Slashdot Mirror

First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias.

Ha. Try http://newsbusters.org/ and either start reading or search for "media bias".

Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans.

The press was only reporting a few things; how could Americans judge when the media wasn't giving them information?

McCain/Palin, on the other hand, basically accused him of being a terrorist.

Obama wasn't accused of being a terrorist. It was pointed out by many others than McCain that Obama lied and hid his long relationship with at least two terrorists. But the media didn't report on it; the media often merely called Ayers and his wife former radicals or that Ayers was now a professor. How do you think the liberal media would have reported if McCain had any relationship with extremists? Actually, you don't have to wonder, just look up how much the rumors of a Palin involvement with a secessionist group was covered (these were false, while Ayers was fact).

If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense. What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth) and McCain was accusing him of palling around with terrorists (ie, a lie).

McCain would tax some health care, the employer-offered plans but would support other plans, causing reduced taxes for most. There is no question Obama was palling around with terrorists and covered it up; why didn't media report this? Obama also claims ignorance of the Weather Underground; he must have been ignoring the media when Weathermen robbed an armored truck in NY while Obama was at college in NYC.

Oh, please... Here is Biden saying:

"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean." [...] "We're not supporting clean coal"

And here is the discussion of Obama's interview, where he says, among other things:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Yeah, the first link on the subject, that came up is openly partisan. But you aren't accusing them of inventing Obama's quote, are you? And it is not "torn out of context" either, because, uhm, there is a lot of context there.

1. ABC's Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime
2. Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership

Can you back up you opinion with facts and logic? Or is it a purely emotional reaction to the concept of "guns", rather than a well though out consideration of the actual effects of prohibition?

And where in my post did I say anyone was denied emergency treatment based upon their ability to pay. The person I helping could have paid for surgery in cash. But, the facility lacked a staff doctor capable of performing the surgery. (Actually given the size of the hospital it's more likely none of the staff physicians were willing to perform the surgery. Why? I don't know.) When we did find a specialist, the condition was treated at that facility.

What was the point of bringing it up in the way you did then? Obviously, both of you had sufficient medical coverage, you simply didn't have the facilities around. This has nothing to do with John McCain's plan or opinion of your coverage. In fact, it had nothing to do with your coverage at all if this really was the case.

That is true. And since she was not bleeding at a rate the would have killed her immediately, apparently the staff felt that, apart from a large amount of pain, she was capable of finding a specialist capable of treating her condition on her own.

The law says she can't get worse. It isn't enough to simply slow it down. They have to make an effort to stop it from getting worse. Bleeding out is getting worse, unless they were putting as much blood in at the rate it was going out, they weren't in compliance.

Yes, they are. But, provided you aren't going to die in the next hour or so, and are conscious, they apparently don't need to locate a facility or a treating physician for you. The staff members in California hospitals have learned not to waste time on activities that don't generate revenue. If the patient had wanted another $75 Tylenol, I'm sure the staff would have provided it.

Yes, they do have to locate the facility. The law states that if they can't handle the problem, they have to transfer you to somewhere that can. The law also states that you either have to be stable enough for the transportation or that the condition makes it necessary against being stabilized. If what your saying is true, they violated the law and this reflect nothing on either candidates positions or opinions of the health care system or coverage. What would you expect McCain to do, amend the law saying "we really mean it"? Anyways, if they violated the laws, they are subject to penalties as well as civil awards.

And don't think for a minute that the hospitals aren't gaming the system by making sure ambulance companies properly "judge" the location of the nearest "capable" emergency room based upon the "condition ($$$)" of the patient. When that doesn't work, hospitals will close emergency rooms to make sure that they don't have one near the patients in "severe condition". Those patients need to go to the county hospital.

Hospitals get special tax breaks for treating the poor. They are allowed to charge up to 4 or 5 times what they would charge an insured person and then deduct the entire amount as a loss. This is something that happened at the hospital that Barack Obama's wife worked at where she got a promotion and huge salary increase after he got elected to the state senate and pushed a grant for the hospital through. Although this is illegal and actually closing an emergency room is grounds for a lawsuit. I think your relying too much on TV hyperbole but I did find a recent study citing 75 California hospitals to have been in violation of the EMTALA laws. You do understand that no matter what laws are made, if someone breaks the law, it isn't a reflection of any of the current political candidates views.

"...but suggesting that liberal multi-billionaires support raising taxes for their own FINANCIAL benefit seems a little far fetched."

O rlly?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWM0MjZmZTQzMmM5ODFhNTY5MjQxOTQxMzNlOWQ3MzQ=

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-reasons-advancing-global-warming-hysteria

K, so Gore isn't a billionaire, but the fact that proponents of Leviathan are quick to use government to pad their own wallets should surprise no one who has studied the true robber barons of the 19th century, the political entrepreneurs, or has been paying attention for the duration of their life-span from the 20th to 21st centuries.

Or the Gov't and certain social engineering groups forcing the banks to make loans to people who wouldnt normally qualify under any circumstances...

NY Times praising the new program in 1999

Bill Clinton admitted the democrats stopped any oversight of Fannie and Freddie:
"CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Im not completely blaming the democrats, but they certainly set up the framework for the housing bubble and the subprime mess we are in now

Did you even watch the interviews? The way I remember, her responses were complete and uninterrupted. Not what I would call "cut and splice" at any rate. The problem was she just didn't have a fucking clue what she was talking about.

Gibson interview most certainly was a cut and splice job.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively.

Let's recall, Clinton ran as a new Democrat, the Democratic Leadership Council type of moderate (now called "Blue Dog" Democrats) who claimed he would govern from the center. But once Clinton got in office, the partisan libs in Congress told him, "here's how it's gonna be." This was a disaster for Clinton politically, and the Dems lost both houses of Congress.

The sad part is it was the GOP Newt Gingrich Congress that came in 1994 that forced Clinton to balance the budget, and actually shut down the government because Clinton wouldn't cap spending enough. Gingrich was pilloried in the media at the time (see: "the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" - nice fair and balanced reporting there, Newsweek), but now Clinton gets the credit for the balanced budgets of the era! But yeah, it's Fox News that is biased.

Here is a novel thought, why don't they not take my money and I can give it directly to the poor children. Why does the government need a cut?

Because, by and large, you won't. (well okay, you might, but most people wouldn't). Relying on individuals to be willing and able to appropriately address the country's national-level problems through voluntary donations of their own personal funds is simply unrealistic. The guaranteed result of adopting such a policy would be the effective destruction of the social safety net that many Americans rely on. And while you personally might find that acceptable, the vast majority of Americans do not.

Well, you may have a point, although it has been shown that growth in government spending for social programs reduces charitable contributions.

Then, again, some people are just miserly.

No currently installed PV system makes economic sense if grid power is available if the subsidies are removed.

AH but if you're going to remove the subsidies solar gets then you also should remove the subsidies conventional energy sources get. Even coal, which provides most of the US's electricity gets subsidies.

Falcon

So, in light of this ... what role does the Sun play in climate change? ... OBVIOUSLY it plays a role. Without the sun, we would cease to exist.

Just a few articles about the recent LACK of sunspots:

• Sun : One Month Without Sunspot
• First month without sunspots in a century
• What's Wrong with the Sun?
• Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century

If you read these articles, you'll realize that the sun plays a larger part in our climate than we do. In addition, check out the "mini-ice ages" after each of the periods ... from the NASA article ... The longest minimum on record, the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, lasted an incredible 70 years. Sunspots were rarely observed and the solar cycle seemed to have broken down completely. The period of quiet coincided with the Little Ice Age, a series of extraordinarily bitter winters in Earth's northern hemisphere. ...

It may appear that the whole "global warming" hysteria is about to come to an end ... and just like the 70's, the next big scare will be "global cooling" ... check out:

• Time Mag Flashback: 1974 Issue Warns of Man-Made 'Global Cooling'
• Another Ice Age?

I'm NOT saying that man doesn't play a trival part, but realistically, we don't matter that much on a global scale.

Just listen to George Carlin ... he DOES make some sense.

Dream on. We all know it's true. Even Jon Stewart:

Barack Obama: He completes us!

That's downright hilarious. I really love the juxtaposition of images of the all the animals bowing down to the Lyin' King with the slobbering and drooling over The Messiah at Invesco field last week. The image of Barack Obama superimposed on top of the baby Simba in Disney's "The Lion King" is dead-on. Even the big baby-lion floppy ears match up perfectly with Obama's jug handles.

:-)

Best single line: "Barack Obama: ready enough-ish to lead!"

Even Bill Maher says about the news coverage Obama gets:

I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him too much. I don't think he thinks that he's all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him.

I'd definitely tap her :)

Considering she's 44 and had five children already including one that's severely retarded, I'd say she's pretty well tapped out.

Then again, this is slashdot. They just have to be female and have a pulse.... heck why not just female.

McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme.

I disagree. Obama, as the Presidential nominee, needs to be ready to lead immediately. There's no time for on-the-job training. In contrast, Vice President is a job that consists mostly of on-the-job training.

The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency.

Actually, that would be DailyKos and John Roberts of CNN, not social conservatives.

A) You're splitting hairs in the first answer.

Not at all. You obviously do not understand what I wrote. I was attacked as hypocritical because, the poster said, I attacked him for being partisan, while I am also partisan. But I did not attack him for being partisan, I attacked him for being hypocritical.

B) You're contradicting yourself

I don't see how anyone would think so.

There simply isn't another way to read that than as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.

There simply isn't any way to read that as an "I'm older and know better than you" speech.

Obama was chastising people for spreading debunked rumors. McCain was saying "I'm older than you, so listen up!"

McCain did no such thing.

Quote for me what you think he said that supports your representation of it. I can't find what you're saying anywhere.

he's not very good at picking advisers (failed CEO of HP as an economic *and* tech adviser!?)

First, she is a fantastic advisor. Carly Fiorina, despite her flaws, is very sharp and knows what she's talking about.

Second, come on: Obama has had even more problems with advisors than McCain.

at party organizing (he has what? 3% of Obama's organization on the ground)

That is not party organizing, it's campaign organizing. Different things. But I get your point, and would only point out that Howard Dean had by far the most people on the ground right up until the time he got killed in Iowa. Obviously, Obama supporters are more excited than McCain supporters. And equally obviously, this doesn't tend to be a deciding factor.

at computers

Granted, though not sure why I should care too much. I'd rather have a lack of experience with computers than a lack of experience with Russia, Europe, Iran, the Middle East, etc.

or at remembering where other countries are (is this NOT considered part of 'foreign policy' experience? or are they just 'senior moments' as if that made it better?).

Oh please. Obama has had at least as many "senior moments" of his own, including not knowing WHERE HIS OWN STATE IS. Obama attributed Clinton's lead in Kentucky to the proximity of that state to Arkansas, despite the fact that Kentucky borders HIS home state of Illinois, and does NOT border Arkansas.

Given that barely graduated in the military

That is untrue. Being low in his class DOES NOT imply that he "barely" graduated.

But he should *already* know this stuff, especially the difference between Sunni & Shiite.

I have had the same dogs for 10 years and I still get their names wrong, even though I know exactly which one is which. People switch names all the time. Ted Kennedy switched "Obama" and "Osama" (something I also unintentionally and embarassingly do on occasion). Almost everyone switches "Iran" and "Iraq." Anyone who actually thinks he doesn't know the difference between being "Shiite" and "Sunni" is just being stupid, just like people who actually think Obama believes there are 57 states in the U.S. are being stupid.

Seriously, if you want to compare "senior moments," I don't think Obama will win.

You do realize that their profit isn't all from gas and Diesel fuels right? They have wells that produce oil sold on the open market, they own stations or station lands and building and lease them out to private operators, produce and sell natural gas and home heating oil plus a number of chemicals.

In fact, Fivecentnickel did a break down of were the money goes in a gallon of gas. As it turns out, refining and profit is of gas is only about 10% of the price per gallon. This isn't off from other estimates either. And it isn't excessive compared to other industries. Microsoft kept 27.3 cents of every $1 in revenue in its most recent quarter; General Electric, 11.4 cents and McDonald's, 12.3 cents. In fact, Exxon is below the 11-cent average of Standard & Poor's 500 companies, says analyst Howard Silverblatt.

So lets look at this, 10% per gallon. That is 40 cents on $4.00 gas. But wait, 40 percent or more of that goes to income taxes. So in reality, of the 40 cents, they keep around 23 ti 24 cents per gallon. Of course federal highway and state taxes average around 13% depending on the price and location but lets not focus on that. So If Exxon (the countries largest oil company) decided to cut their profits in half to save the consumer, that would only effect gas prices by 5% or 20 cents on a $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Does $3.80 compared to $4.00 a gallon seem like gouging?

The problem is that we only have about 5 major oil companies operating in the US with only 4 of them operating in any given state at a time. This problem is compounded by not being able to develop oil fields in the US because of environmental concerns and not being able to open refineries because of the same problems. This means that with all of the smaller oil companies, the major ones just do enormous volume in sales which is why they make so much. In 2007, the US consumed 142 billion gallons of gas (about 390 million gallons per day).

So if we look at this 142 billion gallon figure, we can do a number of things. Lets multiply it by $4.00 per gallon of gas, thats $568,000,000,000 or 568 billion dollars in sales. Now of the 10% holds true, that is 56.8 billion in profit across the US. Lets divide that into quarters to compare it against profits for Exxon. It comes to around 14.2 billion dollar profit per quarter in the US gas market alone. Now assuming that usage hasn't went down in the US in more then a negligible amount, with Exxon's $11.7 billion profit posted this quarter and forgetting that it makes money in places other then Gasoline sales (about 65 billion gallons of diesel and heating oil in 2007 nation wide )plus natural gas supplies and all, 11.7 billion profit in a quarter at $4.00 a gallon is only about 79% of the market.

Now we know that Exxon doesn't control 79% of the US market. So were did all the extra come from? Well, it isn't a calculation error (even though I rounded some numbers) and it isn't a number error, the 8k sec filing shows us that the US market is a very small portion of Exxon's sales compared to world wide participation. It refined 2,584,000 barrels of liquid product (or 2,584 kbd in case I got my abbreviations wrong) in the second quart in the US where it refined 4,191,000 barrels elsewhere in the world for a total of 6,775,000 (6,775 kbd). And forgetting about all the other areas for profit, Roughly 38% of their profit would be derived from within the US. So if we take 38% of the 11.

Mod me down if you will, but I heard one report that ice levels right now are higher than at the same time last year.

The NW Passage has been open in the recent past from (1905 - 1948). Accurate measurement of the "melting" began in 1979, probably about the time ice coverage peaked. As a cursory search will show, it has also been open in the more distant past as well.

The freeze/thaw of the arctic is clearly cyclic. Whether it is clear evidence of global warming or not is a question to be considered. Man's impact on this warming, if the warming is actually happening, is another question altogether.

... that my claims are anything but "extraordinary"! Where did you get this idea? Are you somehow of the opinion that just because I disagree with you (for good reason, by the way), that my claims must therefore be "extraordinary"??? How fascinatingly arrogant. Well, let's work on concrete statements rather than trying to read between the lines. Apparently, what you are asserting (at least), is that someone who disagrees with the IPCC reports has an "extraordinary" point of view. Wow. And YOU are accusing ME of being "different". Just wow.

As I have clearly stated here more than once, I am merely echoing what a lot of reputable scientists are saying. And I can safely say that at least some of them are scientists with much more credibility that the vast majority of the reviewers of the IPCC reports.

I mentioned before that you could find well-supported contrary opinions by spending only a few moments on Google. You have refused to do so. So, just this one time (because I dislike your smarmy attitude so much), I will indulge you and actually do just a little bit of your homework for you. I am not your daddy, so do not expect me to do it again.

I would like you to know up front that just as I stated was possible a few posts ago, I actually spent less than 2 minutes on Google pulling up these articles. The links below actually represent only a small percentage of all I found, and I did not spend a lot of time choosing among them. I could have spent a LOT of time following related links... but I figure that if you are actually interested in learning you can do that for yourself. I suspect that you can actually feed yourself too, if you try. But in any case, even if you disagree, if you do not hear opposing arguments then by definition you are being deliberately biased.

To anticipate a possible objection, I will state from the outset that most of these are not "peer reviewed" papers from "science journals", but they do contain a good many links to same. Read to the depth you care but if you do not care, then do not come back later and ask me yet again to do it for you.

To start, here are just a few pieces that support my statements about the problems with "peer review". These are only a few of the huge list I found. The amount of literature out there on problems with and utter failings of peer review, especially in recent years, is vast:

PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p14s02-stss.htm

NY TIMES: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

Nature: Quality and value: How can we research peer review? http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html



There is a lot more I could say here, but I believe that under the circumstances it would be pointless. Here are some more links. Understand that these are only a very small sampling of those that are out there. But (this one time only), you asked for some, you got some.

Letter from Chris Landsea http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the

but could you provide at least one pair of links in the past year from major media outlets (CNN, NYT, and so on), that backs this up.

Fair enough.

How about CNN and William Jefferson

Or, even better, ABC News' slide show on POLITICAL SCANDALS?

Summation on the ABC Slide show from NewsBusters:

* Slide 1, Eliot Spitzer -- No party ID on New York's current Democratic governor.
        * Slide 2, Mark Foley -- immediately labeled "R-Fla."
        * Slide 3, Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- immediately labeled "R-Calif."
        * Slide 4, David Vitter -- immediately labeled "R-La."
        * Slide 5, Randall Tobias (Deputy Secretary of State; April 2007) -- party affiliation not identified, and apparently not known.
        * Slide 6, Bill Clinton -- No Democratic party ID. The slide only mentions Monica Lewinsky. Others, who the BBC 10 years ago referred to as "All the President's Women," are nowhere to be found: Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, and several others. Juanita Broaddrick (backup link)? Surely you jest.
        * Slide 7, Jim McGreevey -- No party ID on the former New Jersey Governor, who resigned in 2004.
        * Slide 8, Larry Craig -- immediately labeled "R-Idaho."
        * Slide 9, James E. West -- No party ID on Republican former Spokane, WA Mayor, 2005. Big whoop, as if a lower-level GOP overlook makes up for the other oversights identified here.
        * Slide 10, Bob Livingston -- GOP Party ID noted in the first sentence.
        * Slide 11, Daniel Crane -- immediately labeled "R-Ill."
        * Slide 12, Gerry E. Studds -- immediately labeled "D-Mass." The Studds scandal dates to 1983.
        * Slide 13, Wilbur Mills -- No party ID on the former Democratic House Speaker.

Summary:

        * Six Republicans immediately identified; one relatively obscure GOP member not ID'd.
        * Four Democratic affiliations not noted; one, involving a matter dating back a quarter-century, immediately identified.
        * One party affiliation not clear, and apparently not known.

Then there is the case of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D). The Today Interview completely IGNORED his political affiliation.

Heck, just go to Newsbusters.org, hit the search feature and put in "Republican, Scandal" or "Democrat, Scandal" You will find HUNDREDS of articles and links to media outlets that back me up.

I'm not trying to claim that either Republicans or Democrats are more corrupt, they both are to varying degrees. The point is though, when you have a National Media ACTIVELY covering up for ONE side, it unevenly loads the presentation of the parties and ultimately, skews elections.

Personally, I think that the template for presenting politicians in ANY news story in ANY media outlet should automatically be [title] [name, first, last] [political party affiliation]. Just automatically, without regard to anything else. Not that I expect it will ever happen. That would be too honest.

but could you provide at least one pair of links in the past year from major media outlets (CNN, NYT, and so on), that backs this up.

Fair enough.

How about CNN and William Jefferson

Or, even better, ABC News' slide show on POLITICAL SCANDALS?

Summation on the ABC Slide show from NewsBusters:

* Slide 1, Eliot Spitzer -- No party ID on New York's current Democratic governor.
        * Slide 2, Mark Foley -- immediately labeled "R-Fla."
        * Slide 3, Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- immediately labeled "R-Calif."
        * Slide 4, David Vitter -- immediately labeled "R-La."
        * Slide 5, Randall Tobias (Deputy Secretary of State; April 2007) -- party affiliation not identified, and apparently not known.
        * Slide 6, Bill Clinton -- No Democratic party ID. The slide only mentions Monica Lewinsky. Others, who the BBC 10 years ago referred to as "All the President's Women," are nowhere to be found: Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, and several others. Juanita Broaddrick (backup link)? Surely you jest.
        * Slide 7, Jim McGreevey -- No party ID on the former New Jersey Governor, who resigned in 2004.
        * Slide 8, Larry Craig -- immediately labeled "R-Idaho."
        * Slide 9, James E. West -- No party ID on Republican former Spokane, WA Mayor, 2005. Big whoop, as if a lower-level GOP overlook makes up for the other oversights identified here.
        * Slide 10, Bob Livingston -- GOP Party ID noted in the first sentence.
        * Slide 11, Daniel Crane -- immediately labeled "R-Ill."
        * Slide 12, Gerry E. Studds -- immediately labeled "D-Mass." The Studds scandal dates to 1983.
        * Slide 13, Wilbur Mills -- No party ID on the former Democratic House Speaker.

Summary:

        * Six Republicans immediately identified; one relatively obscure GOP member not ID'd.
        * Four Democratic affiliations not noted; one, involving a matter dating back a quarter-century, immediately identified.
        * One party affiliation not clear, and apparently not known.

Then there is the case of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D). The Today Interview completely IGNORED his political affiliation.

Heck, just go to Newsbusters.org, hit the search feature and put in "Republican, Scandal" or "Democrat, Scandal" You will find HUNDREDS of articles and links to media outlets that back me up.

I'm not trying to claim that either Republicans or Democrats are more corrupt, they both are to varying degrees. The point is though, when you have a National Media ACTIVELY covering up for ONE side, it unevenly loads the presentation of the parties and ultimately, skews elections.

Personally, I think that the template for presenting politicians in ANY news story in ANY media outlet should automatically be [title] [name, first, last] [political party affiliation]. Just automatically, without regard to anything else. Not that I expect it will ever happen. That would be too honest.

"Exxon earned 9.5 cents on every dollar of gasoline and oil sold, cashing in at every stage of the process." Yes, ExxonMobil cashed in by investing and working to get their product to the retail customer while the federal government collected 18.4 cents per gallon in tax for doing nothing. Federal, state and local taxes total an average of 46 cents per gallon -- significantly more than the 28 cents Exxon earned on a $3 gallon of gas." - http://newsbusters.org/node/5120

that Tim Russert is gone?

Oh, that's right. Every other mainstream reporter not employed by Fox.

Not to mention Slashdot itself.

Now let the ritual downmodding begin.

RIP.

Who is better off, you, living in a country where most people who are killed with guns are killed with their own gun, and the police are (reasonably) too cautious to help you when your life is threatened, or me, living in a country where no-one has guns and the police aren't scared?

Me, that's who. Armed citizens lowers crime rates studies have shown. When Florida passed a concealed carry law in 1987 while anti-gun supporters claimed crime would go up, it actually went down. Up until 1997 although 370,000 permits were issued only one person with a permit was convicted of homicide. Meanwhile Washington DC with a total ban on handguns, until the US Supreme Court strikes the law down, is the most dangerous jurisdiction in the US.

I like how 'environmental groups' is a link to a single source: Greenpeace.

As we all know, they're the kind of people that we can have a good intelligent discussion with, right? Of course, anyone that doesn't fall in line with their philosophy is some sort of heretic, even if they happen to be one of their own founders that disagrees with a long-standing platform of the organization.

I'd have a lot more respect for them if they also condemned Al Gore and his pimping of useless carbon credits that happen to fatten his own pockets...

What about this interview with Ted Turner, the owner of CNN?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism

He thinks that global warming will cause cannibalism unless we take drastic action, the Iraqi insurgents are patriots, and the US doesn't need an army because the Chinese 'just want to sell us shoes' and the North Koreans are 'absolutely sincere'.

So I'm guessing he's not a Bush supporter.

Much of the output of the various news sources today is, arguably, spam.
So the question I would have liked to pose is:
Since we can't filter out bias, how can the technology help to make the news biases more transparent and quantifiable?
For example, work like this about VP Cheney deserves to be bagged, tagged, and ignored, for it is a blemish on the face of legitimate journalism.

There's another reason: it's a well-known phenomenon in America that many voters will tell pollsters they're going to vote for a minority candidate even if they're not just to avoid being called racist. The funny thing is that none of the pundits have mentioned it.

It's been mentioned several times, by such diverse people as Limbaugh and Diane Sawyer.

I just want to point out that JibJab piece debuted at the Congressional Correspondents dinner -- you know, where a bunch of reporters get together with the people they are covering to burp the battle hymn of the republic (I have no idea why all the videos of that are gone from CSPAN and YouTube) and watch people rap.

I'm a member of the gallery and thought the piece was funny, but I wonder how strong message it is when the broadcast media and the current administration are all sitting around laughing at it during a good ol' boys party.

Citations, please?

How about these 11 inaccuracies that have been identified in court? That's just for starters.

Or are you just flinging feces here?

Most of the shit-slinging I've observed on this matter has been from the Grünsturmabteilung (or "Al Gore fanbois," as someone else called them).

"but it's nowt next to the established timeline. To fact. To how things really happened, and were reported as such AT THE TIME."

Yes, we should always trust the news as reported at the time. It's definitely, definitely going to be the 'most truth'.

Which is why Bush won the election.. get it announced on national TV you're the winner first and it holds true, even when confirmed false.

"You don't redefine the history that's already written, and viewable with just the easiest of Google searches, by repeating a lie"

By repeating the lie I'm guessing you mean the alternate lie that came out after the initial one.

It's always good to rely on a source like Google to supply you with the news from the time, it's not like they'd be bias at all on what they archive/index. If anything we should let them just tell us direct, save sending us to the sites they want us to visit. http://www.newsbusters.org/node/5477

It's a good job the World religions discovered God quicker than scientists discovered the atom else this World would of gone to sh-t.

Most* of this post is sarcastic.


* all

Also unreported by the major media is the new crack in the consensus on ozone depletion in general. There are new indications that the mechanism scientists told us was destroying ozone might not be doing what they thought.

This is the only info available because the press won't report it and I don't have a subscription to the journal "Nature".

Nixon and reagan were allowed free walks due to the succeeding presidents being republicans.

There's already doubts about the accuracy of our current measurements. Many of the temperature and precipitation reading stations are located in urban areas on rooftops, where localized heating and the "urban heat island" phenomena have been show to skew the results to the high end. Several ave been found to have been placed near the HEAT EXHAUST of building air-conditioning systems. Due to this, many are questioning the veracity and accuracy of even the raw data, let alone the methodology employed in processing the data.

Citation on temperature station problems>: http://newsbusters.org/node/13282

More information here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1927#more-1927

No brouhaha, this is the guy that is covering his agency's shoddy work. Pure and simple. The real clarification would be that of the blogger and the guys who failed to correct the data without blaming news organizations for reporting it.

The problem with the religious fervor that surrounds the Church of Global Warming is that when key data they relied upon is shown to be in error, rather than act like scientists and admit to the error, they back peddle, obfuscate, blame those that caught them, and explain how the wrong results are still correct.

Consider these and find out why the Church is losing ground in the credibility race:

First

With that in mind, Bryce marvelously began with one of the world's greatest truisms (emphasis added throughout):
"It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. "

And, one of the single most stupid lines uttered in a documentary...

"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."

Second

"The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

Third

The article, entitled, "Whose Carbon Footprint is the Smallest," found that globe-trotter "Josie," who "considers herself more eco-conscious than most people," had the largest carbon footprint.
Josie "recently earned a certificate in conservation biology from Columbia University" but "caught travel fever" last year and went to "China, Hong Kong, Germany Washington, Utah, Brazil, Ecuador and Costa Rica."
According to the judge of the competition, author of "The Rough Guide to Climate Change" Robert Henson, "Josie's wanderlust caused her footprint to balloon well above average."

The problem is, the movement has no substance, they have allowed the shrill and ideologues to take over.

No brouhaha, this is the guy that is covering his agency's shoddy work. Pure and simple. The real clarification would be that of the blogger and the guys who failed to correct the data without blaming news organizations for reporting it.

The problem with the religious fervor that surrounds the Church of Global Warming is that when key data they relied upon is shown to be in error, rather than act like scientists and admit to the error, they back peddle, obfuscate, blame those that caught them, and explain how the wrong results are still correct.

Consider these and find out why the Church is losing ground in the credibility race:

First

With that in mind, Bryce marvelously began with one of the world's greatest truisms (emphasis added throughout):
"It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it. "

And, one of the single most stupid lines uttered in a documentary...

"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."

Second

"The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

Third

The article, entitled, "Whose Carbon Footprint is the Smallest," found that globe-trotter "Josie," who "considers herself more eco-conscious than most people," had the largest carbon footprint.
Josie "recently earned a certificate in conservation biology from Columbia University" but "caught travel fever" last year and went to "China, Hong Kong, Germany Washington, Utah, Brazil, Ecuador and Costa Rica."
According to the judge of the competition, author of "The Rough Guide to Climate Change" Robert Henson, "Josie's wanderlust caused her footprint to balloon well above average."

The problem is, the movement has no substance, they have allowed the shrill and ideologues to take over.

So what now, Vaclav Klaus the President of the Czech Republic is a Genius (Czech President Calls Man-Made Global Warming a Myth, Questions Al Gore's Sanity see link at http://newsbusters.org/node/10773 ).

Is anyone else questioning the Political Positions on Global Warming? This kind of stuff make Rush Limba look like a biblical prophet.

If you are all about saving the planet, is it o.k. to eat an endangered, or near endangered species?

I'm sure it will be decent for RSS and other sorts, but they'll never show anything such as this Google and Memorial day

first? Culture of Corruption: Mainstream Media Ignores Conflict

Lewis Black recently suggested a novel approach on The Daily Show - power cars on cognitive dissonance. Celebrities weren't using those brain cells anyway, so any extra drag you put on 'em won't slow their hypocrisy down one bit. A win-win solution for everyone, actually...

Try "demagogue in general". Fingers-in-ears la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you behavior is certainly not the exclusive province of the right wing. See Black, Lewis and the hypocrisy of the Greens, for instance. "Cars run on cognitive dissonance" indeed.

A prominent climatologist working for The Weather Channel has suggested that on air meteorologists be stripped of their credentials if they express any skepticism concerning global climate change.

People love to lie about Al Gore for some reason.

Unlike many readers on Slashdot, I remember the 1970's. After a couple of severe winters involving blizzards, news reports extensively covered the coming of the next ice age. It was featurd in time magazine ( http://newsbusters.org/node/6546 ), where they stated, "However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." I remember being worried about it, which is why I am not worried about global warming now. Don't tell me it never happened. By the way, it snowed in Malibu yesterday. ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id =2&objectid=10419760 )

Given the numerous problems Reuters has had with its own Middle East reporting, what controls are they going to put in place to ensure that these Citizen Journalists aren't feeding them fake pictures?

Crow T. Trollbot

"When reading The Washington Post, always consider the diametric opposite position from whatever agenda the WaPo pushes. Consider http://newsbusters.org/node/6863 [newsbusters.org]"

Reading Newsbusters is as valuable as reading FAIR.org. These so-called "watchdogs" are lapdogs of media that share their own fringe biases, and they bite the media just for not sharing their opinions and political bias.