Slashdot Mirror

Republican agenda is to get Obama out of office even if it means wasting the 4 years he is in power. See this about health care: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap

the best cable news team in America.

Last year the climatologists were touting their predictions that washington DC would never see snow again.

Yes, I remember those climatologists -- if I remember right, they were Patrick McDoesntexist and Jonathan Strawman.

Since the beginning, there has been a wide recognition that winters will get shorter but wetter (for example, National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2001). Atmospheric moisture has increased over 5% since 1970, corresponding with warmer seas, as forecast by the models. Ever heard the phrase "too cold to snow"? Most snow, especially most large snowstorms occurs in warmer weather (Changnon et al, 2006). This is combined with the fact that storm tracks are generally shifting northward (also as forecast by the models).

Seriously -- in your world, is it not global warming unless Winter Ceases To Exist? I mean, really?

Oh, and a dingo took my baby. Therefore, dingos will take everyone's baby.

Obama (or more precisely, the democrats) fail at basic politics. Jon Stewart does an awesome job explaining how bad the Democrats actually are at this. The most basic rule of politics in a democracy is this: do what the voters want (especially when they are paying attention) or get voted out. Bush understood this, which is why he carefully spent a year building up public opinion in favor of the war on Iraq before he finally attacked. Otherwise he likely would have attacked Iraq shortly after 9/11. Public opinion matters in politics.

The democrats are trying to do something most Americans don't actually want, and that is a government takeover of healthcare (or a single payer system, if you prefer to call it that). If they are not actually trying to do that, they have failed miserable at communicating what it is they actually are trying to do. They came up with a convoluted bill that no one understands, is full of financial deceptions and bribes, and thus is easy to portray in any negative light you want. It is really hard to see how either bill in congress could do anything to cut healthcare costs for the average person.

Compare this to the Newt Gengrich's idea. Whether you like the guy or not, he knows politics. Notice how he makes a simple list of ways to improve healthcare, a lot of which anyone could agree on (make health insurance portable, meet the needs of the chronically ill......duh who doesn't agree with that). He also outlines the start of a path towards reaching that goal, so you can see where he's going.

Notice it doesn't look like he's going towards a single payer system, which the public overwhelmingly rejects. If the democrats want to move towards a single payer system, they need to make the case that it is a good idea. So far they have not done that.

The years of attempts to get the authors to recant also casts doubt on the validity of follow-up studies and their failure to replicate the original, no?

No, not unless you can demonstrate causal connections between all the people involved, or demonstrate that the follow-up studies themselves were unethically performed using bad data. Just because lots of people disagree that Wakefield was a bad study, does not mean that they are all in cahoots with one another. Cahoots would need to actually be proven with evidence.

(Although - were you really asking or were you doing this?)

The American people chose to go to war by supporting Bush.

Except for the part where Bush originally ran on a platform of non-intervention, diplomatic involvement, and "we are not the world's police force".

Not that I enjoyed a single thing the guy did while crash landing my country over eight years, but you should see John Stewart's Bush vs. Bush debate, comparing the things he said on the campaign trail to the rhetoric he took in office. I know that politician campaign promises have a snowball's chance of making it into reality during their term, but I have never--not even with Obama and government openness--seen such a turnaround as Bush made on foreign policy... Bush didn't just fail to keep his promises, he made totally new ones. It's like some sort of presidential mental breakdown followed shortly after 9/11.

Now, 2004? Well, there was no excuse for that except Kerry rolling a 1 on his Diplomacy check.

OK, let's talk a bit about how to get legislation passed. There are two basic methods, and one is more powerful than the other. The first one is to slip something into a bill, usually that favors one of your donors, and then hope no one notices until it crosses the presidents desk. This tends to work for things that most people don't care about, because when people don't pay attention, you can do anything.

The second, more powerful way is to get people interested, build popular support, and then the bill pretty much passes itself, no matter who is opposing it. Not easy to do, but it has power that you have seen in action: remember when Bush went to war in Iraq? He built up support publicly over the year (using various tactics), so by the time he wanted to declare war, nearly 80% of the US public supported him. In that situation, very few people dared oppose him. Congress gave him what he wanted. Even Hillary Clinton voted for it. Do you see how it works? Get people interested, get them supporting you, pass the bill.

This is the exact opposite of what Obama and congress have done. They had broad public support for healthcare reform. People wanted something done, business wanted something done. In the words of one of my friends, "I just want access to healthcare I can afford." That is the problem people want solved. If the democrats were smart, they would have built on that.

They didn't do that. Instead they gave the impression to a lot of people that they were more interested in a government takeover of healthcare than they were in making sure people have access to healthcare they can afford. They came out with a convoluted bill that no one understands, and the parts that people do understand don't seem to fix the problem. I won't go over all the problems in the bills in the senate and the house, but no one likes them, not on the right or on the left. Popular support for the healthcare plans in congress is now about as popular as George Bush.

I'm not going to explain how badly the democratic party has messed up, I will save that for Jon Stewart.

These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report. So, with the New York Times going to a pay site, it just means that none of the aforementioned sites that I keep an eye on will link to them anymore, so they'll eventually die off. The same thing happened with the Wall Street Journal, too -- they're not even on my radar anymore (Thanks, Rupert!)

So... you get all your news from comedy sources and _this_ crowd? Sure, that makes sense. I'm sure you're super well-informed.

These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report

I hesitate to suggest that that's not the most balanced reading/viewing list...

These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report. So, with the New York Times going to a pay site, it just means that none of the aforementioned sites that I keep an eye on will link to them anymore, so they'll eventually die off. The same thing happened with the Wall Street Journal, too -- they're not even on my radar anymore (Thanks, Rupert!)

"Consumers shouldn't have to know what's inside," he said. "They should just know it will play."

Even better. That’s the core of the epic logic fail of DRM:

If customers don’t know what’s inside, then how will they even know that something is inside at all?
And that’s the thing: The only DRM that will ever work, is the one where you can’t use the content at all.

And guess what: The action of watching is the action of copying it to my brain. Which means it’s impossible to watch it and adhere to your pseudo-laws (pseudo, because to be laws, people would have to actually follow them).

Can’t we glue some funny facial property to one of them, stick a bomb up his ass, and put him on a plane? (Make sure it only takes himself out, so that he can still be identified. Also add a admission statement by the **AA cartel. Then let Obama declare war on the **AA. ^^
Would make more sense than thinking about attacking all of Jemen, because some single idiot did some idiotic action.

When you say interest, do you mean a financial interest? If not, then his statement that he's a customer is at best just more promotion.

Here is the The Daily Show video I mentioned. It doesn't seem like Mr. Beck is a victim of editing tricks in this, but of course I can't be 100%.

The scariest thing about all this, is that it was prophesied to a "T" on the Daily Show quite some time ago:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-19-2006/calvin-trillin

Eh, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on those. I personally just don't see the connection. As for the clip I was talking about, which makes the point better than I can, I dug it up:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

if you care to watch it. But I generally try not to debate Fox's coverage too seriously, no one ever changes their opinion so it is fairly pointless. Plus it usually ends up with the pot calling the kettle black on both sides as every source has bias just as every individual does.

Is this GIGO or lying?

Joe Biden was on The Daily Show earlier this week and discussed this issue for a bit. So apparently yes, some folks don't know which district they're in and the processing site doesn't check properly.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

http://www.hulu.com/

http://www.youtube.com/movies

http://www.getmiro.com/

I haven't paid for TV for over a year now. Neither did I torrent.

The real problem: CNN has no real interest in facts anymore. interview the extremists on every side and leave it there.

Jon Steward has something to say about the problem

Go watch The Daily Shows with Jon Stewart. You'd be surprised just how well they actually cover the news in 20 minutes.

Oh, I did not watch Tuesday's The Daily Show until now, so I missed this clip, which is extremely relevant to our discussion. Hannity's clip can be found on FOX's website. The switch starts at 1:30 (watch the foliage and the amount of people).

Let me paraphrase you:

So the question becomes: Why did FOX's editing room use footage of a DIFFERENT event? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing (sic) from the host and a guest that appears regularly in FOX's programs - the previous event had a higher turnout, closer to the numbers claimed in the voiceover.

That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- They didn't blatantly lie. [or did they?]
Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.

Now, you may claim that Stewart is "accusing FOX of a distortion that is not a distortion. HE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth." In other words, that TDS did a creative video edit to make it seem like FOX did something that they didn't do.

Unfortunately for you that's not the case. The situation was so clear and embarrassing that Sean Hannity had to acknowledge it on air. He says that it was "an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless". I hope that you are not so gullible as to think that it was indeed a mistake. This was as much a mistake as MSNBC cutting the footage to conceal a man's skin color.

But of course distorting the truth in this way is not new for FOX. Here you have a brief compilation of several other instances in which FOX clearly used deceptive techniques such as "creative video edits and voiceovers" to push their agenda, every one of them as egregious as MSNBC's sleazy trick you linked to. Except that the main message in that case was true (white men with guns, one with an AR-15, were at the event), while in most (all?) of these cases the main message is the deceptive one (e.g., the event had a far less turnout than what the commentators claimed and the images showed).

Of all the media in the present-day USA, FOX is the one that most frequently resorts to tactics reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.

I would love to see how you rationalize everything you said in your posts now. Really. I expect an answer from you.

Perhaps because the video wasn't posted online until recently for privacy concerns? Or perhaps because the right people didn't know about it

Yes, that's exactly the problem: "the right people" are Fox commentators like Glenn Beck! The ideological agenda on the "opinion" side is what drives the selection of stories on the "news" side.

kind of like how Van Jones had his name on that 9/11 truther petition for all that time, but it wasn't an issue until someone doing real investigative journalism stumbled upon it?

By "someone doing real investigative journalism", do you perhaps mean Glenn Beck and right-wing bloggers?

And maybe I am forgetful, but I don't recall their two big news programs running that video (Special Report, The Fox Report). Perhaps they did.

Sounds like you're forgetting quite a bit. For clips, see this Daily Show video (starting around 6:45).

Fascinating clip, even if unrelated to the parent post.

Anyway, let's analyze it. MSNBC showed footage of a man carrying an assault rifle and a pistol in a presidential event in Arizona. An MSNBC commentator said that it was worrisome to have white people show up with guns at an event presided by the first black president. Some days later, a FOX commentator points out that MSNBC was dishonest because the footage of the man they showed actually corresponds to a black man, not a white one, but MSNBC never showed his face. And I agree, it is a sleazy move.

Well, take a look at this CNN clip. It turns out that there were two men carrying assault weapons at that event. One of the was black, the other was not.

In fact, there were several other people carrying guns in that event, by some accounts close to a dozen. You can see one of them, a white man, actually interviewing the black guy in this clip, 3:20 into the clip.

So, although the MSNBC commentators were dishonest because they used the clip of the black guy, everything that they said still holds: white people were showing up with guns in various events where Obama was present (not only that event, but including it).

Furthermore, note that both CNN and The Daily Show's clips are from August 18, while FOX's is from August 20, so by that time FOX had to know about the white men that were carrying guns, including an AR-15, at that exact same event. Unlike MSNBC's clip, the aim of FOX's clip is to show you the complete picture with all the facts, yet they omitted this fundamental information (and no, what the guy says at 0:50 does not qualify at all).

Thus: yes, MSNBC was sleazy and dishonest, but in the end what we see is that FOX was far more sleazy and dishonest when they called MSNBC to account.

I would love to hear what you have to say in light of this "new" information.

If you can tolerate it, you should check out a recent Daily Show where Jon rips into the Fox News double speak with regards to news vs. editorial speech.

Examples please.

Another poster reports this as the Daily Show show I mentioned. I can't confirm from this location, but it sound correct. I've included the .com link.

Specifically it's the Oct 29, 2009 show, clip 1. At about 3:30 into the clip they start the segment "FOR FOX SAKE!". At about 7:00 in they give an example of the commentator->reporter relation.

Here's the .com link, or just Google "For Fox Sake": http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

You use "The Daily Show" as an example? Really? A show on Comedy Central? If that's the case, may I point you to THIS video of John Stewart.

No, they sure don't: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgeable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest [thinkprogress.org]

From your article:

The results about Fox News echo findings of previous surveys. In 2003, University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Strange. There WERE WMD's in Iraq, just not the numbers we were expecting to find.

Also, there was about the same international support for the second gulf war as the first. (34 countries sent troops in '92. 33 in '03)

(I can't speak for people thinking Iraq was involved in 9-11)

So, seeing that 66% these assumptions that are used to judge the "knowledge" of viewers are false, it does not bode well for the rest of the survey. Also, the survey does not consider that people that watch the "Daily Show" probably get their information from other sources as well. I would be interested in knowing what column they placed someone who watches Fox News, The Daily Show, reads the local paper and subscribes to news magazines. You have to consider that someone who enjoys the political humor of "The Daily Show" is more likely to also watch other news shows more than someone who watches "Dancing with the Stars".

Specifically it's the Oct 29, 2009 show, clip 1. At about 3:30 into the clip they start the segment "FOR FOX SAKE!". At about 7:00 in they give an example of the commentator->reporter relation.

Thanks for the segment name. Here's the .com link, or just Google "For Fox Sake":
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

I think this internet meme was the best satire of Glenn Beck, until Jon Stewart joined in the fun.

The only thing more annoying than the religious right is the whiny left, of which you seem to be a member. These are the people who blame the republicans for all their ills and do nothing but cry and whine about how they can't do anything. Oh shut up and hold the parties responsible to account. The republicans control jack and shit at the federal level any more. The President is a democrat, and a rather socialist democrat by all accounts. Well that accounts for the entire executive branch, since he has the power to appoint the people who run things. Now, in terms of making laws that's the House and Senate of course. In both cases the democrats have not just a majority, but a commanding majority. The house has 257 democrats, 178 republicans. That is a 59%/41% advantage. In the Senate it is even bigger 60%/40% which is a supermajority that can override filibusters.

So you have a situation where the republicans have no power to make laws at a federal level without a large amount of democrat support. The democrats on the other hand can pass legislation without even a single republican supporter, and can do so even if procedural tactics are used to attempt to block it,

Thus we are now in what would be called "Put up or shut up," time. But they aren't.

Well part of the reason they may not be is because of people like you that refuse to hold them to account. You bitch and whine about The Right(tm) causing problems and don't hold any democrats to account for this.

I swear that during Bush's terms the democrats got so used to doing nothing but bitching that they now just keep doing the same shit. Well bitching time is over. You've got the power, use it.

As usual, I think the Daily Show really nailed it http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority.

Making the rounds of the blogs and TV shows is the story of William Kamkwamba, a young man from Malawi who, at age 14, taught himself enough about electricity to build a windmill generator for his house. But what kills me is that he made a GFCI from ... nails, wire and a magnet. Look at this video of his appearance on The Daily Show last month, specifically starting 2 minutes in, and note his description of what it does. (here's a picture) He calls it a circuit breaker, but that is functionally actually a GFCI! Jesus H. Christ, that is brilliant!

this shit isnt about copyright, or counterfeiting. these are all side perks and excuses.

its about preparing the grounds for mechanisms that would enable control of the internet. once mechanisms to prevent 'copyright abuses' are in place, the same mechanisms can also easily be used to prevent any 'undesirable' sources of opinion, information or activity. once gates and controls are in place, no upstart will be coming up politically or business wise and upsetting the power balance that is already established. or challenge it. internet will be much more easier to shape into a cable tv network.

they banked on copyright, because child porn thing and anti net neutrality stuff didnt fly. many countries in europe was too liberal for porn to be used as an excuse, and net neutrality was the de facto and logical reality in anywhere in the world BUT usa. and europeans were rather too conscious with the statistics that their governments couldnt push the nonexistent minority of child porn abuse as something to hamper internet for.

but copyright excuse seems to be working. however, some countries in europe are already treating internet access as a citizens' right, some are legislating it (like finland) and many are pushing government functions and services to the internet because its much more efficient and less costly to conduct these over the internet. it can only be stupid, way too insolent american corporate lobbyists' naivete to expect the '3 strikes' shit to work in other places. one lawsuit in european human rights court, and their 3 strikes and their ban gets shoved up their asses.

but i have one thing to say to you americans ; you have to wake up from that 'let corporations be' shit, and start regulating your business so that corporations wont BUY laws from your parliament. you have been tolerant of this shit for SO long that it has come to this point :

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

It's quite simple. In their efforts to "compete" with cable news to be first to the story, they slashed real investigative reporting, fact checking, and depth in their coverage.

They are guilty of dereliction of their duty to inform our democracy. They did not leverage their major advantage over cable news: freedom from constraints to 15 minute time slots.

They began publishing corporate and government press releases unquestioned.

They stopped digging deep into issues which really matter to the nation, uncovering actual political corruption or travesties of the political process (the daily show is the only one which seems to do this now).

Gone are the days where they stood up to governments and corporations for the right of the people to be informed. When was the last time you heard of a case like time magazine's pentagon papers?

"You write what you're told! Thanks Corporate News!"

McCain also came out recently as a "gang of 30" member of Pro-Rape Republicans who simply won't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.

I'm sorry, I fail to get the outrage about that one.

My understanding is that any part of a contract that forbids an employee from pressing charges for illegal conduct by their employers would be null and void. So if the contract says "you can't press charges for rape" then the court will throw that part of the contract out.

No need for new laws, no need to get government involved in drafting legal contracts between a private employer and private employee.

In short, the bill is just useless Democratic grandstanding. It accomplishes nothing other than further bloating an already bloated and confusing legal system, and is entirely unnecessary as existing law already covers what it attempts to.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

it has come to this point. because, you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.

net neutrality is no different. its the freedom of internet being legalized. yet, same bastards oppose it with the same old barking.

After all these years, I still can't decide whether McCain is pure evil or just plain retarded. His RAH RAH Reagan bullshit and applications of some mythical Reagan principles to contemporary issues is akin to trying to reconcile modern justice system to levitical law.

McCain also came out recently as a "gang of 30" member of Pro-Rape Republicans who simply won't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.

Before anyone accuses me of being an Obamabot or a free-range coastal hippie, I dislike Democrats and their nanny-state horseshit equally, but they don't go out of their way to incite a gut-level "wtf" every time they set out to ratfuck the common sense.

People like you really need a tall glass of "shut the hell up." Seriously, I am getting really tired of this "OMG Fox News! OMG Republicans!!!" crap. It seems to me that some people, like, say, YOU have gotten so used to doing nothing but whining about the Evil Right Wing(tm) during Bush's terms that now it is all you can do. Rather than try to hold the people actually responsible to account, you pass it all off on to a news station.

Ok well here's the problem: The Republicans control NOTHING at the federal level any more. We have a Democrat as president, of course. We also have a sizable Democratic majority in both houses of congress. Not just a single seat, but many. In fact in the Senate, there is a supermajority, meaning that the Republicans can't filibuster legislation, the Democrats can override it.

So we have a situation now where the Republicans have fuck-all in terms of say. Yet, congress does not seem interested in passing a universal healthcare bill.

You cannot go running around, blaming this on the right wing, on fox news and so on. Sorry, but they aren't in power. The people in power are the ones that claim to support this shit. So what the hell is going on?

Seriously, it gets very annoying. This continual crying, like Fox News rules the world or something, as though they tell people what to think. No, in fact, they are just another news outlet. There are plenty of people who watch it and take what is on it as the truth. There are plenty more people who don't watch it and don't care what they say. There are plenty of people who think every single thing they say are lies.

I am going to have to refer you to a Daily Show video: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority

So really, I can understand being upset with the lack of progress on public healthcare if you believe that is something we need. However you need to quite with the bullshit of trying to lay it on the Republicans and especially on Fox News. The people in power aren't Fox News watchers. It is THEIR responsibility to pass legislation.

Was that how Indians write when they make fun of the American accent? Because, you know that now, USA is the new India! ^^

What? Texting and driving isn't already illegal in the USA? It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too. A car is a lethal weapon if you are not paying attention - and it's impossible to compose a text message while simultaneously maintain the necessary level of attention to driving.

But we're constantly getting conflicting messages on what to do from our media! How are we supposed to know what's right and what's wrong?!?

I think you need a healthy dose of The Daily Show.

Can't it just be terrible reporting? Must everything be a liberal conspiracy?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-18-2009/the-gun-show---barrel-fever - In the first two minutes or so.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-12-2006/headlines---internet

Who the hell is "stunned and dissapointed" when the murderer's of a family member are indicted for murder?

The same kind of person who arranges a press conference for national television to apologize to the guy who shot him for all the pain and anguish he and his family suffered in those trying times?

"My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this week," Whittington said.

"I'm so terribly sorry that you were too blind and drunk off your ass to not see the difference between a guy wearing an orange vest and a quail, and we hope for the sake of his family, friends, coworkers as well as all of society that he will get his eyes fixed, and that right soon!"

You need to watch this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

You can install adblock plus and watch it here with no ads. It's mostly funny.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... umm... you won't get fooled again, or something like that.

The quote from Mr. Bush is "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. If fool me, you can't get fooled again!" Although I prefer the embroidered version.

at least if we believe Walter Wagner: TheDailyShow - LHC

You don't.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230057&title=youre-welcome-california-budget

Although they probably know it already well enough...

(Check last 30 secs if nothing else)

The media pundits were going on about how small a role the US government was taking in Iran and how the state should be doing more to help out over there, because it's our duty to meddle apparently.

If you see the clip (which I think should be at http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230709&title=Crisis-in-Iran ) and actually see the context in which the punchline was delivered, it'll make more sense.

Basically, we need to take a hands off approach to this as far as the State goes. US bashing is too easy for dictators to use. See also: Castro, Fidel and Chavez, Hugo.

No, no, no. Haven't you been paying attention to Fox news? If their side is in the majority, bitching is akin to treason. But if their side is in the minority, then bitching is needed to bring attention to the unfair tyranny they're suffering under.

See this video from The Daily Show for a better insight.

http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story_suggestions&thread.id=9642