Slashdot Mirror
Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding
Red Leader. writes "This Thomas Friedman op-ed entitled "Global Village Idiocy" and this article by George Packer, entitled "When Here Sees There," both touch on some interesting observations regarding technology's impact on tolerance and understanding. My favourite quote from Friedman's piece is "the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."" We've previously posted the Packer piece, but combined with other story, I think it's worth a retread.
Maybe this is pointless, but I wonder if it's possible to have positive thread about this.
I'll ask the question, and see if anybody replys.
How can this be fixed? What can we do about it?
"They say, `He got it from the Internet.' They think it's the Bible."
Or perhaps they even thought it was Koran? After all, Muslims don't put too much faith in the Bible...
Cheers,
Ian
It is no secret that groups that have increased contact with another group will find something to complain about. Romantic thoughts about a group are certain to be dashed with closer contact. Those ideals are likely to be supplanted by the worst stereotypes that the other group falls into.
In the South Central L.A. neighborhood, blacks who have no historical animosity about Koreans find themselves filled with anger at the stingy, disrespectful store-owners. The Korean store-owners, in their own right, harbor fears of the dangerous, thieving blacks. The result of this animosity was displayed during the Rodney King riots where blacks looted Korean stores with a vengeance and Korean store-owners shot back from the roofs of their stores.
Right or wrong, these stereotypes arose out of *increased* exposure.
I have been pwned because my
"the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."
Since most I know I've learned from Internet, my brain must be full off unfiltered intelligenceBut seriously, I think that has a positive sideeffect, because you have to develope your own filter, which isn't even close to standard (Radio, Television) filters.
"...the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing the barriers to communication between all civilizations, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of the galaxy."
From the article:
"...integration, at this stage, is producing more anger than anything else."
Hmm...
Cheers,
Ian
It's human nature. People believe what they want to believe, especially if they feel threatened or marginalized. As the author alluded to, the Internet is just a more efficient conduit for pure garbage.
And, unfortunately in this case, we can't fight fire with fire. Spreading the "truth" will not convince the "believers," in fact it may make them even more incensed.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
"untreated, unfiltered information"? Shock horror, maybe he'd preffer that The New York Times gets to filter our information for us? This is the biggest sin of liberal mouth pieces like the NYT, ommission. Read that paper and there's stuff you'll just never hear about, points of view they don't want you to hear.
I am not convinced that the point (internet decreases tolerance)
made in the article is a bad one.
To take the case in point made in the article (Israel -vs-
Palestinians). Before the internet, there was only one side
of that story that most Americans would ever see, the one we would
get on CNN and the big papers.
But now though, with the magic of the internet, it is as easy as
typing in (http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/index_e.htm) to see what
the other side of the story is (and what a different story it is!).
I don't see how this is bad. That is what the internet is supposed
to do.. let all sides express their views and opinions, without
requiring you to be a major media company to be able to do so.
In the long run, I think that can be only a good thing..
Takochan
The Internet does nothing by itself (in fact, it could be argued the Internet does nothing period, but I digress). The Internet doesn't make information/rumor/lies, it's the people who use it. All that's going on here is he's being smacked in the face, apparently for the first time in his life, with the true nature of humanity, which is particularly easy to observe on the Internet. For those who haven't been keeping up:
People are this idiotic all on their own, all the time. People aren't just willing to fall into the "us vs. them" mentality, they're eager. All the Internet does is accelerate the process.
On the Internet, no-one can hide from the true nature of humanity. Do something about it or deal with it.
(phew, I needed that...)
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
I really don't think the world is getting nastier. We created these global networks so we could improve the world, which clearly implies that it's been in a sad state of repair for quite some time. While it doesn't help some sitautions, such as fueling the greed-inspired hatred of those who simply refuse to look at how their own government brought pain and suffering upon it's own people. Or may be they simply never realized that before because of government controlled media where they live being a dominant force in their daily lives.
Of course, now we are only starting to look at these problems and the potential solutions because of our global information networks. As far as "manifold suspicions, rumors, resentment, and half-truths" are concerned.... what do you really expect? Regardless of right or wrong, most of those who are willing to speak the loudes are those doing their best to promote their agenda and make change in the world that they see fit. It's always been like this. The main difference is now, scientists and educators can get their messages out too without the traditional bottleneck preventing content distribution. Of course, there's still a bottleneck on how much content the avarious audeinces can tolerate, but that's another matter altogether.
other people. I can see that Bill O'Rielly might upset some people.
But they should understand that some others really do feel like that.
If this journalist thinks the USA is represented by the NYT, then
she's seriously misleading herself.
The world may not be as nice
a place as political correctness would have you believe. But then,
it is not. Get over it, and work at overcoming differences if thats
your thing. Nothing
worse than not addressing something that could be addressed because
you think it doesn't need to be. Wasted opportunity.
If nothing
else, information helps you know your opponent. This is always a
good thing. So is a critical mind, unnumbed by state-controlled
or editorially sanitized press.
The Internet is strictly a technical medium, with no inherent bias, filter, or viewpoint. As a result, all "news" has the potential to be more opinion than news, and there's no inherent correction for bias.
Take a look at the US for example, arguably the most tech-savvy nation of sophisticated media viewers on the planet. How many people do you personally know who take everything they read "on the web" as pure unvarnished gospel? How many people beileve the e-mailed virus hoaxes, chain letters, and Nigerian 419 scams?
A lot more than you'd hope, that's how many. And that's here in the US, where supposedly they'd know better. They don't.
Now take this human tendency to believe what's written, and take it to a repressive or technologically unsphisticated country that normally only sees the news their government wants them to see. Give them satellite dishes, but with channels that present events in the same fashion, agreeing with the prevalent viewpoint. Give them a media that exists at the sufferance of their host government, where if they stray too far from the party line they'll be shut down and possibly jailed. Give them no incentive to look at two sides of a story.
And then teach the citizens that do have access to more sophisticated and independent news your point of view so thoroughly that they assume that anything outside of that narrow viewpoint they subscribe to is just lies, distortion, and propaganda.
Watch what happens. We're even seeing it to a lesser degree here in the US - witness the rise of Fox News, the Washington Times, and all the specialty news presenters that have sprung up. People are not inclined to listen to viewpoints outside of their own worldview if viewpoints that correspond to it exist. Liberals think the media is too conservative. Conservatives are convinced the media is liberal. Both would rather get news from sources that tell them that their view is correct, and ignore the other side.
And we wonder how people can't see through the obvious (to us) bias on Al-Jazeera?
It's a similar problem here. It has nothing to do with the Internet per se, other than to say that it's easier than ever to confine your information sources to those that agree with you in the first place. What can we do about it? Very little, I'm sorry to say. The Internet is what it is, and humans seem to be by and large tribal in nature. I used to think that eventually all nations would be relatively harmonious, learing to live together as people from different traditions, religions, and cultures in the pursuit of happiness and prosperity together. But people don't seem to want it, and politicians won't let it happen even if the people did want it.
The human race is screwed.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
It used to be that print and t.v. journalists were the filters that stood between the information and the people, so we only saw the world through their biases, not our own. Now, for better or worse, we get to create our own worlds from the unfiltered info stream.
Friedman is simply lamenting his own obsolescence.
Cheers,
JHVH1
"the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."
That's a correct assessment not just of the Internet, but of the the ideas communicated before the advent of the Internet.
Nothing special there: porn, intolerance and deception have been around quite some time. The Internet only intensifies the speed of communication.
It's incumbent upon every individual to become their own filtration plant amid the sewage of information.
Parents and culture (school, church, TV) are supposed to help in developing this ability in young people, but there have certainly been instances where cultures have contributed and reinforced septic messages.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
If the whole world hated us, they wouldn't be dying to get here.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Internet is just a new tool on the block, and it will cause new alliances to be formed, and old alliances to break. After the dust settles down, the butchery will continue unabated.
In the end, it is the family that counts. It is upto the parents of young children to bring them up not to hate others based on the flimsiest of differences (skin color, shape of eyes, language, etc.). If you have been following recent events in Pakistan, you will see that kids over there are being trained to hate the west with a vengeance in 1000s of madrassas all over that country. It is as if the grown-ups have some unfinished business, and want the kids to grow up and finish it for them.
"Familiarity breeds contempt" is not a new concept. This shouldn't even surprise us. It is a fact for thinking beings (assuming that "imperfect thinking beings" is redundant, that there is no such thing as a perfect thinking being, and that no philosophy in the world will lead to complete tolerance). The important message has to be that we must all think critically and use our intelligence to realize that:
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Proof that Reverse psychology works..
Here is why Tom doesnt like the internet - because it makes his job irrelevant.
See Tom has this really important job where he at the new york times tells people what to think and decides what information they should know.
But now the internet is here and people do not need to go to the new york times and their free fuscking registration to get information. And people can gasp form opinions on their own. Well then Tom's job is kind of useless then aint it? Running a ministry of truth while you have free information exchange is very pointless, noone will listen to you.
But the internet makes arabs angry and dangerous, because they see palestinians being beaten on cable!!! Now really, Tom dont you think that would be less of a problem if palestinians werent getting beaten by israelis soldiers all the time?
But its out of context!!! Well and what is the alternative? The New york times will provide the context? Of course not. The new york times will just not report it.
See thats the great think about the internet. People can provide their context. They dont need the official media to provide the context for them (ie tell them how to interpret the news).
but with the internet bad people find other bad people with like views. Big fing deal. I will always choose freedom of information over propaganda even if freedom of information provides speech to some bad people. It is not suprising that almost every oppressive and racist regime tightly controls information exchange, between its people. Cults and extreme groups also have real trouble keeping their memberships up when they cant control what information their members can access. In fact the best way to stop islamic fanaticism is to give internet access to most muslims (isnt ironic that Tom complains about muslims who are in general are not very likely to be hooked up to the net?).
Saying the internet spreads hate is stupid. Does he think that all this hate is due to the internet? Is it the gulf war with all its victims the internets fault? are the terrorist attacks and the bombing of afghanistan the internets fault? Were the israeli attacks on palestine the internets fault? How about terrorism?
There is adifference between the internet and the new york times that tom has to grasp. The internet will usually reflect the real world.
How can this be fixed? What can we do about it?
Why does this need to be fixed? This is a great opportunity for a knee-jerk reaction to "Oh my God, look at what is going on here; there should be a law" reactionary thinking. The beauty of the Internet is the fact that it is, at its most basic level, a pure democracy. Anyone with a voice/idea/concept can post it for the world to see. Whether you agree with it or not is not the point. If you don't like it or disagree, that is your opinion, your right to dislike/disagree. Granted, there are things on the 'net that, for the most part, we would all agree should not be there (child porn, cruelty to animals, Pokemon, etc) but there is no legislation/enforcement that will eradicate anything from the 'net."Fixing" the 'net is not possible. You also ask "What can we do about it? You can ask your ISP not to carry sites that you find offensive. Once again, however, we cannot legislate morality.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Both Christianity and Judaism went through reformation movements.
Islam, being the youngest of the three Western religions, has not.
As for the cliche about "Christians have shed more blood in God's name than ANY other religeon, ever," I would like to see a number -- especially compared to belief systems like Communism or Naziism.
It may be true, but I've never seen anything to back it up.
Welcome to the real world, techno-idealists!
The Internet is nothing more or less than a global medium of communication. There is nothing intrinisic to the Internet that dictates whether what is communicated is good or bad, truth or lie, hateful or loving. The same is true of speech, writing, radio, telephone, or any other mode of two-way communications.
We are in a transition phase, where society around the world is still adjusting to this new, rapid communications medium. Obviously, there is a chunk of the world that has to re-learn the lesson of "don't believe everything you hear/read/etc--check the facts." Some will learn; some people will be perpetually gullible. That's life in the Real World.
By way of illustration, one of the nastiest, most persistant bits of inflammatory propaganda in the last three centuries, one that is still circulating and accepted as fact in some circles, is the infamous Protocols of Zion. That text, originally created by the Russian Czar's secret police in the late 19th century, circulated as a printed work decades before radio or television, let alone the Internet. (I believe you find it on the Internet, however). It was the basis of much of the Nazi's anti-Semitic propaganda, and provides the themes and lies for the current, virulent anti-Semeticism of the Middle East.
The point? The only thing new about the Internet is the rapidity of global communication; the same old evils are still here. On the flip side, the Internet gives everyone with access the chance formerly open only those who could afford global travel: the chance to talk to people in distant places, to read their local news, to hear their views and see their problems. However...
At the end of the day, the Internet is still only a communications medium. It won't magically grant you understanding of those problems, nor will it give you compassion for or empathy with people who face the same basic problems common to all humanity. Neither will it magically force you to hate what you don't understand, or brainwash you into believing rumors without thought.
The so-called "problems of the Internet" are the same problems people have always had with themselves and each other. That these two editorialists are shocked to discover this is rather like the French inspector being shocked to discover gambling in Rick's Cafe... one wonders what the ulterior motive is.
I believe in the strengths of a free press, for the same reasons as the authors of the U.S. Constitution--among other things, a free society is not possible without free communications/free press. I am aware that a free press has its drawbacks, but like the founders of the United States, I believe that an educated citizenry is capable of telling the good from the bad, and that, to such a citizenry, the downsides of a free press are no more than an annoyance.
I believe the Internet is potentially the most powerful free press in the world. I also know that there are governments and other interests that are terrified of the threat represented by a global free press, who would like to see it muzzled by any means possible. The excuse that an unfettered free press causes division and disturbs public order/encourages "agitators"/etc. has long been used by many governments to censor the printed press in their countries.
Traditionally, even the press in most "free" countries has been limited by the high barrier to entry: TV broadcasters have to jump through hoops to get government licensing and permission to use the EM spectrum, expensive equipment has to be bought, highly-paid technicians and support staff have to be hired, etc. Printed press requires a printing press, highly-paid staff, extensive, expensive channels of distribution, etc. TV broadcasters can't offend the government too greatly, or they don't get the licenses and spectrum. Printed publications can't offend the majority tastes too greatly, or they can't get enough customers to pay the cost of entry. Thus, freedom of the press traditionally belonged (as was once said) only those who could afford a printing press. It limits "the press" to a small, select group, and a small, select group is easier to sway to one viewpoint/keep under control than "everyone in the world with enough literacy to string two sentences together".
That's the threat and promise of the Internet as a free press: anyone who can get a website and the trivial technical skill to code a web page can put their views out for the entire to see, ignoring the even simpler methods of spreading news and rumors such as IRC/Usenet/web boards. It's still not a zero-difficulty barrier to entry, but it opens up the "free press" to an uncontrollable number of potential publishers.
As such, the Internet is a grave threat to governments and other bodies who have reason to fear a free press--either because their political model depends on a gullible, uneducated citizenry that only hears what it is believed to be safe for them to hear, or because they really do have something to hide. It is also a threat to the traditional press, who don't seem to welcome competition in their hard-won positions of influencers of public perceptions from a huge bunch of brash upstarts. (God knows they don't want the public deciding for themselves what is worthwhile news and entertainment!)
I ask again: what is the real agenda of these editorials? Keep an eye on whether or not this meme spreads, and what "solutions" are proposed and pushed to "solve" the "problem".
---dragoness
With dismay i read your article.. i'm an atheist so i don not believe in any kind of god (notice the lower case g). However, i do not _ever_ mistake an extremist religieus idiot with being a spokesperson of _any_ religion. Besides christians aren't so great themselves.. (remember WWII where bishops of both sides blessed the armys that went to war and kill each other in the name of god and country).
I agree that the Islam calls hatred into ones mind but i have spoken alot with muslims lately and most of them deny categorically any kinship with (their words) "those extremist pigs". The koran on itself does not preach hatred or intolerance it's those who abuse it who do this.
I have been a christian most of my life until i decided i didn't want to be a part of such nonsense. I do however respect another who does care for a religion. Whether one believes in Jahweh/Jehovah, Allah, Boedha or any other of those gods above is up to them, not me. Nor is it up to me to judge a religion solely by the acts of fools.
At least you have sites like /.
Intolerance and extremism may run rampant no the rest of the internet but not here!
Oh, wait...
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
And ultimately the Internet will be a weapon of tyranny.
We watch we read we absorb like sponges. Uncritical, unreflective only having an emotional response to the next car ad or half naked chick. Burning buildings, quarter pounders, sports highlights, political arguments...we can't call them apart any more. Rage in the street, pick up a rock, loot burn kill. The kid with the Nike T-shirt and the gun could be Compton, Ramallah, Freetown, Kuala Kampur, Seattle, Buenos Aires.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
Technoli
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security. The Government can pass as many laws as it wishes, and yet you are no more safer then you were before. From the uneducated "profeesionalized" goons patting down attractive single women at the airport in the name of security to the outright paranoia of not letting people take nail clippers to school, we are no safer then we were.
Criminals will find a way to break the law if they want to bad enough. It's not worth any of your liberty, and it never will be.
Look at your Spanish history before the Spanish Inquisitions. Before the inquisitions there were Jewish, Muslim and Christian cities in Spain. Or more precisely, city states.
During the growth of the Spanish empire, Spain took most of these cities over, however, they were still not properly integrated into one kingdom, they were a little bit more like the UN is today. Still, to some extent, autonomous but beholden to the Spanish crown.
One of the things that Queen Isabella did to change this was to impose a state religion (Roman Catholic), and then later to cause the inquistions to enforce the crowns will. This was done with the knowledge and encouragement of the state church (which was at this time, not Muslim).
And your argument is that the christian religion better on the history stakes? Or should I mention the crusades as well? Those wars to fight the "infidel Muslim", in which the goal was to retake Jerusalem, and reduce the influence of the Turk (Islam) powers.
Some of what you describe is true today. But in an historical context, it's total drivel. Judaism flourished when Spain was under Moslem control, there was a holocaust when Christians took over.
There is a significant Christian minority to this day in middle-eastern countries which have been under Islamic rule for over 1000 years. The history of these Christian communities has mostly been peaceful co-existence with their Moslem neighbors.
I beg to differ:
These may not be "suicide bombings" but they are fueled by the same thing: fanatical hatred and intolerance.
Every religion -- even non-religion -- can have its zealots willing to do anything for "the cause." Your average Muslim, just like your average Christian, Jew, or atheist, is at least tolerant of other faiths. On the other hand, every religion has nutjobs that take its dogma to violent extremes.
First, I don't think the parent is flamebait. I think the author is truely and honestly lost.
because it has a truly horrific history
Before talking about history, I suggest you learn some. Pretty much all religions had a horrific history.
Other religions like Christianity, Judaism, [more religions] allow for secular coexistance and equal rights.
They do TODAY. Christians slaughtered Jews and Muslims during the Inquisition. Jews slaughtered the Cananites in the early history of Isreal.
Now, read This essay. One of the author's points is that the Protestant Reformation brought Christianity into the modern age. Perhaps Islam, a much younger religion, is going through the same phase now. They key point is: don't compare Islam today against Christianity or Judaism today and extrapolate backwards. If you want to know what happened in the past, actually read about what happened in the past.
They may shake their fists in anger, but they don't kill you for insulting or denegrating their religion.
Almost all other religions have done this in the past. Read the essay and find out how different sects of Christians did this to one another. Read your history.
Now, get outside the West and do that in Saudi Arabia...Before you die, try to take a bet on where the AK-47 rounds are flying from that kill you.
You have an extremely perverted world view. Once you're done reading the history books, TRAVEL a bit. Geez. Most of the planet's population is peaceful and friendly. Only the violent bits get reported on CNN. That doesn't mean the rest of the planet is like it is on CNN. If you actually TRAVELLED to some Muslim countries, you might be able to think more coherently!
Islam's interaction with other religions has always been with its followers holding a sword to the followers of the other religion's necks.
I can't tell whether you're thinking of the Crusades, when all those horrible Muslims kept marching deep into Europe over and over with a stated intention of killing as many Christians as possible to "liberate" their holy land, or Britain and France in the first half of the 20th Century, when all those Muslims colonized Britain and France and treated their residents brutally until after World War II.
What? Backwards? What about a history class? Huh?
Other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca and probably a lot more allow for secular coexistance and equal rights. They allow for freedom and tolerance. They make it easy to believe and yet be a rational human being.
Hmmm. I'm a research scientist and educator by training and profession. I've never had any problems with Muslims, or Jews, directly. I and my associates in my field have, however, had lots of problems from Christians. These have ranged from being told in a shopping center parking lot that I was going to hell for working on cosmology and "believing" in the Big Bang, to the Tennessee state legislature, acting with biblical justification, passing a law that teachers in Tennessee could go to jail for teaching that evolution is an accepted paradigm of the scientific community (thank heavens for a gubernatorial veto).
Not that I think that such problems with intolerant Christians tar all Christians or the entire faith; but when you make absurd blanket statements about all of Islam, and then simulataneously make blanket statements that Christians are tolerant and encourage reason, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
As the other responder suggested, this has been the most ignorant thing that people actually modded up. Secondly, just like the article talks about, you are just fueling more biased opinions and pawning them off as truths.
As a disclaimer, I am spiritual, but against all forms of organized religions. I believe that the "message" itself gets distorted as it passes through the people that are trying to spread it. I have read the bibles, quran, and other books and each of these have an inherently good message.
The truth is, Christianity has murdered more people throughout history than any other religion. Look at the crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition. Secondly, the only religion that has practiced forceful conversions of other people through missionaries are the Christians. Lastly, every religion has faced a point in which they have to fight for their own survival. For the Christians, it's the Roman era. For the Jews, it was the crusades and the holocaust. For the Muslims, it was also the crusades and maybe even now.
Now, it is totally unfair to say that because a minority group of people have hijacked the religion and used it towards their extremist purposes, to say that the religion is inherently evil. In every religion, a number of passages can also be analyzed that way. And because a minority views it in that perspective, doesn't mean that the message is corrupt. (Again, rings back to my original belief that the messenger corrupts the inherent good of these religions stated above)
Are we going to say that the abortion clinic bombers are representative of the Christian religion? How about the KKK and the Aryan Nation? They believe that they are the crusaders for the christian cause. Also remember, the Nazis believed they were fighting for their faith. In addition, at the time in the US, many top politicians and business men support the Nazis. In fact, George W Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush has been a long supporter of the Nazis.
Now it comes to another point. Why do people honor those that go out there to fight and die for their country..but we look at the Palestian bombers as uneducated savages? Is it honorable to risk your life for the better future of your family and/or your country? If not, try telling the soldiers that as they head off to Afghanistan. Are human bombs any worse than carpet bombing a large area indiscriminately as they did in Afghanistan?
That brings up another point. Throughout history, the underdogs (or the oppressed) have always needed to find new ways of fighting to take advantage of the opponent's vulnerability. Look at the 1770s. The British felt the same way about the Revolutionary fighters as we now do towards the human bombs. The "standard" way of fighting was to stand up in 2 lines directly in front of the enemy and fire on command. The revolutionists fought from behind trees as individuals and moved to dodge the gunfires. All I'm saying is it is a failure on everyone's part when a group of people feel that they have to turn to bombing to get their point across (ie Palestinian bombers, abortion clinic bombers, unabomber, and the kid that they just arrested the other day for the mailbox bombs).
Now to wrap this up and relate it somewhat to the article. Don't believe everything that you read on the internet (including this). Verify stuff yourself. And if you believe all US news channel are unbiased, you are clearly wrong.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Geesh - I'd love to get paid for writing down stuff that the majority of moderatly intelligent people in this world already know. Where can I sign up?
Seriously, this isn't news, this is common-fucking-sense. Bad information with apparent credibility, whether from the 'net, religion, slanted news sources, revolutionary leaders, etc causes hate and misunderstanding. An objective and skeptical pursuit of truth and understanding (and aplication of your own intelligence, rather than trusting someone elses) erases same.
This guy needs to stop writing editorials, take a few history courses, and realize that his views are nothing new, and nothing amazing.
_sig_ is away
Please put Katz articles under his byline. If I wanted to read worrywart handwringing digital divide why they all hate us crap, I'd read the Katz crap. As it is, I filter it out and find Slashdot mostly informative. Please keep Slashdot useful and usable.
I wrote parts of this stuff
I must say that I find your Sodom and Gomorrah reference truly bizarre.
Technology like the Internet is a neutral. Like a knife it can be used for good (surgery) or for evil (murder). The Internet allows information both true and false be spread fast and widely. This is good because we find out about others and their needs and emphathize with them and help them. Unfortunatately it also spreads falsehoods just as rapidly which bring division.
The alternative is to censor the Internet so that a few will give us only what they want us to hear. They may do it with good motives but information is lost and only their view is given. And if done for selfish totalitarian motives people are controled. There will always be people who use the internet for evil purposes. Reality is people are not naturally good. Free spread of information (true and false) is best.
I know this is OT, but have any of you noticed the latest shit that the Guardians of Content are pulling: running space and paper-wasting graphical adverts down the side of the printer friendly versions of articles!
I guess being able to track our identities isn't enough for the NY Times.
And, seriously, a STARBUCKS ad to accompany THIS particular article? C'mon!
Someone with Net access who is fluent in Arabic needs to come up with some really good Internet hoaxes that will thoroughly and publically embarrass whoever falls for them. If enough such hoaxes are propagated, fallen for, and then publically exposed, more people in the Arabic-speaking world will learn not to trust everything they see on the Net.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Someone who lives in say Idaho whos grew up around the KKK and so on whos never really spoken to anyone diffrent, could get on the net and see the REAL world for the first time and begin thinking for themselves.
or of course, they can go to their KKK websites.
But chances are they'll go to an AOL chatroom and meet diffrent people. Thats the first step to increasing tolerance.
You cant teach people to tolerate other races if they only know what the KKK grand dragon tells them.
(Black people are mud people. Jews are the devil)
Unless they meet people for themselves and decide. They will never know.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I've been thinking about how we are hating each other more virulently recently, and I think it comes down to the fact that we are tribal.
What I mean by that is that human beings simply don't have all the mental capability to keep up personal relationships with more than a tribe-sized group of people... my idea is somewhere between ten to twelve persons. What I mean is this... it is very natural for you to be tight with ten to twelve people and then the rest you just don't heve the time for. I think it is in human nature, and it leads to the "screw the rest of those guys" attitude in general. That general trend *really* manifests itself if something appears as a threat.
Anyway, it feels right to me. I am not a social scientist.
Now teaching to hate is a totally different matter. That is really complex. Does anyone feel like the cold war was better? When you didn't have an open border, and you were in a struggle with a non-aggressive nuke, non-integrated group into your society? I mean, at least the Soviets actually sat down with us to talk. They sure as hell weren't going to attempt an attack on a Tuesday morning and risk the whole world.
It appears that the whole Arab-Israeli mess will boil over in a guaranted less than ten years into world war. They are making too much of an effort towards it by teaching their children to hate. Both sides are trying to drag their friends into it, egging each of their bigger brothers for weapons and someone to back them up. Both sides believe they are a superior race, and we know what happens when you start thinking that.
I personally don't like what the Israelis are doing right now, I think that using tanks against people throwing rocks is insane and terrorist in nature. However, the fact that the Palestinians are attacking elderly people on holidays in restaurants is by its very definition terrorism. Sitting back on a helicopter and gunning down innocents is about as cheap as you can get. But so is trying to steal ambulances to make them into "after bombing" weapons to attack emergency workers.
I honestly believe if every wingnut and every whacko religious group goes after all (meaning general populace) of us, then they (meaning the Israelis, too, by their hatred and humanistic negligence) are setting us up for WWIII, big time.
How does this deal with communication? Well, the more worldwide your viewpoint, the more you can get offended by... and the more likely you will attack, as I guess we have all recently learned.
Good luck, humans (please note I didn't say nationality or race). We're all going to need it.
All the inhabitants of the earth would be brought into one intellectual neighborhood.
... the instantaneous highway of thought between Old and New Worlds.
...
"We are one!" said the nations, and hand met hand, in a thrill electric from land to land.
The above quotes are of course referring to the worldwide deployment of the telegraph in the nineteenth century. (See The Victorian Internet by Thomas Standage). Many writers of the day viewed the telegraph, radio, television, and even the airplace (e.g. H. G. Wells) as technology that would usher in a utopian age. In many ways, the predictions echo those about the Internet, including many postings here on Slashdot. And they were all equally wrong. It's important to remember technology is a tool - just like a hammer. You can build a house with a hammer, or you can whack someone on the head with it. Technology cannot create a new utopia - that is up to the people of this planet. At the moment, the probability seems quite low
[Insert pithy quote here]
The jews believe they are the choosen people and didnt respect the Palestinians first.
This war between these two groups is not one sided, Just because Palestinians are terrorists doesnt mean they dont have REASON to do so, its not like they have an army so what else can they do really.
If you looked at the news, the latest news say that isreal doesnt want to make peace just like the palestinians dont.
People will follow the Koran, but when you take their land and attempt to push them out of the middle east because you refuse to respect them, they dont have much choice but to fight you or be pushed into the desert somewhere.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The problem with people is that we fear the unknown.
What did Yoda say? Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate....leads to suffering!
How true that is.
Global communications, and the Internet in particular, is creating an odd kind of de-segragation.
However, it is desegration without real direct interation.
It is kind of like desegragating the schools in Alabama, but ONLY Alabama -- how do you think the people in Mississippi would feel?
They just hear about it, but don't actually interact with the "other side" -- and so will only breed distrust, fear, anger, and hate.
Before, people distrusted others who were different, but they were separated -- either geographically or socially, and were not in their mental world.
Now however, these "others" are forced down their throats, and can't ignore them.
It is so easy to marginalize, make fun of, and distrust those that are different from ourselves, even in this "enlightened country".
Why? Because putting others down makes us feel just a bit superior and better.
Having something to hate also makes you feel you have a purpose...and in those countries with limited opportunities, freedoms, and low quality of life...having a bad purpose is better than trying anything else.
As for people who believe everything on the Internet to be true? Well, I hate to sound like a troll, but half of the population IS below average in terms of intelligence.....
"You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
Listen up, people. We Americans are funny. The only reason we get along with one another at all is because we are too dumb to understand what everyone else is thinking and saying. We are all so certain that our neighbors are decent people, but we are not at all possessed of the necessary intellectual curiosity to investigate what the hell it is, exactly, that our neighbors stand for. And even if we did know what it is that our fellow Americans stood for, we'd be far too ignorant about how logic works and just plain too gutless to follow these facts through to their natural conclusions. We Americans prefer comfort far more than intellectual honesty. We dread the idea of confrontation so much that we don't have the balls to draw the line, even when there is no other real choice! And so the Internet forces you to come face to face with other people's real beliefs, with the personal facade removed, and everyone is so astonished at what they find: there are all kinds of people out there, really! What a bunch of dysfunctional pansies we've become. All the Internet is doing is forcing us to do things we should have been doing already: argue! Fucking ARGUE! What is wrong with that? Buck up, you fucking nerds. A little hostility isn't gonna kill you.
"Thank you, God, for your healing gift of religion."
A gang member from south central LA can buy a computer, get addicted, cease their gang activities, and eventually after a few years, make friends with a korean person on the internet.
Stuff like this happens on the internet alot easier than it would happen IRL. Understanding can only happen when you talk to people of diffrent races and cultures, On the net I've spoken to people of every race, I know all people are the same on the inside even if they are diffrent on the outside.
This isnt something you can teach an ignorant person in real life, they have to go online and learn this.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The fact is, people throughout history have had a difficult time getting along, particularly if there's some overt physical or cultural difference for the parties to focus on which allows them to abstract their rivals into a philosophical "them." I'd go so far as to suggest that linguistic differences are actually the basis of more prejudice and violence than any other difference including race and religion (though I think that the latter two often get conflated w/ linguistic differences -- it's a lot easier to hate someone who's a different color or religion when you have difficulty communicating w/ them).
I'd say that one of the most insightful things that Chrisitanity and Islam both have to say (in slightly different ways -- "original sin" in Christianity, or the maxim that the devil is "as close as your heart" in Islam), is that humans are fundamentally f**ked up.
You dont know which one of us on slashdot is a jew, hell I could be a jew, or you could be, or anyone here.
Because I dont know "WHAT" you are, i cannot judge you in an ignorant fashion. ALL i know is, you are human.
IF you are on the net long enough and make enough friends online, try asking them what they are at some point and be surprised when one of them is a jew, you could have hated jews all your life and find out one of your friends online is a jew and it all could change.
People who have never had positive experiences with jews learn to hate jews, I know some online and they arent bad people, I know some koreans too, along with south americans, asians, australians,
Its experience with all of these people, which lead me to the conslusion that all people are the same inside and diffrent outside.
The internet gives you a bridge to the religious, racial, and cultural gaps, the offline world does not.
An ignorant person hates the culture, the religion, or the race, but never the person.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
They dont just hate jews, they are racist toward ALL non asian races.
They are NOT a good example, they also avoid the internet so not to try to understand diffrent cultures.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Seriously. Sure there is a ton of communicative trash on the internet. There's a bunch of lamers on the internet. There's plenty of illegal/immoral/inhuman things on the internet. Most people suck. Get used to it.
One of the things I loved about IRC for example was that this was true. Sure it meant there was tons of human waste I had to deal with, but it also meant the good people where honestly good, since there was nothing beyond themselves to "make" them good.
It doesn't matter whether it is a secular state or not. If you are oppressed and have your back towards the wall, you will do anything to fight for your survival.
Come on, think about it. Why do we give ticker tape parades to the soldier coming back from war? Why do we honor people that kill for the good of the nation? It's the same reason that these 'suicide bombers' are respected. They are giving up their lives for the good of the family/nation. What is more respectable/honorable, carpet bombing a civilian population from afar or going in to fight? We look upon them with disdain because we don't respect that they are giving up themselves for others. We see them as savages. The same way that the English looked upon the American Revolutionists as savages during the American Revolution. The "correct" and "honorable" way of fighting was to march up in 2 lines, the front kneeling and the back standing up and firing into the enemy lines. The American revolutionist decided that was stupid and fought running from behind trees.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security.
Typical knee-jerk conservative response. Did you ever consider the following: No amount of security to give up is ever worth a false sense of liberty. It goes both ways.
Think about it.
Yes it does go both ways, in one version you have freedom and minimal security and in the other you have no freedom and minimal security. The problem is, when our liberty goes away, Osama Bin Laden will not be the biggest threat to our well being, it will be our own government. If you think the US government is above oppression of its people, I suggest you read some history, check out some books on how the government, in the name of security, treated the American Indians in the late 19th and early 20th century. While you are at it, read up on the fate of Japanese Americans during WWII and lets not forget the actions J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph MaCarthy. In all of these cases, freedom and liberty were taken away from American Citizens for a net gain of ZERO in security.
The Founding Fathers did not trust the government and neither should you.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
The thing is, Libertarians, if they were honest, wouldn't actually want the world they would get if their desires were met.
I prefer using the tools of democracy to find a common-sense balance between security and liberty.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
In fact, I think it's largely thanks to the canons of journalistic ethics (check & report sources, get confirmation, etc.) that we've managed to have as informed a public as we have in Western society as these practices at least impose some discipline on the "authority" that's providing information which people will inevitably swallow without a moment's reflection. So in a sense, we all owe The Western Press some small amount of gratitude.
However, Mr Friedman should really be directing his rant at the way we brainwash people into taking anything stated by someone wearing a suit, or on TV, or on the internet at face value.
I don't know how many times I've chastised my friends and family for forwarding inane spam about Congress on the verge of taxing email at 5 cents a message without even bothering to analize the claims for even the faintest patina of credibility (gee, according to thomas.loc.gov, that sponsoring senator doesn't exist, the number of the "bill" cited doesn't follow the bill numbering conventions for either house of congress, etc).
We need to find a way to teach people how to think. Of course, that's anathema to the power structure of our society (we can't have men between the ages of 15-24 realizing that drinking Mountain Dew won't cause silicone-enhanced sluts to fall from the sky and fawn over them, can we?) for that to ever happen.
What's disturbing about Friedman's editorial reporting is that the majority of Muslims, throughout the Muslim world, are ready to believe stuff like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (on sale in the main Saudi airports) and the theory that 4000 Jews skipped work in the Trade Center on 9/11.
/. shows, we are hardly the sheep being led to slaughter here that, say, the Palestinian children are - and anyone who believes that Hamas is not thoroughly evil for leading children to suicide attacks has no morality at all.
Now, living in a country where the chief law enforcement officer believes that certain cats are agents of Satan, and the president has doubts about evolution, I'm hesitant to condemn another culture for a haphazard relationship to standards of truth and critical thought. On the other hand, as
Okay, so the first problem about current Muslim cultures is that something over 90% of the populations, according to polls, has no standard of objective truth. The second thing wrong with Muslim culture is that the religion itself is centered on the long-term goal of utter obliteration of all worship of anything or any being outside of Allah and his alleged One Prophet. Like Nazism or Trotsky-ism or Leninism or Maoism, there is no place in Mohammedist doctrine for anything like an ecumenical approach.
There is plenty of beautiful architecture, art, poetry, even philosophy from the Islamic past (the philosophy was actually Greek, and the math Indian, but at least credit them with a fine sense of design and verse). But theirs was a religion of crusade and slaughter far moreso than the free nations of Europe ever were. And turnabout is fair play. If Muslims can learn to discern truth according to modern standards of science and critical thought (even as primitive as these standards will seem from a few centuries hence) then we need not conquer them nor undermine the other aspects of their religion - especially if they also open to the spiritual possiblity that this may be a world in which there are many things and beings truly beautiful and worthy of worship, and that any "prophet" who would deny that beauty or holiness is seriously derranged, and leading others into not just danger, but evil. If, after admitting the scientific standard for mundane facts, and recognizing the diversity of the holy, they still want to call themselves 'Muslims,' that shouldn't be a problem.
____
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Part of the problem is that the US government has had a long practice of suppressing the powers of foreign governments. (When you're at the top, you will do everything you can to stay where you are).
The most recent event was the current administration's attempt at ousting Chavez, the President of Venezuela. He is a democratically elected president supported by the majority of the people in the nation. However, he has the potential to lead to major problems for the US. Unlike prior leaders, he has a strong leaning towards doing what is best for his people rather than for the US. Specifically, he wants to raise oil export prices against the wishes of the Bush administration. He is trying to pull the nation out of poverty. Think about it, the US, the crusader for the spread of democracy trying to oust a democratically elected leader to install a puppet regime.
This isn't the only incident of this type that has happend. If you look at Fidel Castro, he was a puppet regime installed by the US government back in the 60s. Castro currently has a thriving biotech (medicine) industry which they sell cheaply to third world countries. The US sees this as a threat and is calling Castro a terrorist that is developing bio-weapons.
Lastly, the US has criticized China for protectionist strategies and such. Earlier this year, the Bush administration has instituted a huge tariff on the import of steel from foreign nations (including Europe), which will hurt the economies of a number of foreign nations. This has set the entire world in an uproar and Europe has brought this to the World Trade Organization.
Lastly, you mentioned that we should give up some power. Ideally that would be best to equalize the world. But that will NEVER EVER happen. The distance between the US and the third world countries will become ever increasingly larger which will further spawn off hatred towards the us, not out of jealousy, but of the techniques that we are using against the rest of the world.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
And Christianity doesn't? Christianity brought us the Crusades. Hilter attempted the genecide of Jews to purify the German empire from Christianity. "Heathens" around the world, be they asian or native american, have died for failure to convert to Christianity. Assassinations and bombings against doctors and clinics which perform abortions are done by men and women who believe they are doing God's work.
Just because someone claims to represent a religion doesn't mean that they really do. There are extremists prepared to engage in horrific actions in every religion. The label all of Islam as evil is to label a great many good people. It's would be more constructive to focus on labelling those extremists which engage in terrorism and enact opposive governments as evil. Furthermore, people and religions change. The Catholic church recent apologized for their implicit support of the holocaust.
Furthermore, if you exclude Islam from the global debate, you give the extremists more arguments toward extremeism. "See, they refuse to try and reach a peaceful solution with us. Clearly they plan on 'peace' with us by killing us. We must fight back now!" When you stop talking with someone, war
I didn't think that the middle east unrest was the result of insults and name calling. I doubt your average suicide bomber's primary goal is to simply silence open criticism. Sure, they're like to silence criticism, but that's not why they are willing to die. They're fighting over diverse politic issues including the ability to form a sovereign state, freedom from undesired foreign military bases on their land, and fear that they are being marginalized by the world. Perhaps their beliefes on these matters are wrong, but they can't be dismissed.
The moment you decide another group of human beings cannot be reasoned with and you close off dicussions with them, you become the group unwilling to discuss. At that point there can be only war. Be damn sure you're willing to pay that price. Are you prepared to fight in an all out war against Islam? Are you prepared to label the many Muslims in the United States (or whereever you are) "enemy"?
And Because I went there to see what they are like, I'm sure most of those Nazis went to see what everyone else is like, just because they were curious.
I learned about hateful people. The really truely hateful people just hate because they live to hate. Its not a race thing to them its a hate thing.
They enjoy hating, and they will hate all their life, if all the miniories were killed, they'd hate their own people, until every human was destroyed.
You see, hate is evolutionary suicide, because all humans are the same species, when you hate on humans, you are actually hating on yourself, and when you want to kill all jews, you want to kill yourself subconciously.
You cant save them all but the ones who can be saved, will most likely be saved by the net.
The ones who dont actually hate other races, but who just dont understand them, will be saved.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
It can be technology, when the technology is used to spread rumors. Quite a few Arabs, for instance, believe that the 11-Sep incident was the result of a worldwide Jewish plot to frame the Arabs, and that bin Laden was perfectly innocent. Oh, and that Jews run the banks, and the media, and control the US Government, and eat children for religious rituals, and create chewing gum that drives Arab women horny but infertile, and so forth.
And no, I'm not even making up the "chewing gum" myth, bizarre as it is. Do a google search; there was a Washingon Post article on it once, for instance.
Hell, the Saudi government is basically pro-martyr. The Saudi ambassador to the UK even wrote a poem praising them, and one in particular, writing that "the gates of heaven were open to her", IIRC. And, like the Iraqis, they fund terrorists' next-of-kin these days, on the excuse that they're suffering and possibly didn't know what their family members were going to do. Short take? In the long run, they're more dangerous than the Iraqis, because they've got more oil, more friends, more money, and more religious fanaticism than the Iraqis; plus they're fully aware that short of their invading a neighbor or proof of Saudi gov't support in a major terrorist attack against the US, that the US has little excuse to strike out at them.
It's not surprising, then, that people who listen to those ideas hate the Israelis, whom they see as controlling the world, and therefore the source of all their problems, and therefore the people to blame when anything remotely bad happens.
Of course, throwing rocks at a tank is pretty stupid, unless those rocks are seriously wired with shaped charges or it's merely a distraction so the tank commander doesn't notice the RPG being aimed in his direction. It's probably not the geniuses that openly riot in the streets...
(Likewise, the Falun Gong protesters are just being imbeciles. What, they think that the PRC government is just going to give up and go away, or that the Western powers or Russia will forgo the theoretically huge, if remarkably capricious and corrupt, market there and pressure the PRC on the behalf of what's basically a occultist cult? If you're going to fight a dictatorship, fight -- waving signs and staging sit-ins probably won't help.)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"you don't see conservative Christians and Jews lining up to strap C4 to their bodies and suicide bomb their "enemies.""
Just a little thing I would like to point out. The violence going on between Isreal and Palestine has very little to do with religion. It's going on because Palestinians have foreign soldiers on their streets imposing martial law, bulldozing houses, to make way for their own people. It's called ethnic cleansing. It's happened many times in history, and it's quite moral to oppose this in the most violent way possible. Were Allied pilots terrorists because they deliberately targeted German civillians?
I hate to say it, but in an all out war, civillians are valid targets, because they feed and control their armies. Look at it from the perspective of a war. Palestinians just want their own land. Israel wants to kick them out and build houses for their own people. Suddenly this sounds very similar to almost every other war in history, because it's primarily about economics and property, and religion is a wonderful excuse and scapegoat.
Remember, it's every Israeli's dream to have a nice apartment in the West Bank or Gaza, without any Palestinian in sight.
Post goatse.cx redirects to all those anti-american message boards!
sulli
RTFJ.
People have always been morons.
The average IQ is only 100 (yeah I know, its only 100 in a room full of Einsteins. Grading on the curve, sheesh.) But lately it seems to be sinking into a kind of neanderthal imbecility and lack of critical facility that makes me wonder just how much fuckin' stupider and more ignorant is the average schmuck out there compared to ten years ago.
The lack of critical rationation combined with the improved availability of weapons and ammunition have set the stage for bloodier and bloodier episodes with less and less accomplished per shot fired.
The willingness of leaders to waste the lives of their followers and their follower's children, sometimes their followers ARE children, is another factor.
And through it all, the weapons manufacturers keep making money.
You want peace on earth? Blow up the munitions factories.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Cool! He's discovered Slashdot!
No, that's just yet another liberal lie.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The real problem is that the powers-that-be have always maintained their power by brutality. Whether or not the brutality is justified, the Internet/satellite TV and any amount of openness in your country ensures that the world will see it. Maybe "context" will help people understand it better. Maybe the recipients of the brutality deserved it. But it will always make the recipients and anybody who identifies with them angry and hungry for revenge. It would be stupid to expect anything else.
...isn't that ironic?
That may be in your eyes, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, the US is quite a dominating force that can even be looked upon as a terrorist nation.
Take for example, the International Crimes Court that 139 countries worldwide have signed the treaties for. This is the new governing body that will try leaders of a country or soldiers in a conflict for crimes against humanity. If a soldier raped a girl while in conflict, they would be tried here. If a leader murders a large population of civilians, this is the court that they would be tried in. Now, you mentioned the "leader in freedom and democracy," who is the ONLY industrialized, democratic nation that has refused to sign, in fact "unsigned" what was previously signed this treat. Yup, the United States. The leader of the free world, the country that believes in "justice for all" (if you are American)
In fact, recently, there's a bill going before Congress that will allow a President to order military force to "rescue" a "criminal" from the ICC. So, if you are an American soldier and you raped a Bosnian girl, don't worry, the US will rescue you. If you kill the POW, don't worry, you won't be convicted.
So, what you are saying is true.."leading force for freedom and democracy" Only if you're an American
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
So? The channel is easy enough to change. This is no answer. The answer is that it is the wrong question. The real question is: How are people going to react when they see others broadcasting hatred of them into their own homes?
Speaking as someone who is part of a group type-cast as bad guys (if you see a blond haired blue eyed heterosexual male in a movie made between 1972 and 1999 you can bet it was not a positive role) I can sympathize with Islamics and a lot of other groups on their hatred of Hollywood and the US's mass media of news and entertainment.
Understanding sometimes leads to hate.
Seastead this.
I'll watch this post throughout the day. It's either a troll, or just envy, and it will be interesting to see at what point the moderators catch on.
Will it still be modded a 5 by 5:00? I bet not.
The sewer part, sounds almost exactly like a quote out of Small Pieces Loosely Joined, the new book by David Weinberger from The Cluetrain Manifesto faim, in which he calls the internet a open sewer as well. More info on the book can be found at http://www.smallpieces.com/.
Jeff Knox
Yes, because we have this wacky notion that Americans accused of crimes should be afforded the protection of the US legal system, rather than being hauled before unelected and unaccountable UN bureaucrats with political axes to grind. (There's already been talk of bringing Sharon before the ICC, but none for Arafat, I can't imagine why...)
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Doesnt the US constitution even say to go to your local militias to arm yourselves?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No I prefer a diverse media that isn't censored. The NYT is a joke as are most of the other media outlets. The NYT complaining about Fox is the pot calling the kettle black.
The people who control the media, and in particular Dan Rather Biased and anchors like him think they are elites. They don't report the news, they advocate and promote an agenda. Their contempt (and yours) for anyone with a view they don't find politically correct is manifestly obvious. But of course you're only to happy to have a biased news media which agrees with your agenda, and are able ot point to Fox as right wing merely by contrast to the crap the alphabet channels put out.
If you think they give you the real deal you are a fool. It would never occur to you that their daily censorship of diverse views merely serves the hateful.
Isn't the internet population in these countries very recent?
Most people are pretty gullible when they first get online, as can be seen by how they forward all wacky virus scare emails and other myths. When I first got online I spent a fair amount of time "learning" about some crazy stuff.
After a while people get their bearings and learn to tell the good from the bad. And once these people get burned a few times, they'll also know how to that.
Or, perhaps, just not appropriate.
But there's no question that the Bush administration is that of Big Oil - every aspect of the Bush foreign policy is dominated by this: the upcoming Desert Storm sequel, the non-condemnation of (and probable involvment in) the failed Venezuelan coup, Arctic Drilling, the privileged relation with the saudis, the many members of the cabinet who come from Big Oil companies, etc.
Many liberals have been complaining about this since the Gulf War.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason EVERY administration is a "big oil" administration is because the U.S. is a "big oil" country? News flash: Without oil our country would collapse. It's strategically important to our politics, military, and economy.
Now, I'm not going to delve into the business dealings of the Bush, Clinton, or any other political family.
Any president that doesn't show the same level of concern about oil is a president that shouldn't be president. We are dependnent on it. If a candidate has prior investments before becoming president is he supposed to abandon the national interest in oil just because he's invested? That'd be absurd.
And, finally, believe me, it IS possible for people to be invested in something and still do what's right for the country. It's also possible for people in power to do what's right for the country and also have their investments benefit. The fact that someone's investments earn money by him doing something he'd have done anyway doesn't lessen the validity of what he did.
BILL O'REILLY: And I want to ask you flat out. Do you think President Clinton's an honest man?
RATHER: Yes, I think he's an honest man.
O'REILLY: Do you really?
RATHER: I think -- I do. I think he's an honest man.
O'REILLY: Even when he lied to Jim Lehrer's face about the (unintelligible)?
RATHER: Listen, who among us have not lied about something?
O'REILLY: Well, I didn't lie to anybody's face on national television. I don't think you have. Have you?
RATHER: I don't think I ever have. I hope I never have. But look, it's one thing--
O'REILLY: How can you say he's an honest guy, then?
RATHER: Well, because I think he is. I think at core, he's an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so. But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.
--Dan Rather on O'Reilly Factor May 15, 2001
It would seem unfair to take the person representing the victim of plain land-theft to court now wouldn't it?
I'm not the parent to your comment, but come on, when someone is looting your store, you don't have to "know them personally" to decide that action against them is necessary.
I agree, but if someone is looting your store in plain sight, it's not prejudice anymore, you now know that this specific person is looting you!
And since you have caught him red handed you're in your full right to take whatever action is permitted by law. (And I assume that this in the US would probably involve guns.)
I don't really have a problem with that, it's treating someone like a criminal without proof I don't like.
(You know, driving while black type "offences")
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
The parts of the world with heavily censored media (which includes China and most of the Arab world) are the ones scared of the Internet. With good reason; they have governments that need a totally ignorant population to survive. In time, the people there will sort out the blithering from the reality.
In the US, we have spin control in the major media, but almost everything important gets reported somewhere.
The Friedman article grumbles that anti-Israel propaganda is getting a forum. But pro-Israel propaganda has a forum too. Quit complaining.
That book sounds like it has potential, but I have still never seen the Friedman column that didn't leave me appalled. I can't believe the guy actually gets paid money for writing that swill, and that people actually read him. He's a shitty writer and a half-assed conservative hack, and by all rights deserves to be writing columns for some backwoods Iowa newspaper, not the NYT. If the guy's ever strung together an insightful sentence in his life, I haven't seen it yet...
Simple: Education, culture, media, friends and associates.
For every American, CNN and MSNBC are de facto news areas. Same as IP. "Internet Service Provider rebels against IP, starts using proprietary protocol" simply ain't gonna happen, it's like swimming against the flow, or eating sweet and sour dog meat. But in other countries, they've never heard of CNN and Yahoo. The websites and news sites they use are completely different. Their education system is censored according to Sharia law or whatever so they cannot comprehend the full scale and breadth of the Internet. If their ISP sets AlMuhajiroun as their portal homepage then THEY ARE SCREWED! But this does happen.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason EVERY administration is a "big oil" administration is because the U.S. is a "big oil" country? News flash: Without oil our country would collapse. It's strategically important to our politics, military, and economy.
Of course it would. So it seems to me that instead of messing up the whole world in order to secure its access to cheap oil, the U.S. should do the responsible thing and find ways to lessen dramatically its addiction to oil. America is pretty much the same as a heroin addict right now: ready to lie, cheat and steal to get its fix, instead of doing the responsible thing and checking in at a rehab center. You say that a president who doesn't have the "same level of concern" for oil shouldn't be president? Well I say: if he's not concerned about breaking America's dependency on the black gold, an only with providing her with it, then he's nothing more than a drug dealer.
It's not up to the rest of the planet to have a hard time just because the U.S. can cure its addiction.
And, finally, believe me, it IS possible for people to be invested in something and still do what's right for the country. It's also possible for people in power to do what's right for the country and also have their investments benefit.
Yeah, too bad it rarely happens, and when it does happen, it's to the benefit of HIS country, not the Earth and humanity as a whole. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been known since the 70s, and they're still not in consumer vehicles. Why is that? Because they would help break the lucrative business of the new oil barons. Sure switching to fuel cells would cost a lot of money up front - so what? You guys are the richest, most powerful nation in the world! Surely you could afford this...
Before someone mods us as off-topic again, consider the headline: Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding. My point is that the technology that has "fueled" the most hatred and misunderstanding in the twentieth century is the modern car engine.
Reminder: find a new sig
Here's the phenomenon I'm afraid of:
People have point of view. The internet makes publications that cater to all points of view more easily available. Many people (most?) will seek out publications that cater to their own points of view -- after all, those are the ones that are insightful and have things straight, right? These publications reinforce their views, making it harder for them to accept other views. They get progressively narrow minded.
There's a few weblogs I visit out there that cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which seem to beleive that one side or another is carrying on a completely righteous/just war against an evil/insane opposition. It doesn't matter which is which. The rhetoric is pretty much the same, even some of the supporting facts are the same (though obviously not all), but the interpretations are different. I've gone to these sites and played devil's advocate, and let me tell you, there's no quarter on the part of frequent visitors.
Of course perfect objectivity is a myth; we all filter things through webs of personal significance, and desire validation. But it's just a little scary to me to see people who are so sure they're right they're willing to reject any outside point of view -- and convinced they're justified, meanwhile feeding only their own point of view.
And yes, this happened before the internet, but I think the internet makes it easier.
Of course, Microsoft really is evil and the DMCA is one of the worst travesties to ever leave congress, and anyone who says otherwise is some sort of right-wing idiot pig.
Tweet, tweet.
Oh so CNN run by Ted Turner is right wing in your opinion?
You're obviously not from America. Then again your rhetoric is typical of the American kneejerk left, I point out the blindingly obvious, the bias in the NYT and you're calling me a nutcase. What happend to all that intelligence the left wing insist they have? Is "nutcase" what passes for reasoned debate in your part of the world?
Go read Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias". I don't care about Fox, but the other major news outlets in the USA are unadulteratedly left wing, they are biased news sources and the fact remains that the NYT is a left wing mouth piece. If you don't understand American domestic politics then don't even try to debate this because you have no basis for informed comment.
If you can't see through this article then you're the nut. Did you miss the part of the article where the "reporter" who tarred Fox with the same brush as all these web sites spreading unadulterated rubbish? Yea, the NYT is REAL objective there. The interesting part here is the story is completely unrelated, the guy just couldn't help himself, he had to drag Fox into the preamble and didn't have the balls to make the statement himself. He wrote the criticism, but he hides behind an anecdote about some foreigner he met, just incase we might think he's expressing an opinion. Ofcourse it IS an opinion, but this is the game that get's played. A selective quote from someone he "interviewed" and he thinks he can say anything and appear objective. Then morons like you call anyone who points this out a "nutcase".
Well I preffer real journalism to this crap, and I really object to some biased reported taking shots at a news outlet that he could take lessons from.
Maybe I should have said "I ran into a stranger the other day who said the NYT was a left wing mouthpiece and THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN is a propagandist not a reporter.", it isn't honest but it's the kind of shit you like to swallow.
Whoa. Easy big fella. It's been well documented that countries like Canada, Sweden and Finland (to name a few) have more Internet usage per capita than the US.
People who are in favor of racial segregation will argue that increasing contact between two races or groups will increase friction and conflict, and that groups should be kept separate, and not mixed, in order to prevent such conflict.
I think that where groups have been thrown in together, they DO fight over their differences. But eventually, they learn that they need eachother to survive. I'm just afraid that before we get to that point, we may get to the point where our actual survival has to be at stake. Not that I'm arguing for segregation. I'm of the opinion that we should all keep fucking eachother untill we're the same color.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The problem is people don't realize that the internet isn't any different than the real world. Everyone who talks about cyber stalkers, people coning and stealing and people otherwise being evil online have forgoten the rules of the real world. Just as you wouldn't let your kid wander randomly through the streets talking to strangers and you wouldn't give some one your creditcard number on a whim, so the rules of life apply to the net. The internet is the real world reflected back at us without the safety bubble we put ourselves in everyday. No amout of law or legislation can really cange that.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I really despise the logic that tries to equate the suicide bomber with an "heroic" guerilla fighter.
If you look at the methodology of the suicide bomber, and the reaction it encourages, it's an otherwise ordinary civillian-looking person, who walks into a place full of civillians on the other side, and murders them, and himself. Which encourages a defense methodology of - search all civillians, harass them, impose rules on them, shoot them if they give you any hassle.
This makes no distinction at all between combattants and non combattants. Which is why we're seeing the happily used photographs of mangled women and children as propaganda to prove the inhumanity of the defenders.
The guerilla fighter uses stealth, and even deception - but does not infiltrate civillian areas, does not hide amongst civillians, does not pose as a civillian. The guerilla fighter's targets are military targets. Or civil infrastructure. Not non combattants.
There is an honor difference. There is a moral difference. But most importantly - when you endanger the very people you're professing to be fighting to protect - you lose all credibility to your cause. This is exactly why, with all the propaganda from both sides to choose from on the internet, I tend to side with the Israelis.
I suggest you read up on Che Guevera's Guerilla Warfare book.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Now, read This essay [berkeley.edu]. One of the author's points is that the Protestant Reformation brought Christianity into the modern age
Oh yeah, your Tim McVeighs, and abortion clinic bombers are real modern.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I totally agree with you. I personally don't see honor in attacking civilians or using civilians as a place to attack. What I meant was this is their current mindset. What they honor is people that go out and actually do something instead of just rolling over and let the oppressor take advantage. But you are absolutely right.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
(There's already been talk of bringing Sharon before the ICC, but none for Arafat, I can't imagine why...)
I think it would probably be in the best interest of every man woman and child on this planet if both of them were skinned alive and left for the rats to feast upon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You make freedom sound like a bad thing. Let me ask you this, what freedoms are you willing to give up ? Owning a gun ? Free movement outside your resident State ? Privacy ? Fair Trial ? Are you truly willing to throw the contitution away ? If you want to give up your rights and freedoms, that is fine by me, but don't drag the rest of us down with you. I am personally not willing to give up any rights or liberites, not in the name of "Security" and not "For The Children".
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Actually, oil is not the problem. It's WHERE we get it.
The U.S. should do the responsible thing and obtain as much as possible from within our own borders, including Alaska, and import it--when necessary--from more stable and friendly countries such as Mexico.
Sure, alternative energy is a good goal. But it doesn't help us today. For the time being we need to exploit our own oil reserves and reduce our dependency on unstable, Arab oil while we look for a good alternative.
1 Yeah, too bad it rarely happens, and when it does happen, it's to the benefit of HIS country, not the Earth and humanity as a whole.
I don't feel like getting into an environmental debate today; suffice it to say that not all of us are convinced that using carbon fuels is as bad as some environmentalists would have us believe--which is, in large part, why no-one is really all that interested in paying more for alternative, more costly fuel.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been known since the 70s, and they're still not in consumer vehicles. Why is that? Because they would help break the lucrative business of the new oil barons. Sure switching to fuel cells would cost a lot of money up front - so what?
Hello, McFly... You suggest that fuel cells aren't in use because it would help break the lucrative oil barons, then recognize that fuel cells would cost a lot of money up-front...
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason we don't use fuel cells is precisely BECAUSE it is more expensive and it's a cost that we don't feel, on balance, is worth it? It's not the "oil barons" that are preventing the implementation of fuel cells... it is society that doesn't see a big enough benefit to justify spending the entire money.
You guys are the richest, most powerful nation in the world! Surely you could afford this...
Perhaps, but we'd rather spend our money on something else and that's our right. If you want to use fuel cells, go for it. I don't. Gas is currently cheaper and more efficient and I'm happy using it. Don't expect me, in those conditions, to be eager to switch to fuel cells that are going to cost me more...
My point is that the technology that has "fueled" the most hatred and misunderstanding in the twentieth century is the modern car engine.
Heheh, you must be related to Algore... While I see where you're coming from it's NOT the modern engine that has fueled so much hatred and misunderstanding--it's our source of oil. Much of that hatred and misunderstanding would go away if we'd just use our own domestic oil and oil from Mexico and maybe Venezuela.
Actually, oil is not the problem. It's WHERE we get it.
Ah, semantics. Gotta love it.
Sure, alternative energy is a good goal. But it doesn't help us today. For the time being we need to exploit our own oil reserves and reduce our dependency on unstable, Arab oil while we look for a good alternative.
It's not a question of "alternative" energy, it's about a "renewable" energy source. At least you agree that it is a good goal. But since it is a long-term goal, concrete action needs to be take now, not tomorrow! America's dependence on oil has caused enough political, economical and environmental damage (most of it outside of its borders) already.
I don't feel like getting into an environmental debate today; suffice it to say that not all of us are convinced that using carbon fuels is as bad as some environmentalists would have us believe
Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence to the contrary. Hey, even Bush and the oil companies acknowledge that burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment and that the reserves of fossil fuel are finite. Not only that, but new reserves will be costly to exploit, especially if environmentally-sensitive drilling is required (as it would in the ANWR). To believe otherwise is, I believe, wishful thinking fueled by an understandable (if dangerous) reluctance in changing energy-consumption habits.
Hello, McFly... You suggest that fuel cells aren't in use because it would help break the lucrative oil barons, then recognize that fuel cells would cost a lot of money up-front...
Yes, Biff, that is what I'm saying. There is no contradiction there. Of course it will be expensive to change to fuel cells. However, there is this great thing called a "to amortize" I believe ("amortissement" in french). That is, costs can be spread out over a couple of years, until the actual cost benefits start kicking in. So the transition wouldn't be as costly as they first seem. However, people who make a profit (and a hefty one at that) preserving America's addiction to oil will make less money, just as the dope dealer loses money when one of his addict goes clean. The fact that you (as a person) don't feel that the cost is worth it is irrelevant: this is something that will have to be done, and sooner than later. Those "cheap oil prices" won't stay that way, and getting them will carry and increasingly higher political and environmental cost as well.
Perhaps, but we'd rather spend our money on something else and that's our right. If you want to use fuel cells, go for it. I don't. Gas is currently cheaper and more efficient and I'm happy using it. Don't expect me, in those conditions, to be eager to switch to fuel cells that are going to cost me more...
Yes, you have the right to be irresponsible. But america does not have the moral right to destabilize the entire world just so it can get its oil fix. Also, as I said, you're being incredible near-sighted if you believe oil will stay cheap. For your own good, you should encourage the quick implementation of fuel cells and other renewable energy sources right now!
Much of that hatred and misunderstanding would go away if we'd just use our own domestic oil and oil from Mexico and maybe Venezuela.
Right, Venezuela...as long as a friendly president is in place. And if not, the Bush administration will try to topple him again, huh? See what I mean about the increasing political cost? The problem is, the world is beginning to be fed up with being there only to satisfy America's energy needs. You guys are going to have to start behaving more responsible very soon...
Reminder: find a new sig
You: Ah, semantics. Gotta love it.
It's not semantics. It's a major difference. If we got our oil from within our own country and our close neighbors we wouldn't be as inclined to get tangled in regional conflicts on the other side of the world.
I agree. I would love to see a few billion dollars a year invested into searching for alternative energy sources. I personally like nuclear and solar; although to make solar work we need more research into effective batteries. But solar seems like a silly source to pass up.
America's dependence on oil has caused enough political, economical and environmental damage (most of it outside of its borders) already.
While we're searching for an alternative energy source, I think we should exploit our own oil reserves. This isn't a long-term solution. It's a short- to medium-term solution while we're finding better energy.
Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence to the contrary.
Show it to me. Good hard facts. I have seen no evidence whatsoever--and believe me, I've looked. Beyond smoke and mirrors and very science-lacking news reports I have found little in the way of evidence that carbon is doing anything drastic to the eath. Please show me to that data.
Hey, even Bush and the oil companies acknowledge that burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment and that the reserves of fossil fuel are finite.
They acknowledge it is finite, because it is--although probably not as much so as we think. We were supposedly going to run out by 2000, but we're supposed to run out by 2050 or something. Funny thing that.
As for acknowledging that burning fossible fuel is bad for the environment, I can't speak for them, but my guess is they say that because the current fad is "carbon fuels pollute the environment." And sure, they do. The question is how much. Given the current success of some environmentalists at convincing an uninformed public as to weak or non-existant correlations of data it would be political suicide for him to say anything else.
That is, costs can be spread out over a couple of years, until the actual cost benefits start kicking in. So the transition wouldn't be as costly as they first seem.
I'm not talking about companies that can amortize. I'm talking about individuals that are going to see a $15k gas-based car or a $35k cell-based car and say, "Screw that."
The reason why fuel cells haven't gone anywhere is it can't be done cheap. Companies know consumers won't go for it given those prices so they don't even try, which makes good business sense.
Those "cheap oil prices" won't stay that way, and getting them will carry and increasingly higher political and environmental cost as well.
And when the cheap oil prices go up and fuel cells become, for that reason, more attractive they'll have more success. Free market at work.
But america does not have the moral right to destabilize the entire world just so it can get its oil fix.
I agree. We should get our own oil from within our own borders, or very close neighbors as previously mentioned.
Also, as I said, you're being incredible near-sighted if you believe oil will stay cheap. For your own good, you should encourage the quick implementation of fuel cells and other renewable energy sources right now!
As I've said, I support research. We need to find out how to make alternative energy sources practical and cheap. When they become practical and cheap then the free market will take care of implementing them.
But you can't roll out solar powered cars, etc. today and expect them to be used. The free market will reject them because they aren't mature yet.
Right, Venezuela...as long as a friendly president is in place. And if not, the Bush administration will try to topple him again, huh? See what I mean about the increasing political cost?
Venezuela sells to us regardless of what president is in power. I'm not going to tuch the Bush-wanted-Chavez-gone debate. It hasn't even been touched in Mexico where I live; if there was any truth to that, believe me, the Mexican media would be all over it--they love to report anything that makes the U.S. look bad. :)
The problem is, the world is beginning to be fed up with being there only to satisfy America's energy needs.
Perhaps, but it'll be interesting to see what they think when we STOP buying their stuff. For better or worse, our buying makes many otherwise poor countries either tolerable or downright rich (depending on the country.
You guys are going to have to start behaving more responsible very soon...
Whatever. If everyone was so "fed up" with us buying their stuff they could just stop selling it to us. Me thinks YOU are fed up with what we buy. I think the world is more fed up with our global politics, not with what we buy or what fuel we burn.
Show it to me. Good hard facts. I have seen no evidence whatsoever--and believe me, I've looked. Beyond smoke and mirrors and very science-lacking news reports I have found little in the way of evidence that carbon is doing anything drastic to the eath. Please show me to that data.
Are you an climatologist expert? What kind of data is needed to convince you? I personally doubt that you've been seriously looking for it. Anyway, here are a few links you should investigate:
IPCC 2001 Report
(Note: these are links for "policy makers", so they're probably lighter in scientific data than the Technical Summaries also included on the site. Even then, the evidence is compelling.)
"Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis"
"Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"
"Climate Change 2001: Mitigation"
There is also a HTML summary here. However, I suspect you really don't want to be convinced, so you'll probably dismiss these studies as "environmalist propaganda". Or perhaps you can point to the factual errors in the studies...Well, the encouraging thing is that policymakers are slowly getting up to speed and starting to do something about it.
I'm not talking about companies that can amortize. I'm talking about individuals that are going to see a $15k gas-based car or a $35k cell-based car and say, "Screw that."
Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it? If they can heavily subsidize american industry through the Pentagon system, surely they can help automakers in making such cars affordable to the general public? Well, at least we both agree that research into making such cars cheaper and more available is a priority.
As far as Venezuela is concerned, the links between the White House and the coup leaders are becoming clearer: see this article for more info...btw, Newsweek has never been known as being a pro-left, conspiracy theory-prone media source. Anyway, we're not bound to agree on everything, but at least we do on the importance of affordable fuel cell technology. So I'll leave it at that for now - you're welcome to add more comments if you want, though.
Reminder: find a new sig
Nope. But neither are most of those responsible for drawing up the IPCC report, so I guess I'm equally qualified to speak on the subject.
What kind of data is needed to convince you? I personally doubt that you've been seriously looking for it.
Believe me, I have been looking for it. In my spare time I'm preparing a website that specifically talks to the subject of global warming. However, it is my goal to only reference sites that would either be considered unbiased or actually promote the theory of global warming--my idea being to use their own data against them which would make it hard for my site to be criticized since I'm using their data. But it turns out I'm having a tough time preparing my site because there is so little real data offered by the pro-global warming people. Lots of conclusions based on scientists I've never heard of, but no hard data presented to the reader. Call "global warming" a matter of faith, because there is an absence of evidence being presented.
Again, that's what my experience has been. I'm still working on it, but getting any data out of those people is like pulling teeth.
Note: these are links for "policy makers", so they're probably lighter in scientific data than the Technical Summaries also included on the site. Even then, the evidence is compelling.
There are major holes in the IPCC. They disregard the satellite record and the radiosonde record and instead use the error-ridden surface record. Sure, if you use a broken record all kinds of weird science can result.
The IPCC (and many environmentalists) seem more eager to prove why the satellites are wrong than to consider what it would mean if they are right. And considering the satellite record coincides very well with the radiosonde record it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that they're pushing an agenda, not a pursuit of science.
Or perhaps you can point to the factual errors in the studies...Well, the encouraging thing is that policymakers are slowly getting up to speed and starting to do something about it.
Yeah, they're getting up to speed. Unfortunately they've been pointed down the wrong highway.
I do plan on reading the information you've provided. I've seen it summarized (by biased parties) but I will read it myself.
Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it?
To force people to do what they don't want to do? Perhaps that's your vision of the role of government, it's not mine.
As far as Venezuela is concerned, the links between the White House and the coup leaders are becoming clearer: see this article [msnbc.com] for more info.
I read it. It doesn't seem to have any new information that hasn't already been mentioned in certain circles except that there might be a congressional investigation.
That said, are you familiar with Chavez himself? The article you just cited indicates how he blames the media for the coup d'etat. In fact, I remember watching reports live from Venezuela (in Spanish) that the media itself was taking credit for this. Chavez claims they were spreading lies, the media claims they were spreading the truth.
The article also says that the administration told the Venezuelans "No golpes" (No coup d'etats).
Any way you look at it, Venezuela was an internal affair. There was no U.S. military support, no real political support. At worst, the U.S. didn't fulfill it's typical "policeman" role when it failed to act on behalf of Chavez.
But when a dictator-in-the-making that is threatening the freedom of the press is toppled, is it really surprising that the U.S. wouldn't be entirely displeased? I would agree, Chavez brought it on himself--it wasn't forced on Venezuela by any foreign country.
And considering the satellite record coincides very well with the radiosonde record it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that they're pushing an agenda, not a pursuit of science.
What agenda could they be pushing? It's not as if they were going to make money off this (if, like you said, they are not climatologists). So I fail to see what they would have to gain in this: no fortune, no fame (really, it's not as if they became rock stars). This doesn't make much sense. There is, however, plenty of incentive on the other side to say that global warming is just hogwash. And if the Big Oil companies have not funded so-called "scientific" studies to discredit the opponent's view, then they are just plain stupid. But you go ahead and show me a valid scientific study that gives me conclusive proof that global warming isn't happening, or that it isn't related to fuel fossil emissions. When the consequences are so grave for the collective people of the world, then the burden of proof is on the few who invoke privilege to make a profit as an excuse not to change their ways.
You might not agree (and I believe you are mistaken about that) but fortunately, that is becoming the prevalent view among policymakers, who now need only to stand up to the powerful industrial lobbies - who are much, much more powerful than the environmental lobbies, btw. If you believe otherwise you are either a) quite ignorant of the lobbying world or b) part of such an industry lobby who opposes regulation of fossil fuel emissions. However you put it, the truth is we are witnessing an increase in surface temperature (including oceanic temperature). Now you might be willing to risk the planet's future on the fact that there is no defnitive proof that this is linked to fossil fuel emissions. I say it's a foolish chance to take, given the possible repercussions, just to save a few bucks.
>Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it?
To force people to do what they don't want to do? Perhaps that's your vision of the role of government, it's not mine.
Not to force people, to give incentive. To lead. To act responsibly for the common good, not the privileges of the oil industry shareholders. But of course right now the U.S. government is made up of such shareholders, so I'm not hoping for much...
(About Chavez) But when a dictator-in-the-making that is threatening the freedom of the press is toppled, is it really surprising that the U.S. wouldn't be entirely displeased? I would agree, Chavez brought it on himself--it wasn't forced on Venezuela by any foreign country.
The Bush administration's hardly-concealed joy at Chavez' temporary overthrow had nothing to do with freedom of the press. Come on! Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves! (And Iraq had the second...do you see a pattern here?) For your information the press in Venezuela isn't free. It belongs to the richest South American media magnate, who happens to be an outspoken adversary of Chavez. Do you really believe these media have any editorial independence from their owner? Think again. If they did, they wouldn't have shown soaps on the television as massive pro-Chavez protests spontaneously took place in the capital - while they had extensively covered more modest (but anti-Chavez) protests the day before...The truth is, the Venezuelan media are just a mouthpiece for a corrupt, greedy business elite, nothing else. Even then, Chavez treats them with a lot more respect than some of the U.S. allies do theirs. Would the U.S. cheer if these regimes do theirs (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Colombia, Israel in its recent military operations, etc.) were overthrown? I don't think so...
Whether the Bush administration likes Chavez or not is irrelevant. He was elected, and if the people don't want him anymore they can vote him out during the next election. If he breaks the law they can try to impeach him. What happened, though, cannot be denied: while the entire world was condemning the coup, the U.S. didn't (at least not until it was clear that it failed). For a country that would like to see itself as a beacon of democracy, that is totally unacceptable behavior. I do hope it blows up in his face (figuratively speaking, of course). Bottom line is, a coup against an elected leader can never be democratic: it's a fundamental contradiction! If the people go and elect want to elect a left-leaning ex-airborne officer, then that's what they want. Nobody's saying that George Bush shouldn't be president even though he probably is an ex-alcoholic, ex-drug user who is quasi-litterate and has never been able to keep a job that wasn't handed out to him before...(he did steal the election, but that's another story, another debate...)
Reminder: find a new sig
If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt. It is obvious that polluting industries would just pick up and move to those areas of the world where labor is cheap and they'd be exempt from the Kyoto restrictions. On a global level the pollution would be the same, just in their backyard instead of ours.
Since that obviously doesn't help the environment at all, all we're left with is looking at what we know it will do: It will shift industries, jobs, and wealth from developed countries to developing countries. It doesn't require an economics degree to figure that out.
So... If it's obvious that Kyoto wouldn't have helped the environment but would have led to a redistribution of jobs and wealth on this planet, what could the motivation or goal be? I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader. I don't think it's necessary for me to connect the dots for you...
There is, however, plenty of incentive on the other side to say that global warming is just hogwash.
There is incentive on both sides. I'd say 95% (or more) of all reports on both sides are more political thant science. The best we, the outsiders, can do is look for the data in all reports, look for the biases, and try to make sense out of it.
That said... you responded with two paragraphs to my text: "And considering the satellite record coincides very well with the radiosonde record", but didn't speak to that fact at all. The fact is that the two most accurate methods we have of recording global temperature--satellites and radiosondes--both indicate flat or even slight cooling in the last 23 years. Why is that? And please don't tell me that's big oil bias. That comes from NASA.
However you put it, the truth is we are witnessing an increase in surface temperature (including oceanic temperature).
See above. Until you realize that the most accurate methods for recording global temperature do NOT indicate warming, you will be spinning your wheels and repeating the environmentalist party line.
We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever? Those that push the idea of global warming inevitably ignore the two most accurate temperature records because they are not convenient for their arguement and they haven't been able to discredit them. Discrediting the surface record is much easier since the stations are not equally distributed over the earth, don't exist at sea, are subject to poor record-keeping, are not priorities that are given high importance in many countries, and are subject to the effect of local changes in the environment including the heat islands of cities, trees coming and going, etc..
Not to force people, to give incentive. To lead. To act responsibly for the common good, not the privileges of the oil industry shareholders.
"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do.
I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people. When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people." I believe that when free people see that alternative energy is worthwhile they will start using it all by themselves. If the government has to push people to do it beforehand with "incentives" it's because the technology isn't mature enough yet. Instead of spending money on the incentives, they should spend money improving the technology so that people will adopt it without the incentives.
My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.
The Bush administration's hardly-concealed joy at Chavez' temporary overthrow had nothing to do with freedom of the press. Come on! Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!
So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.
For your information the press in Venezuela isn't free. It belongs to the richest South American media magnate, who happens to be an outspoken adversary of Chavez.
Oh brother, you think "free" means that the press doesn't belong to someone? The press always belongs to someone. The question is whether or not they have the freedom to print/say/report anything without government approval.
Do you really believe these media have any editorial independence from their owner?
Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported. I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.
The truth is, the Venezuelan media are just a mouthpiece for a corrupt, greedy business elite, nothing else.
And Chavez is just a mouthpiece for a poor, numeros and uninformed population. He said what he had to say to get elected. Sounded good to uneducated poor people. But he can't deliver. Believe me, if he stays president long enough it'll only be a matter of time until the rest of the country--rich and poor--overthrows him as well.
Populist leaders generally are popular (by definition) until the end of their reign when they are often overthrown by the people that used to love them.
Whether the Bush administration likes Chavez or not is irrelevant. He was elected, and if the people don't want him anymore they can vote him out during the next election.
It's irrelevant in the sense that it's an internal issue. I agree the correct way to get rid of a president is to vote him out or impeach him. But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.
My opinion.
If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt.
That is conveniently ignoring the fact that China has actually reduced their carbon emissions while developing their economy, as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world. That excuse is getting old. It's not China and India that are polluting the planet, it's the U.S. But you're right, Kyoto won't change things, because the U.S. has pulled out of it using the fallacious "China" argument (how convenient) and therefore will keep on poisoning our atmosphere.
We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?
I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile, it seems not everyone at NASA agrees with you (see also this for an alternate scenario). In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!). Still, as this NASA page indicates, "it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future." The thing is, satellites and radiosonde measure changes in the atmosphere, not the surface. The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!
At the risk of repeating myself: yes, we do not have complete, conclusive proof. So I'll be generous to your point of view (which seems to be entirely based on that surface/atmosphere discrepancy, which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing) and say that it's a 50-50 chance. Now, how much would you be prepared to risk on 50-50 chance? I know I'm not prepared to risk it, and fortunately policymakers are less and less inclined to do so. Sure, there will be some people on the fringe that believe that global warming isn't real, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (even if the computer models are not quite accurate). Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.
"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do. I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people.
Well, as faulty as it is, the government is the only representation the people as a whole have. Even if it's imperfect, it's better than nothing! Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them. No one is forcing you. Similarly, when a state puts tax incentives to draw a company to build a new factory, they are not forcing that company in any way. It may choose to go somewhere else instead. Another example: China forces people to have only one child (by punishing those who have more than one). India gives incentives so that people will have only one child. The fact is, a lot of people in India have more than one child, despite the incentives. They are not being forced, and it does not have the same impact. You're just playing on words to try to get out of a losing argument. Give it up.
When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people."
What a load of bull! You confuse companies with actual citizens. Case in point: capital is now much more free in its international movement than people are. Markets are freer than populations. You can have a dictatorship that has a free market and prosperous economy. There is absolutely no relationship between the two concepts! Either you're a businessman, or you're being very naive.
My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.
No, but it is its job to balance the needs of individuals with the common good. In other words, to limit your freedom so that it does not go against those of others. Political Science 101. But anyway that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about incentives, like any government always use for a variety of purposes. I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.
>Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!
So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.
No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.
Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported.
Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so. Freedom of the press means freedom of the journalists to write what they think is true - if the journalists are pressured, either by the government or by the owners, into writing something they don't think is true, then the press cannot be said to be free. That's called editorial interference and it is frowned upon in any democratic society. Of course there are always the Op-Ed pages where one can say whatever he wants, as long as it is not slanderous. But we're talking about factual reporting here.
I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.
That doesn't seem to be the case, here. Quite the opposite: the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.
But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.
But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail. And if the people get tired of him they have a way to take him out of office: it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it. The people who organized the coup are part of a well-organized and well-funded minority. They do not represent the will of the majority...and in a democracy, the majority has the final say. Even though it can be wrong, even though it can elect a tyrant (or a Yale drop-out). That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.
Reminder: find a new sig
The article you cite is very strange. In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy. In other words, their emissions are still increasing, just not increasing as fast as the economy. That'd still be good, but it's curious which is right: Did their emissions decrease 17% or did they increase 18% (which is half the 36% rate of GDP growth?).
These are the kind of inconsistencies that you will constantly find in most of these articles. As the article also mentioned, this information was in rebuttle to President Bush citing the problem of emission exemptions in third world countries. Obviously they had to come back with something to rebut that. The fact is, the article itself says that since the 1980's China's emissions have increased 18%.
Regardless of whether or not they have reduced or increased emissions, the concern of the U.S. remains valid. If you slap emission restrictions on the developed world, the third world WILL pollute more. Whether or not China has done well in the last 5 years or so is irrelevant. If you chase industries out of the industrialized world with emission limits, believe me, past performance will be no indicator of future success.
as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world.
We also are the most productive. If you look at it from a per-capita standpoint, UAE pollutes more than the U.S.. If you look at it from a per capita GDP, U.S. falls way down the list. I don't have a link for that because I haven't found that information published; but simply divide carbon emissions by per-capita GDP to get a better idea of how U.S. ranks.
You can't expect the largest, and one of the most efficient economies in the world to be so without polluting. Sure, an American might pollute 20 times as much someone from Sudan, but that American probably also generates 100 times more income (these are examples, I don't have the numbers handy).
I will not dispute that the U.S. is the largest polluter. I will dispute whether that single evaluation matters. You must compare pollution on a per capita GDP basis. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.
Me: We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?
You: I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it.
Sources on what? I believe I already provided a link to the radiosonde/satellite/surface record. But let me give you some links:
NASA: Radiosonde/satellite show cooling, surface record whows warming
Cooling trend found, slight warming due to strong El Niño
I'd like to provide more, but my wife is waiting so I must make this fast. Getting all these links together in one place is why I'm working on a site that will provide all this information quickly and easily without having to go to Google each time.
In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!).
Uh, the satellite/radiosonde record not coinciding with surface measurements has nothing to do with computer models. The surface record itself is inaccurate. That is to say, not surprisingly, it is much more accurate to send up electronic radiosondes and calibrated satellites than to depend on thousands of people checking thousands of different stations at thousands of different locations subject to thousands of potential anomolies.
That the computer models are broken isn't even an issue. The fact is, if you feed a working model broken (surface record) data it'll obviously break. If they want to come up with a valid model, they ought to be using valid data--and that would come from the radiosonde/satellite data. And that data shows a slight cooling trend over at least the last 23 years.
I don't doubt that the environmentalists could turn that satellite cooling trend into global warming over the next 50 years though. It's amazing what their models can produce, so leave it to them to take data that shows cooling and somehow conclude that there will be warming and rising sea levels 50 years from now.
it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future."
Can you not see the inherent bias? They are saying, "Well, here's data that shows global cooling over the last 23 years. But don't get complacent! That doesn't mean there won't be global warming." The disclaimer itself is telling.
The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!
Again, you're jumping the gun. We're not talking about computer models that are broken. We're talking about historic surface record data from the last 150 years that is the only record which suggests global warming is occurring--and that record seems to be substantially flawed when compared with what we know to be very accurate measurements of radiosondes and satellites.
If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable. If the recent surface record over the last 25-50 years isn't even reliable, are we really to believe it was any more reliable 100 or 150 years ago?
I'm not even discussing whether or not the models work or not. I'm saying that even if the models were right, the environmentalists are feeding it bad data--GIGO. If you feed the models corrupt data that shows warming in the last 23 years during a time where satellites have shown that there hasn't been any, what do you expect the models to produce?
which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing
Please re-read the article and check for yourself what "satellite record" and "surface record" refers to. The satellite record is the temperature of ALL the atmosphere (from the surface on up) as recorded accurately by satellites. The "surface record" refers to measurements made by mini-weather stations around the world subject to individual station-by-station errors, human errors, expanding cities.
It's not a matter of the temperature of the surface. It's a matter of how the temperature was taken. The "surface record" is not reliable.
Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.
In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday."
I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.
Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them.
True, that's why I said they were incentives and not truly "forcing" anyone to do anything.
Let's say it another way. "Incentives" are a way of making a minority (or majority) do something they wouldn't otherwise do because the "majority" (government) thinks it's right.
I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.
Actually, I haven't. I work for myself and instead of getting tax breaks I get hit with unemployment tax. I'm funding someone elses incentives, apparently. Which is why it further pisses me off when they give incentives for something I don't even agree with. They're taking MY money to push ME to do something I don't want to.
Anyway, we're drifting. My real interest is in debating global warming. The whole "how big should government be" is a topic for another thread; and actually a topic I don't usually get into because it's a matter of opinion.
No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.
Perhaps you see it as such. I haven't seen Venezuela much affect oil prices except during the coup itself. Oil prices seem much more sensitive to the middle east, war on terror, demand, etc.
Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so.
I agree. But what if the truth happens to agree with the owner? Then it's not manipulating, it's just a matter of the owner being right and the truth affecting public opinion, not "manipulating it."
the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.
First, I don't even know the Bush administration line.
Second, have you lived in Latin America? I currently live in Mexico and have for the past 6 years. I can assure you, the type of media you are describing in Venezuela is not unique to Venezuela. It's pretty much the norm for most Latin American countries because the governments are downright corrupt. It's difficult to find anything encouraging to report about any of them. And that's the TRUTH. I live here and can attest to it.
But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail.
And as such he's back in power and I accept that as much as him being out of power.
it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it.
Let me answer my own question above: It is clear you haven't lived in Latin America and don't have much knowledge about what you're talking about.
That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.
Well, we really have diverged from the global warming debate and I'm not going to put much effort into the political side of this for the reasons mentioned above.
I also want to say that I'm in favor of emocracy 100%. I think it's the greatest thing since capitalism.
That said, having lived in Mexico which is now "moderately" democratic (having finally escaped 60+ years of domination by a single "democratic" party), I can also tell you that there comes a time when it becomes clear to a society that the government is so corrupt and the voting process so fraudulent that the only way to create a democracy is to tear it down and start again.
I truly believe that. So did the founding fathers of my country. Your mileage may vary. :)
I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.
I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.
:-)
Agreed. Anyway, as much as I enjoy this challenging exchange (I do, really), it's probably time to move on. I would just like to say one last thing about the whole Chavez affair. While I agree with you that Latin America government are corrupt in general, that paints only half of the picture, i.e. that businesses in those area also tend to be corrupt. After all, to use an appropriate analogy, it takes two to tango. This is why sticking to due process (and in the case of Venezuela, the constitutional process) is essential, and should be encouraged. In my view Bush failed to encourage the constitutional process because his administration clearly dislikes Chavez. That was a blatant faux-pas on the government's part.
In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday." I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.
Well, that's not exactly what I meant. What I believe would go more along these lines: "Global warming is probably real. Until we know for sure that it isn't, we should act as if it was in order not to make the situation worse. It just so happens that in changing our habits in order to avert this probable catastrophe, we also solve another problem: our dependence on fossil fuels, which has dire economic and geopolitical consequences. So we kill two birds - or at least one and possible other one - with one stone (to use a non-politically correct saying...
If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable.
Read the stories again: radiosondes measure atmospheric, not surface, temperatures. In the NASA papers, they clearly show that the difference is not between recorded surface temperatures, but between recorded surface and atmospheric temperatures. The surface indeed is warming up, but the atmosphere is not warming up at the same rate, and parts of it are cooling instead. As I said, this shows that the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes are incorrect, which may mean that global warming is slower than expected (let's hope that's what it means). However, the radiosonde data does not invalidate surface temperature records, because it doesn't measure surface temperatures. The discrepancy is with the expected atmospheric warming and the actual recorded one, which is lower than expected. Thus the question of reliability does not apply to surface temperature measurements (save for the so-called "asphalt effect"), but rather to the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes.
In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy.
Actually, the arctile says the country's energy consumption has increased by half the rate of growth of the economy, not its emissions. Those are two different things. Emissions did increase in the first part of the 90s, mind you, but they have been decreasing in the second half. A few more links about a piece of news that was quite underreported in the U.S.:
World Carbon Emissions Fall
Carbon Emissions Data | China
China and Climate Change
And here is an analysis by the US NGO that published the original report. In this analysis the researchers said they cross-examined their data a second time after the Washington Post claimed that China had underreported its actual emission figures while inflating its actual economic growth. The NRDC still found that China had in fact decreased its carbon emissions while enjoying a healthy economic growth. So the two are not irreconcilable, and the "China excuse" is not a valid reason for the U.S. to drop out of Kyoto...unless you are suggesting that americans are somehow less capable at taking on the environmental challenge than the chinese are...
Sure, there will be short-term costs, but these will be quickly recouped, and the goal is quite worthy of those small sacrifices (energetic independence and reducing the likelihood of a probable global warming).
Anyway, that's my opinion. We probably won't be able to see eye to eye on this, but still I respect your position.
Reminder: find a new sig
While I agree with you that Latin America government are corrupt in general, that paints only half of the picture, i.e. that businesses in those area also tend to be corrupt. After all, to use an appropriate analogy, it takes two to tango.
You are right. It's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" issue.
My take is that the companies aren't so corrupt in and of themselves. They treat their customers like dirt and take advantage of their customers because the government won't do anything to stop them; but they're still responsible to their stockholders like any other company.
I see it more as the Latin American society vs. their governments. THAT'S where the tango takes place. It's nasty to condemn an entire society, but Latin American society is corrupt. I honestly don't know whether Latin American society corrupted their governments or if their governments corrupted their societies.
From what I've seen, companies do as best as they can with a corrupt society and a corrupt government. Any given individual doesn't want to be corrupt, but the "system" forces them to be. There is a saying in Mexico, "El que no tranza no avanza." That means "He who doesn't cheat doesn't get ahead." If everyone else is cheating/bribing to get ahead, he who tries to be honest WILL fall behind. So it's dang near impossible for an honest person to get ahead; most people eventually just give in to the "dark side" and accept it as an inevitable part of life... and so the whole problem continues.
Here in Mexico everyone recognizes corruption as a problem, but no-one has a solution and I don't really either. Actually, I do. I plan to move back to the United States later this year. :)
What I believe would go more along these lines: "Global warming is probably real. Until we know for sure that it isn't, we should act as if it was in order not to make the situation worse.
So how do we know for sure it isn't happening? At what point do we say, "Ok, it's not happening."
I myself am already ready to say it isn't happening. The satellite and radiosonde record don't show any global warming in the last 23 years.
I'm certainly in favor of continuing to monitor temperatures, of course. But at this point I see nothing to convince me that global warming is currently happening.
It just so happens that in changing our habits in order to avert this probable catastrophe, we also solve another problem: our dependence on fossil fuels, which has dire economic and geopolitical consequences
And as I've said, I'm in favor of looking for alternatives. I believe that, ultimately, the alternatives will be cheaper and will not just make environmental sense but will make economic and political sense as well.
In the meantime, however, it'd be unreasonable to go "cold turkey" and push an immature technology and punish those that continue to use what works for the time being. It's an unnecessary burden on our economy--and when the economy is burdened, less funds will be available to move that alternative technology forward.
In the NASA papers, they clearly show that the difference is not between recorded surface temperatures, but between recorded surface and atmospheric temperatures. The surface indeed is warming up, but the atmosphere is not warming up at the same rate, and parts of it are cooling instead.
I think there's two ways of looking at this.
My way: Everyone has decided that the temperatures recorded for the last 150 years are right. Damn-near perfect, actually. So perfect that they conclude that these stations are able to detect a 0.6C degree rise in temperature over the last 100 years. Considering absolute zero is -273.15C (0K) and the average temperature on earth is about 15C or 288K (IIRC), then to detect a 0.6C temperature change is talking about a true variation of 0.21%. Even if we assume that only values between -90C and 60C are valid, we're still talking about a variation of 0.4%. I don't know about you, but I believe that all the possible errors at those little white boxes around the world are more than 0.4% and certainly more than 0.21%. Changing urban areas, changing "readers" who may read the stations at different times (especially 80+ years ago), humidity affecting the actual mechanics of the stations (especially 80+ years ago). All of these things affect the validity of the data colleted and I think it's entirely possible, if not downright probable, that these errors are larger than the observed "increase" in surface temperature. I.e., the potential margin of error, especially for older readings, is larger than the the observed increase and is statistically insignificant.
Your way: Assuming that the surface temperature record for the last 150 years is pretty much perfect (a big assumption) and the temperature on the surface has increased, so what? Weather and pretty much everything that happens in the climate happens in the atmosphere, not at ground level. I don't doubt that the cities are warmer than they were. I DO doubt that that makes any difference to the climate if the only change is on the surface.
However, the radiosonde data does not invalidate surface temperature records, because it doesn't measure surface temperatures. The discrepancy is with the expected atmospheric warming and the actual recorded one, which is lower than expected.
I agree that radiosondes don't measure surface temperature. Satellites, however, measure the temperature of the entire "column" of air, from the top down to the surface.
But again, the problem I see is that the surface temperature has no bearing on the atmospheric temperature. This is even MORE true if the surface record is right.
The whole global warming theory suggests that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses will cause global warming of the atmosphere--not just of the surface. In fact, this HAS to be true. If the surface is warming and the atmosphere isn't, well, ok, we have surface warming--but it can't be due to increased greenhouse emissions because if greenhouse emissions were the cause, ALL the atmosphere would be warmed--not just the surface.
Thus the question of reliability does not apply to surface temperature measurements (save for the so-called "asphalt effect"), but rather to the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes
Please forget computer models for now.
The point is, the question of reliability is of UTMOST importance and is completely applicable. How can you use temperature data from the last 150 years if there isn't some reasonable assurance that that data is correct? As mentioned above, there are plenty of potential errors in the temperatures that were taken at stations. Even MORE errors a hundred years ago when the "station" might consist of a cowboy at a post office sticking his head out the window and looking at the temperature at high noon (+/- an hour or two depending on his workload).
The whole point is that the 150 year-old surface record most likely contains errors. Potentially very big errors. Whether the computer model (i.e. the method) is right or not is irrelevant if you feed it bad 150-year-old-data.
The NRDC still found that China had in fact decreased its carbon emissions while enjoying a healthy economic growth.
First of all, the first article you mentioned confessed that the reason for the drop is not fully known. Before assuming that this means you can abandon fossil fuels and have a growing economy it would be vital to KNOW what happened.
Second, that same article mentions that worldwide carbon emissions fell by 0.5% while the world economy expanded by 6.8%. Considering they mention that China is the second largest polluter, I would assume (dangerous, I know) that a large portion of that 0.5% decrease was China's mysterious decrease.
Finally, the world economy was expanding by leaps and bounds in 1998 in the tech and dot com industry. Obviously that produced a lot of "phantom" growth with very little additional emissions.
I'd say various circumstances coincided to produce an anomoly in 1998. You certainly can't conclude that because a third would country had a mysterious decline in emission while their struggling economy had growth that it automatically means we can reduce fossil fuels with no adverse affect on our economy.
So the two are not irreconcilable, and the "China excuse" is not a valid reason for the U.S. to drop out of Kyoto...
It IS a valid reason.
As I mentioned before, even if China and India aren't currently large polluters (and it appears China holds second place), the fact that Kyoto would not apply to them INSURES that those companies polluting the developed world would move to those countries where they can pollute as much as they want and probably at lesser cost.
Whether China had a reduction in the mid-90s is completely irrelevant. If you give companies an incentive (there's that word again!) to move to China and India, they will. They'll pollute China and India, take jobs with them, the world won't be any cleaner as a whole, more Americans will be out of work, and once again Americans will be accused of exporting their pollution overseas. Instead of creating political/environmental problems due to our use of fossil fuels, we'll create political/environmental problems because our companies will move to exempt countries and pollute there.
What would have been the advantage of the U.S. accepting Kyoto?
Actually, yes. We've achieved a standard of living that requires a certain level of energy--whether it be fossil, nuclear, solar, or whatever. But we need energy. For now fossil and nuclear is what works best for us. Hopefully someday it will be solar. But if you take our energy away from us, YES, it's going to kill our economy and that will have worldwide reprecussions.
Many countries and many societies haven't achieved the same level of industrialization as we have (yet). It would not be arrogant, inaccurate, nor wrong to say that if you take away fossil fuels from someone who scarcely uses it they won't miss it as much as if you take it away from somebody who does. Likewise, if their current system doesn't require it it won't be affected. But the economy that depends on it WILL be.
We probably won't be able to see eye to eye on this, but still I respect your position.
Likewise.
Oh well, at least we agree on a few things. I still think that businesses play an important role in Latin America corruption, and that global warming is a real (if somewhat delayed threat). It was nice discussing these things with you...I guess it's time to move on, though. I'm pretty sure we're the only ones left posting comments on this story. Until next time, I bid you adieu!
Reminder: find a new sig