Slashdot Mirror

This isn't about believing in WMDs before the invasion. This is about believing that we found WMDs AFTER the invasion. In an October 2003 poll, for example, 7 months after the invasion, 33% of Fox viewers said that the U.S. had actually physically found WMDs in the course of the invasion. That's 10% higher than the next most confused media viewership. This is what some of us would really love to see explained by you "nothing to see here" apologists. Or else, it sounds like you still maintain that's a reasonable belief today?

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs /Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Weapons of Mass Destruction
As discussed, when respondents were asked whether the US has "found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" since the war had ended, 22% of all respondents over June-September mistakenly thought this had happened. Once again, Fox viewers were the highest with 33% having this belief. A lower 19-23% of viewers who watch ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN had the perception that the US has found WMD. Seventeen percent of those who primarily get their news from print sources had the misperception, while only 11% of those who watch PBS or listen to NPR had it.

You obviously think everyone is an idiot.

Some people don't have time to read 8 hours of fucking news every day to meet your standards.

One should take in all sources of news and make up their own minds.

I got 'survey does not exists'. Are being sarcastic? If not I would like to point out:
1) Prison population is generally not considered unemployed even though they are a burden on society. Add those in.
2) Most of the govt. stats only count those registered and seeking work, not discouraged workers.

Be careful, if you adjust the numbers, they are not as rosy as it may seem. This site asserted over 10% in '04:
http://americanassembler.com/newsblog/index.php?p= 670

The thig is that their ATMs are by no means rock-solid, but they do work well enough. I haven't heard of any reports of them being responsible for misallocation of people's funds or of being able to (really) hax0r one just by having physical access to it. Even when they screw up really badly they aren't skewing people's bank accounts. Diebold SHOULD be able to make this work. Unfortunately they seem to be unwilling.

I believe if the tables were turned, all of this 'Kerry bashing' from you and above posters would be quite different. Republicans would be fighting this in court. So Republicans, please take your FUD elsewhere, and btw thanks for screwing up our economy.
- Link from The US Dept. of Labor source.

People do not want to be informed -- they want to feel informed. I agree with everything you say, but it is this which has doomed true journalism. People want so much more to be "right" than to understand, to think, or to suffer challenge to their long-held beliefs.

What we get in America today is not true journalism. Partisan bias, which is largely demonstrated in the choice of what is and isn't "newsworthy", has been pushed to the fore of our media.

There is a very interesting study here that basically tries to gauge how minsinformed the US public is, and then break that down by which candidates they support, which news channels they watch, how clseoly they follow the news etc.

Now, the report has its biases in the sorts of questions they ask, and to some extend how they present the data, but if you read the report as well as just skimming through the somewhat damning graphs littered throughout, you'll see that there are some real systemic problems with US media coverage. In general, if you watched/listened major news outlets (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC etc.) you tended to be more misinformed the more closely you thought you followed the news.

And then there's the problem that this study didn't even consider - all the significant and interesting questions that are simply never be asked by the mainstream US media. Ah well, what can you do? Try and seek out other news sources I guess.

Jedidiah

I dont suppose any of these plan on running on anything other then gasoline or jet fuel?

There has been a lot of talk of hitting peak oil very soon. I dont know how viable flying cars will be under peak oil.

Love the concept, but we need to focus on alternate fuel sources really, really soon.

Paranoid? maybe. But you should probably read this

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/peak_oil/p eak_oil.html

Right wing racist idiots like you ought to take a look at this before making claims about the importance of IQ.

Guess what? IQ doesn't mean shit, except that you can do IQ tests really well.

As for 'too soon'. The current prediction for the peak is 2004. However, I believe oil production has been dropping slightly each year since 2000, but that might just be random crap. The thing is when it (production level) starts to drop the price of oil must necessarily rise fairly quickly (since you have rising demand coupled with decreasing supply) and even it if just stays level the price will rise because of increasing population and demand from booming countries like China. And the US would have higher demand if it wasn't for the current recession.

Here's what Cheney said in 2001, found here (I find this quote just totally surreal):

"The uh, I think basically that now, that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is leaning me more by the month, the worry that peaking is at hand; not years away. If it turns out I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating. But unfortunately the world has no Plan B if I'm right. The facts are too serious to ignore. Sadly the pessimist-optimist debate started too late. The Club of Rome humanists were right to raise the 'Limits to Growth' issues in the late 1960's. When they raised these issues they were actually talking about a time frame of 2050 to 2070. Then time was on the side of preparing Plan B. They like Dr. Hubbert got to be seen as Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf... "

Anyway, if the price of oil rises it feeds into every item in the economy. Its as if the interest rates were being continually jacked up. A sure fire way to slow an economy.

I kind of hoped that with all the advances in solar cells etc we would be soon moving to some kind of manufacturing of artificial fuels or replacements such as oil from coal, but really I must have been deluding myself. How long does it take to retool the world economy for this ? Measured in decades and the cost really requires cheap oil (that is it has to be done while oil is still cheap so the infrastructure is affordable). It has to be mandated by governments since oil companies wont see this as economical until the oil price dictates it ... which would be too late for the lead times concerned.

Guess what I'm really saying is you haven't calmed my worries. :(