the exact
> details of what I said, but there you go....
It can happen. Anybody can do it. The WORST thing you can do when that
happens is go anywhere near spin. Just immediately apologise and move on.
THAT works wonders. Just about every other possible response just digs you
in deeper.
> Now this was minor and all was forgiven, but suppose I
> had rivals of sorts and they got their hands on a recording
> of my comments, and then tried to make it into a BFD by
> excerpting out the part that was taken as an insult and
> sending it out all over. So now a whole bunch of new
> people associated with that music school now think I
> insulted them, but who is really the bad guy here? Bear
> it mind that I was just making conversation and the
> comment that ticked people off, once I hear exactly what
> I said, was simply awkwardly phrased and then taken
> in a way far different from what was intended.
> As far I'm concerned, if I explain all this, and apologize
> for inadvertently pissing off people, and some people are
> still angry, it's now their problem and not mine.
Its always better to NOT explain first, or at all, and just get that apology
out there as soon as possible. Then, you have the high ground and anybody
still pissed at you can be worked with an explanation, THEN its their
problem.
>> >> See what I mean?
>> > Have you checked lately on how the sides of
>> > evolution and global warming line up?
>> I'm not qualified to discuss either topic, because I'm over-qualified.
>> (I
>> have a BS and two MS.)
>> Evolution is simple: God invented it. The Left likes to pick on an
>> incredibly small number of Creationists because they can cast that as
>> representative of the Right. The MSM loves this because anything kookie
>> gets attention and sells ads and they support anything anti-Right. Its
>> all
>> bullshit.
> Umm...when school textbooks get changed to give
> equal weight to evolution and "intelligent design"
> nonsense in this day and age, there is good reason
> to be concerned:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education
I know even less about Intelligent Design, like which non-Deity human
designed Intelligent Design, why I should care and why its recently so
important....
But this is, again, an example of the right fight in the wrong ring.
Whatever Intelligent Design is it isn't Hard Science. And Evolution Theory,
for all its minor problems and gaps, IS Hard Science. If the argument is
what should be in a Soft Science textbook then Hard Science people should
step out of the room. And if the argument is about a Hard Science textbook
then only Hard Science people should be allowed in the room...
>> Global warming is pretty simple too. Its a planetary cycle that has been
>> happenning ever since the planet cooled and developed an atmosphere. It
>> has
>> always ended in an ice age. Its happenning again. Yes, man has
>> contributed
>> to it. But man didn't contribute much and it doesn't matter since the
>> end
>> result cannot be prevented. Global warming is an income redistribution
>> ideology. The Far Left loves it because they support Socialism and its
>> main
>> components. The MSM loves it because its pro-Left, gets attention and
>> sells
>> ads. Meanwhile, pollution, the ACTUAL problem, gets ignored...
> Umm, I also happen to know a few bits about global
> warming and it's the right that has transformed it into
> a BFD of a political issue. As far as who's who in terms
> of pro and con, theres a little ditty "line up" ditty I
> periodically update and post. I don't want to get too far
> afield here, so I'll just post a link to my last posting on
> the matter: http://tinyurl.com/ysbbj2
Bottomline: "Meanwhile, pollution, the ACTUAL problem, gets ignored..."
>> Simple. We invaded Iraq to effect regime change, to liberate 25 million
>> people living under one of the worst dictatorships in the world, who also
>> developed, used and continues to stockpile enormous quantities of WMD.
>> We
>> didn't find the WMDs. Sorry. We did liberate 25 million people. You're
>> welcome.
> Umm, "regime change" was not the reason given for
There wasn't one reason, there was a list of them. Regime change was one of
them.
> invading and it's certainly not what the troops themselves
> think why they were sent over:
> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
But that's not relevant, right?
>> Fighting, and dying, for freedom and liberty is as honorable as it
>> gets...
> Then why do I suspect that if you tried to telling the
> grieving parents of dead soldiers that the real reason
> their kids died was to just go regime-change on a guy
> who was no longer a good ally and to liberate 25 million
> people who didn't ask us to liberate themwant, but that
> it's good and noble, they may not take it very nicely?
I don't know why you suspect that... I'm sure at some time in your life
somebody Sold you something. And you hated whatever it was that you Bought.
After you calmed down you realized that the Salesman didn't exactly lie to
you but instead downplayed the negatives and emphasized the positives.
I can't explain why Bush did that. It will probably never be explained.
But that's what he did. Personally, I would have said, "Saddam, 30 days or
your toast."
It sometimes helps to see things entirely backwards. Bush said there were
WMD in Iraq. There were no WMD in Iraq. People say Bush knew there were no
WMD in Iraq.
So why do something that YOU ALREADY KNOW you'll get caught on? Its silly.
Had Bush said we're going to Iraq to liberate it before it becomes the next
Afghanistan I strongly think America would have been behind it AND the rest
of the world would have been strongly against it.
>> You could be right, it might blow over.
> Like I said, it's tricky business, You didn't exactly do so
> well justifying the soldiers' deaths.
But that depends to whom you are justifying them... To their loved ones
there is NO OTHER alternative... See?
>> > Check the date on that transcript: Sept. 17, 2003
>> You see something that you want to see in the Q&A above. I see two
>> different sets of facts and someone trying to squeeze them together.
>> The only person who has ever actually directly linked Iraq and 9/11 is
>> some
>> idiot Senator from (I think) North or South Carolina who WAS NOT
>> authorized
>> to speak for the Admin or the Congress or the Pentagon.
>> We had bad intel. Plain and simple. But we even asked our intel
>> counterparts in France, Germany, Russia, the UK and Saudi Arabia and they
>> ALL AGREED with our intel... So what were we supposed to do, ignore
>> that?
>>From all the bits and pieces that have been gathered so
> far, it's very apparent that Bush *never* had any good
> evidence that wasn't contradicted by more and better
> evidence to support any of his public statements and
> charges regarding Iraq, before, during and after the
> invasion.
Slow down. The only valid time period is before the invasion. And, as 4
separate investigations proved, the intel was bad. Everybody's intel was
bad AND everybody was unhappy with their intel. But it is what it is.
However, the problem wasn't and isn't bad intel. The problem isn't no WMD.
Imagine if you can WMD-in-Iraq being Reason #14 instead of Reason #1. The
problem is that something shakey was Reason #1 instead of something
rock-hard being Reason #1.
Pretend Reason #1 was Regime Change. That's easy right? We can do that.
And we can prove we did that after we do it. Slam dunk, right? Yesterday
Saddam being a bad guy, today Saddam swinging from a rope and pooped in his
pants. Bush says he'll get Saddam, Bush gets Saddam, Bush is the hero.
Easy. So WHY didn't he pick something EASY as Reason #1?????
The only reason Bush picked a known-shakey reason for the invasion is
because he needed/wanted the world's help so he needed a reason the world
cared about.
One last flashback... One year after 9/11. If Bush had gone on TV, and put
on Jimmy's old sweater, and said, "Friends, look at this picture I'm holding
up here. Look at that cigar-smoking, bearded murderer of innocent
civilians. He's a mean ugly bastard isn't he? We think Al Qaeda has been
hanging out there too. Want me to go throw some whoop-ass on him?"
EVERY FUCKING TELEPHONE in America would be off the hook and you know it.
Everybody in America, (okay, maybe only 90%) would be calling somebody,
anybody, saying Yeah - go kick his ass too!! Because Saddam as a genuine
bad guy and we were genuinely in the mood for kicking bad guy ass.
So, you and me and America and others got Sold something, and we aren't
happy about that. Well, shit happens.
> If you go to buy a used car and ask the
> salesperson if the car he's trying to sell you was
> ever in an accident and he says no, not to his knowledge,
> but there is a mechanic's report back on his desk saying
> that, yes, it had been in an accident, did the salesperson
> lie?
Maybe, maybe not. If he hasn't read that report he's not lying. If he has
he is.
> What if the salesperson claims that he didn't lie
> because what he meant by "not to his knowledge" was
> that he didn't know personally that the car was in an
> accident and that the person who traded it in said it was
> only driven on Sundays and never out of 2nd gear so he
> had no doubt it wasn't in an accident? Would you buy
> that?
Of course not...
> Bush lied. Enough said. The only question is whether he
> will get away with it with little more than an unflattering
> comment in future history textbooks.
You might want to prepare yourself for the possibility of an elementary
school or to in Iraq named George W. Bush Elementary School #4.........
>> The Admin never made a 9/11 link. The Admin DID make an Al Qaeda link,
>> which for reasons I can't understand always seem to be the same thing to
>> the
>> Left...
> True, technically (although Cheney came awfully close to
> saying al-Qaeda used Iraq as a base of operations for the
> attack),
I agree he came extremely close. I think he came too close.
> but what they did with 9/11 was intermix so
> frequently when talking about Iraq and Hussein that Mr,
> and Mr's Vaguely Informed just assumed that they were
> connected, to the point that very nearly 70% of the US
> public at one time indeed thought Hussein had something
> to do with 9/11:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
There you go insulting Mr. and Mrs. Informed again..... But, for a fact,
the impression existed, was created, and the Sales Pitch was on.
>> Its a rhetorical question. There is no basis or grounds for an
>> impeachment
>> process...
> Need I remind you that Clinton was impeached on the basis
> that he lied over a bit of naughty office behavior? (Actually
> Clinton may have misled but not technically lied since a
> blowjob is considered by many to not be the same as having
> real sex.) There is far more evidence for Bush lying outright
> on many more numerous occasions and on matters of far,
> FAR greater import and consequence. If Bush doesn't get
> impeached and removed, the Democrats are likely going to
> pay to it big time down the road.
Don't worry about the Dems with regard to a Bush impeachment. If Osama is
not proven dead or in custody by the '08 elections the Republicans can't win
if Abe and Ronnie reincarnated as One and ran. THE key to '08 for
Republicans is Osama. No Osama and the Dems could run Michael Moore and
Britney Spears as VP and win with the biggest majority AND largest voter
turnout in history.
Alternatively, if Osama finds himself dead or in jail before the elections
the Dems have ZERO chance in '08 even if the Republicans ran Michael Moore
and Britney Spears as VP!!
There's currently nothing happenning regarding an impeachment....
>> Who says Amanda is a Catholic? Amanda or the Catholic Church?
> Hmmm....I thought I saw in one of her Pandagon pieces
> a reference to her being raised Catholic, but that looks
> to be a follow-up post by someone else. There is a passing
> comment by another Pandagon writer about how there are
> a few ex-Catholics at their blog site, but no names are
> mentioned. And I can't find anything by Marcotte herself
> about her background. She sounds and behaves very much
> like a fallen Catholic, but that's not exactly evidence either.
> The same with Melissa McEwan -- no personal info aside
> from her being "born and raised in Indiana" which implies
> a Christian background, but again, that's not enough.
> There is now way too much noise on Google regarding
> both of them to easily pull up any useful info prior to their
> Edwards notoriety. I did find some early bits by Marcotte
> from when she was still in college:
> http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/99.02.18/news/jubilee.html
> http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/98.11.5/edop/commentary.html
> Obviously she thinks about religion a lot, which implies
> some sort of religious childhood, but....
Well, they had their 15 minutes, eh?
>> Kerry misspoke. I know exactly what Kerry WANTED to say. The problem
>> isn't
>> what he WANTED to say, its what he actually said...
> It's still piddly poo in terms of importance, roughly
> along the lines of saying "I'm going to drain the
> dragon" as exuse to go pee. Seriously.
To me, yes. To you, yes. Neither of us were personally insulted.....
>> Have far do you think you can get blaming the people who were insulted
>> for
>> being insulted?
> I've met and known enough of those types of people
> over the years to know they may have caused the
> exasperated expression, "Whatever!" to be born. You
> are dealing mostly with deliberately dense people who
> can't seem to get over anything.
While that is likely at least somewhat true - its still irrelevant.
>> But that's irrelevant isn't it?
> No. If people want to make Grand Canyons out of
> wormholes, that's their perogative, but it's still a
> stupid thing nevertheless.
Stupid to you, not them....
>> Which is probably exactly what Obama was thinking, and Kerry, and
>> Edwards....
>> People, especially with some extra special power and/or money, frequently
>> tend to think that the world between their ears mirrors the real one - it
>> infrequently does.
> Umm, you kind of clipped off a wee bit too much of my
> response. Here it is again in context:
> "I don't care. I'm personally pretty fed up with
> dumbasses not caring enough to make even the
> slightest effort to get the facts on things they
> mouth off about or, worse, base their votes on,
> especially with computers, the Internet and
> Google making such a thing pretty damn easy.
> "If I had my way, there would be an 11th
> Commandment: Thou shall not dwell in ignorance
> when knowledge is at hand."
No amount of knowledge will change how being insulted feels. Only an
instant apology can hope to have a lessening affect.
I guarantee you had Kerry immediately caught himself "misspeaking,"
immediately apologised just in case, and then made the actual point we both
know he wanted to make two things would be happenning now. a) There would
be no issue; b) Edwards would be toast, Obama would be scrambling, and Kerry
would be neck-and-neck with Hillary in the polls.
You're still sore because it happenned. Don't sweat it, you KNOW the
reverse is going to happen any day....
>> But this is a crucial point you're not getting. An insult is an insult
>> if
>> someone is insulted. And if you toss in a couple of more FACTS: Did
>> Kerry
>> apologise immediately (like Obama did)? No. Kerry ducked. Kerry's
>> people
>> ducked. Then Kerry's people, too late of course, came up with a pretty
>> weak
>> excuse but no apology. And when Edwards was confronted what did he do?
>> He
>> ducked, then insisted that he wouldn't fire those two bloggers. Then
>> didn't
>> fire them. And only secretly invited them to leave, but not at the same
>> time. Edwards didn't learn from Kerry but Obama did, to his credit.
> It's a tough call -- did you ever make a comment that
> someone took too much the wrong way and then tried
> to twist further to make you seem like a jerk?
About daily.... Today I'm a jerk because of a typo most of my grandchildren
could figure out...
> You don't
> really feel like apologizing under those circumstances,
> even when it is the quick and easy way out.
I know....
>> The Right is more unified, at least that's my observation, but they can
>> both
>> be equally nasty. We're seeing the Left trip up more right now because
>> they
>> are and because they're out campaigning more. As soon as the Right gets
>> more into campaigning they'll be tripping up just as much. They always
>> do.
> I have little use for either. Things tend to degrade to
> name calling and mocking regardless of who is more
> "right". But the right has been taking maliciousness
> and rumor mongering to new heights.
Only right (pun intended) now. The shoe will be on the other foot any
day...
>> Read your cite again. The school buses existed. Does it significantly
>> matter if it was 700 buses or 2,000? The mayor screwed up. He called
>> for
>> an evacuation. And his school bus drivers evacuated. And the next day
>> had
>> no way to respond to the people who he (or his NO-EMA or LA-EMA) knew
>> would
>> still be there needing help.
>> There wouldn't have been an issue if the mayor had evacuated his people.
> Go check to see how people *were* successfully
> evacuated.
Ok, no argument. They weren't the problem.
> Blanco and Nagin executed their part of
> the preexisting evacuation plan. Not perfectly, but well
> enough to get 350-400,000 evacuated, and the rest who
> stayed behind and willing to leave their homes to shelters.
The pre-existing plan included doing something with the several hundred
thousand people they knew wouldn't or couldn't budge from the projects.
That's well documented. It was even rehearsed in specific preparedness
drills held only a year before.
> Bear in mind that New Orleans is pretty remote from
> the other towns and that using school buses to ferry
> people to places 8-10+ hours away was not an attractive
> option.
But being attractive isn't relevant. The Mayor and the Gov KNEW there were
going to be several hundred thousand folks stuck in the projects. They KNEW
you either go get them or you tell them to walk out. And they KNEW there
was exactly ONE place to store them - the Dome. This was all known a year
in advance...
I don't know this to be a fact but I assume the Mayor ignored them because
he didn't think they'd have a problem with the hurricane itself (those are
big old brick and concrete buildings) AND he didn't think they'd have a
problem walking to the Dome the next day. Considering that everybody who
knew how to drive a bus had already evacuated as ordered he really didn't
have any other option. And IF the levees hadn't broke FEMA supplies would
have reached the Dome BEFORE the walking refugees.
> The National Guard, Army Corp of Engineers, and FEMA
> were all notified in time and all confirmed that they were
> prepped and ready.
They were sort of. They were prepared for a Cat-3 or Cat-4 near direct hit.
Nobody was prepared for the levees failing.
> Blanco also used the Stafford Act to
> request emergency assistence from Bush and FEMA
> when it became apparent that Louisiana would not have the
> resources to deal with a CAT 4 or 5 hurricane hit.
> It was FEMA and the rest of the Bush-led federal f*ckups
> that dropped the ball afterwards.
Noooo, that isn't what happenned. What happenned is the levees broke and
turned a very bad situation into a terrible situation. FEMA will always
stand off from a disaster because we don't want the first-responders getting
caught IN the disaster. So they were going to be some hours away at best
anyway. That would not have been an issue if the streets weren't flooded.
When FEMA and the NG did get downtown where was the NO supplies? Apparently
nowhere. Not at the Dome, but more importantly they DIDN'T EXIST. FEMA and
the NG supplied the Dome with THEIR supplies because the city's resources
didn't exist...
>> I doesn't appear to me that the majority of Americans blame Bush for
>> Katrina. However, I'm a lifelong Floridian so I have a pretty good
>> understanding of hurricanes and all that surrounds them. Maybe many
>> Americans DO think these are Federal responsibilities?
> Well, think about it, we have a hierarchal fallback
> system of sorts for most emergencies -- if your
> town can't handle the problem, there is usually a
> cooperative response by neighboring towns; if they
> can't handle it, the State is suppose to come in and
> help; if they can't handle it with normal means, they
> bring in the National Guard; if they still can't handle
> it, the Feds are suppose to come in; and even if the
> Feds can't handle it, other countries will likely come
> in to help.
Sure, that sounds good. But as a Floridian here's what I've ALWAYS seen.
Florida takes care of herself, FEMA comes behind catching a loose end here
and there, and NOTHING from any other state or country. (Which is why my
attitude to other states and countries if they can go fuck themselves. We
had SIX major hurricanes in as many months and we didn't get shit from
anybody so they can all kiss my ass until I say stop.)
> While you can't and shouldn't expect the Feds to
> come in all the time for things like hurricanes, you
> can and should expect them to be at the ready when
> they are really needed.
Sure enough.
>> Yes, you missed the memo!! If we could find another 60 million of you
>> memo-missers we could steal the entire Center-Left, the entire
>> Center-Right,
>> and we could ask the Far-Left to move to Canada and the Far-Right to move
>> to
>> who-fucking-knows-where, and we could have a fine new political party.
> I almost got the impression that there was a
> compliment in there someplace.
Hahahhaha!! There was.
> For all my
> personal moaning and bitching about right wingers
> and even the left, I kind of prefer a diverse society
> with lots of differing opinions, even if it frequently
> leads to arguments and descends into mocking and
> name callling. Maybe I've been corrupted by the Star
> Trek notion that yes, we all can get along, Vulcans
> and Klingons alike, if not too smoothly at times -- it
> leads to a much more interesting world.
No Klingons! I draw the line at those ugly Klingons. Not in this tent!
> 60 million
> of me would be 59,999,999 too many. For every
> Amanda Marcotte, I actually wouldn't mind a
> Michelle Malkin. Even libertarian global warming
> skeptics like apparently yourself -- diversity always
> makes for a stronger species if nothing else.
I also like only being able to blame ourselves when we screw up instead of
each other.