That's a lot of effort to avoid answering a question. Just answer it. You can even have the last word to do so.
Where did you get this, "Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?" thing?
You don't recognize the question I've been asking you this whole time? You've ignored it so long you've forgotten what it was?
Just answer it. You can have the last word to do so, I promise (it's clearly important that you have the last word); but you have to actually answer it. A website for a Canadian journalism organization doesn't answer a question about how journalism serves the American people.
Just answer. When a journalist promises that all statements by government officials are off the record unless they generously state otherwise, does that serve the American people, or the government's elites?
Just answer the question. There's no delusion, here; there's just your refusal to answer a plain question.
FTR: "The Office" is a newsroom at a medium-market Canadian television station.
Then Canadian journalism is a lot worse than I've heard. (I don't believe you, of course.)
there is no correlation between the quality of a journalist's work and what ethical rules they use
This is an amazingly idiotic statement of yours, and it's the statement that proves you're no journalist.
especially with respect to one narrowly-defined situation.
Calling people on the phone?! Yeah, what a corner-case. Hardly ever happens, I'm sure!
You're a fucking moron. Beyond doubt.
Answer the question. You've given me four irrelevant links - the first takes the idiosyncratic cowardice of the American press and tries to argue that it's universal with examples that prove that it's not. The second doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. The third is about journalistic shield laws in an entirely different country. And the fourth isn't anything but the CAJ's homepage.
Russert was a political commentator in the United States, maybe you didn't know that. Issues of Canadian journalism aren't particularly relevant, here. The American press has specific responsibilities to our citizens, related to our exercise of democracy, and they are given specific protections under our Constitution to protect them when they carry those out.
Those protections come with a responsibility - to privilege the concerns of the people over the concerns of powerful public figures.
Answer the question, already. Your four links have failed to do so. Who does it serve?
People who think the US Attorney Scandal was really a "scandal" also think the Iraq War is really a "war".
Firing qualified attorneys because they refuse to take part in political witchhunts would count as a major scandal under any other president (and was, under Clinton, if you'll remember) - it's only by juxtaposition with the rest of the Bush administration's criminal level of incompetence and corruption that the USA scandal seems tame.
The Iraq War is not a war? What?
For all your archaic English you misunderstand the meaning of the current words.
"Archaic English"? Since I'm pretty sure I'm not posting from the 18th Century, I can't imagine what you think you're talking about.
Truly you've posted nothing but incomprehensible idiocy. (Although I've enjoyed the paranoid delusion in your sig file.)
I ran this thread around the office and the votes are in: You're an idiot.
Two stuffed animals and an empty Cheetos bag don't count as an "office."
Look, answer the question.
When a journalist is on the record that the only conversations with elected officials he'll report on are the ones they specifically say he can report on, does that serve the American public, or does that serve the elected officials?
Both are right. Where's the contradiction? Russert had responsibilities as a journalist in a democratic society.
One of those responsibilities is to defend the confidentiality of sources when it's in the interest of the people, and to break that confidentiality when it's in the interest of the people.
Russert had it completely backwards. He broke that confidentiality when he thought it would serve Libby's interest, and then went back and tried to hide behind that confidentiality when he saw that it was likely to hurt Libby at his trial.
Nowhere in that did he do what was advantageous for the people - come right out with the name of who had publically betrayed a covert CIA operative. Russert turned the purpose of journalistic shielding on its head - he used it to protect the powerful, instead of protecting whistle-blowers from the powerful.
I can't believe I have to explain this to an American adult. I blame your teachers.
I understand that you think the press should be constantly fighting the government and exposing all the horrible things they do to those that aren't wearing tin-foil hats, but who is doing that anymore? Have there been great journalistic strides in reporting lately that I've missed?
Sure. Josh Marshall won a Polk award for his almost single-handed coverage of the US Attorneys scandal. Just because Russert was at the head of a concerted effort by the mainstream press to abdicate their responsibilities as newsmen doesn't mean everybody has to follow suit.
I think he was out there doing more for your beloved Fifth Estate than anyone else in mainstream media.
What? What was he doing?
Nobody whose praised the guy has offered any concrete examples; it's just been general platitudes about his "toughness." Well, that's bullshit. The only people he got tough on were the powerless. When it came to the government's elites, he was craven and submissive, to preserve his easy access.
Well, fuck his access. If he's just going to softball these guys his access is worthless to the American people. It's not supposed to be easy for a journalist.
Secondly, Russert's show was not live. You think the President is going to sit there for a second longer than he has to while being asked questions he doesn't want to be asked? Honestly? No, he stands up, takes his mike off, and leaves.
So let's see that. Let's see the President terminate an interview because he doesn't like the questions. Honestly? I think he doesn't leave, I think any modern President knows that that's a sure-fire way to look like you have something to hide.
Let's see him walk off the stage. If Russert had been half the journalist people like you have been saying he was, then half the people he had on his show should have walked off, and we would have been better for it.
Instead Russert gave them a platform to bamboozle the American people, and lent them the legitimacy of his reputation.
All in the name of useless "access." Russert gets to keep hob-nobbing with elites and the rest of us get buried under the bullshit.
Get real. He can't do that to the President and nobody does. There's a reason for it.
Yeah. Cowardice.
Which is better, being on national television asking at least some hard questions to everyone but the President, or being on the internet ranting about this theory or that with no interviews?
Better for Russert, or better for the American people?
Do you see my point? Sure, asking the hard questions would have been bad for Russert. I get that. But that's the responsibility of a journalist. It's not supposed to be an easy job. It's not supposed to make you millions.
Everything Russert did as a journalist, though, was for the enrichment of Russert. None of it served the interest of the American people. None of it deserved to be called journalism.
The issue is ground rules for telephone interviews.
Interviews with journalists, yes.
Is it your contention that Russert stopped being a journalist when he picked up the phone?
Why don't you answer the question? Are his "standards" consistent with his responsibilities as a journalist?
My original point was that the ground rules Russert set up for his telephone interviews say nothing about what kind of journalist he was...good or bad.
But how does that make sense to you? We're not talking about whether or not he had the lights on. That would be completely irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not he discharged the relevant responsibilities of a journalist when he picked up the phone - something journalists do - and it's abundantly obvious that, with that "standard", he did not.
Whether I conduct telephone interviews with the lights on or in the dark has nothing to do with the quality of journalist I am.
If you think that's a relevant analogy, you must be as worthless a journalist as Russert was.
A belief structure entirely at odds with his responsibilities as a member of the Fifth Estate.
You do understand the role of the media in a democratic society, yes? Surely you can see how implicit confidentiality with powerful elites undermines those responsibilities?
The interview is done, and the moderator will likely never get another interview like it from anyone.
It's his job to get the interviews whether people want to give them or not. The relationship between the press and the government is supposed to be antagonistic. That's why the media has legal protection.
Didn't you ever wonder why we have a First Amendment? I mean, if the government and the press are going to be such great pals all the time, why is it even necessary?
Because it's not supposed to be like that. The media is protected because they're supposed to be the thorn in the government's side. If those are the terms of the interview the President demands, it's the job of the media to ignore them and get the interview, anyway.
Christ, it's not supposed to be easy. What, journalists are afraid of hard work? How craven.
See the above.
See what above? Where on Earth in your ignorant, idiotic screed do you explain why the American media is supposed to say precisely and exactly what the government tells it to?
If the media are supposed to be nothing but court stenographers, why do we have both a media and stenographers? Isn't that redundant?
If you cared about the Fifth Estate you would have realized that having standards is what got him to where he was
What standards did he have? Craven submission to power at every turn?
I never heard of Tim Russert reporting from anywhere dangerous. To hear him described as "heroic" and "courageous" is the height of hilarity.
that protecting sources is one of the most important things a reporter can do
Protecting sources is only important when it serves the interests of the people. In the case of the Libby trial it was done to serve the interest of the powerful. If that's an example of Russert's "standards" then I maintain my stance that his standards were completely backwards.
Whatever the case, the key is that the ground rules are understood by both sides.
Clearly - because we know from their direct statements - the Bush Administration felt that the "ground rule" on Meet the Press was that they could totally control the message.
Is that the kind of hard, probing journalism that you all remember Tim Russert, for? Because it's precisely the sort of craven submission to power that I remember Tim Russert for.
Ok, now that the "24-hour-can't-say-anything-critical-about-a-dead-man" period is over, can I just ask - huh? Are you sure you're talking about the right Tim Russert?
I remember a Tim Russert who insisted in open court that his personal journalistic philosophy was that, when talking to a public official, anything that was said was implicitly off the record unless that public official said that it could go on the record, explicitly.
I remember a Tim Russert who adamantly refused to testify during the Libby trial, who refused to testify against a source who had committed treason against the United States (according to George HW Bush), a Russert who privileged his own journalistic access to the nation's elites over the interests of the people his journalism was meant to serve.
I remember a Russert who, in 2004, basically rolled over for the President. I don't remember any "hardballs"; I remember a craven submission to the bamboozlement of an administration he, along with the rest of his Beltway buddies, allowed to lie to us for years.
I remember a Tim Russert who the Bush administration knew was a sympathetic media outlet to their talking points, a Tim Russert whose "Meet the Press" was a preferred venue because, in the words of a top Cheney aide, they could "control the message."
I can't for the life if me imagine how you remember Russert as some kind of dogged truth-seeker who stuck politicians to the sticking place. Those of us who were paying attention to his show know that Russert was at the head of the destruction of American journalism; the leader of an abdication of their responsibilities as the Fifth Estate.
Who the fuck are you talking about? Because it wasn't, in any way, Tim Russert, official stenographer for the Bush Administration.
P.S. Maybe he was a great dad, and a great guy, I don't know. I feel bad for his father, I really do. But this Tim Russert you keep talking about, the one who was so brave and asked such probing questions... well, I sure as hell wished that Tim Russert had actually existed, instead of the craven, obsequious Tim Russert we actually had on Meet the Press, because maybe with a media that actually did it's job we wouldn't be in so many of the messes we're in.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this kind of nonsense common in philosophy? If so I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to it as little as possible.
Since Kant one cannot say that there's any Universe "in itself", at all, outside of our modes of perception
I'm aware of Kant's crusade to, essentially, destroy all human knowledge. I don't see why he should be taken seriously.
If you try to do it too hard, yes.
No, look, either you introduce sets or you don't, and if you do, then you have all the problems that Russel identified in set theory - sets that contain themselves, etc.
After all, mathematics isn't 100% self consistent either (Godel), but that doesn't prevent us from using those bits and pieces of it that fit with the physical objects we manage to abstract from natural phenomena.
Because that's precisely what we invented it to do. Why should I be surprised to find that a human invention does what it was invented to do? Especially if it's one that, as you say, doesn't do so perfectly?
Therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that we "invent".
I apologize, but since the whole of your argument is a very large non sequitur, the onus is still on you. I've presented an argument. You chose to ignore it and complain about human environmental destruction.
At best your argument proves that science is a process of discovery, not invention; but that's not a position I disagree with, so you've not accomplished much.
I'm also disheartened by Hollywood's diminishing lack of new ideas
Depending on how you count, there are only about 7 (maybe as many as 12) different plots in the entire world, in any kind of work - film, the written word, theatre, anything. 7 plots, total, if even that. They were identified in ancient Greek times, though they were with us since someone first told a story around the fire.
Hollywood isn't any less creative than anybody else. Nobody's come up with a new kind of story since paleolithic pre-history. All that happens is that the same stories are told, and re-told, with different names and settings and macguffins.
There's not a single truly original work. Not ever. Not a single one you can name that isn't a pastiche, homage, or re-hash of some prior work. It all goes back to the original seven plots.
Your entire argument feels like almost religious doctrine that says "it doesn't make sense that we should understand the universe".
I think it makes perfect sense that we should understand the universe, because a creature that evolved with serious misunderstandings about the universe would not be as successful as one who didn't.
What doesn't seem true is that a physical brain, unlike any other organization of matter, can somehow "pick up" universal-truth broadcasts from the idea-space. There are only two ways that ideas can enter our minds - they can be picked up by our senses, like when we hear speech or read text; or they can originate there, developed by our imaginations and wills.
There's no third way. We don't have the organs for it. Thus, human ideas about mathematics must be invention, not discovery.
However, it is a fact that nature has produced us through a progressive process (we did not simply "appear" by accident as nihilists would like to argue).
It's a fact? I guess I'd like to see the evidence for that "fact." Humans are an evolutionary corner case, important to no one but ourselves. We are not the "end product" of some teleological evolution.
The math in our universe makes sense because we exist in THIS universe.
The math we possess makes sense to us, obviously, because we are the inventors of it. We do not use the math of Alpha Centurions because we are not Alpha Centurions, we are humans.
We can even simulate reality by applying mathematical formulae and object oriented computation.
Because that's what we invented those tools to do. Why should I find that any more surprising than the fact that a hammer is a useful tool to pound nails? But you would have me believe that hammers are good for nail-pounding because it is a truth of the universe that they should be so.
Sets aren't real, though. These distinctions would be arbitrary, and thus, exist only in our heads, not the universe (or the universe of ideas.) And, again, apprehending the sets is the same problem as inventing the ideas, so the question becomes meaningless - both outcomes are identical.
Similarly, surely introducing sets into ontology introduces all the paradoxes in set theory?
those who see it as being invented are nihilists who cannot see that there is great order to the universe.
I may be the nihilist, but you're the egotist - the one who believes that the order he sees in the universe is really there, not simply the result of his choice to define "order" in such a way that some parts of the universe seem to fit.
To suggest that we invent math is pompous at best.
To suggest that we discover it - that our brains, somehow, are able to tune in to an entire dimension of mystical mathematical truths - is arrogant.
And I have to ask you the question that completely dispels mathematical platonism - where do the wrong ideas come from? If they come from a special universe for wrong ideas, then discerning the difference is the same thing as inventing them. If they come from human imagination, if humans can invent wrong ideas, then surely they can invent right ideas too, and again, it's all invention.
The late mathematician Paul Erds used to say, perhaps metaphorically, that the most elegant proof of every mathematical theorem was written in a great book in God's library.
So where are the wrong proofs written? The inelegant ones?
Another book? Say, Satan's book? Then the human brain is "inventing" which book to pull them out of; like Babel's Library, where finding a book is exactly the same thing as writing it. The conclusion here is that we do invent, not discover, the proofs.
Or in no book at all? Then the human brain has the capacity to invent, by itself, some kinds of proof; once we've admitted that, there's no reason to suspect that the human brain can't invent by itself all kinds of proof, including the elegant ones. The conclusion again is that we do invent, not discover, the proofs.
The proofs may very well exist in God's book; all mathematical truths known and unknown may very well wait out there in some idea-space, already formed. But that's irrelevant; humans invent, we don't discover, mathematical truths, whether they're out there or not.
The extra yield doesn't come for free, more energy is used, the sunlight is essentially free, but more water will also be used;
Evidence?
if you think monsanto is able to give you a free lunch then perhaps you should consult the laws of thermodynamics and the processes of cellular biology.
I'm aware that the processes of cellular biology aren't already maximally efficient; there's room for improvements.
I agree with your premise but not your observations about organic farming, most organic farming techniques emphasise less water use.
When you have to grow three tomatoes for every one you can take to market, that's a great deal of water waste, regardless of how much "less water" you're using per crop. The fact that organic produces so much less usable crop completely obviates the gains in water efficiency.
But given their track record I simply don't believe them.
Their track record of success in the field of plant breeding? Their track record of charitable contributions worldwide to the tune of 30 million dollars? Their track record of funding public research all over the country?
Compared to the track record of the anti-GMO hysterics - wrong on every substantive point - I actually think they come out looking ok. Not saintly, but then no corporation is. But they're not "pure evil." What nonsense!
I don't necessarily disagree with the science but a full balanced scientific review of the technology is not going to be forthcoming from Monsanto's management, and that is all I am really wanting...
Do you think that Monsanto is the only outfit in the nation doing work on GMO's? The scientific review is already out there. I've been telling you what they determined! If you want it, go out and get it!
And for you to claim that I was making such an argument is ingenuous at best.
It's the inevitable result of turning our back on GMO technologies. There's simply too many people to feed with inefficient, wasteful organic farming. Too many people to risk widespread e. coli poisoning. Too many people to expose to pesticides, either in the crop naturally, or on the surface of produce people didn't wash because they thought "oh, organic means no pesticides."
that's part of the strategy herbicide resistant crops so you can be completely indiscriminant in your use of herbicides.
Wrong again. The point is to use blanket coverage of pesticides once, when weeds are especially susceptible to them; instead of having to hit the weeds over and over again, because you had to wait for your crops to mature enough to be resistant to pesticide drift and other accidental exposure.
Varietals like glyphosphate-resistant crops result in the use of less pesticides overall. Even more so when we consider crops like Bt corn and soybeans, which can protect themselves from insect pests without the need for pesticide sprays.
Pesticides are expensive. They constitute a large portion of a farmer's budget. Reducing the required applications is a large part of how GMO crops make economic sense for farmers, and ecological sense for the rest of us.
Perhaps you are shilling for them then?
Maybe you own an organic farm? We could play this all day.
The truth of the matter is that I researched some of Monsanto's crops in the USDA, and even locked horns with them at one point, for doing resistance studies that they would have preferred to do in-house (in case the results were unflattering.) We did the studies anyway, of course.
I'm not shilling for anybody but the science, here. I don't get paid by Monsanto, but I know a lot of the people that are being slandered here - personally - and it's tiring to have them accused of being "pure evil", and worthy of being murdered, for the crime of wanting to feed people.
You were done the second you made up your mind on the issue before learning any of the facts.
That's why people of the world starve. That's always why people of the world have starved.
Because people have a right to compensation for their work? Farmers should give away their food? Plant breeders should give away their products?
As it turns out, Monsanto's charitable contributions to world hunger add up to almost $30 million. Hardly the behavior of "evil" starvation-profiteers, I think.
There's enough food now. There's always been enough food.
There's not enough food. The US has less than a 30-day supply of wheat, as I noted upstream. Countries around the world are rolling back food exports to ensure adequate supply locally. As arable land and usable water decrease, the food problem will only get worse.
Yet you are gullible enough to actually believe some company wants to solve *world hunger* with technology.
I'm just looking at history. There was a time, not too long ago, that, as the human population approached 4.5 billion, every sociologist on the planet was convinced that mass starvation was imminent. Remember? People were convinced that there was no way India and Pakistan could grow enough food. People were prepared for nuclear war - war in order to secure food.
Look up Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution. And if you ever get into a philanthropic dick-waving contest, try to have Norman Borlaug on your side. Nearly single-handedly he saved the lives of more than 2 billion people.
With biotechnology. Gullible? No, I'm just informed. Maybe you should attempt to inform yourself as well before you completely dismiss the contributions of a field you don't know the first thing about.
Imagine the plants closest to the terminator plants are 75% less fertile - gradient outward just like with color. That is scientifically possible no?
Why would it be?
What's your evidence?
I'm fully aware there's not a scientist alive who isn't a Monsanto employee willing to state gm crops pose no threat in terms of ecology or health.
All crops are GM crops! There's not a single crop grown by humans that hasn't been shaped by eons of genetic manipulation. We've been mucking around with DNA since the dawn of civilization. The beginning of agriculture is the beginning of human manipulation of DNA.
If we cannot prove they pose no threat - why is 70% of America planted with GM crop?
Because they've been proven to be safe, and their benefits are so profound that even in the face of relentless, unscientific fearmongering, farmers simply can't turn their backs on the economic sense that the new GMO's make. Like science vs. religion, the real world always wins out, eventually. And in the real world, GMO crops are just as safe as regular crops - because all crops are GMO's, essentially - despite your relentless torrent of nonsense.
Which is why BGH milk contains 30% higher puss levels. To compensate cows are then injected with mass quantities of antibiotics.
And as a result milk is $3 a gallon instead of $10, and poor children can afford it.
Christ you're talking about something that comes out of an evolved sweat gland. There's pus in milk anyway, I guarantee it.
A cursory bit of googling would inform you the majority of the world's population are opposed to this.
The majority of the world's population have a number of counterfactual beliefs. Argumentum ad populum is, and continues to be, a fallacy.
So you haven't heard about Monsanto suing farmers whose land they contaminating forcing them to destroy what was once their heirloom seed?
I've heard about Monsanto suing farmers who took advantage of a windfall to use Monsanto's genetic property without paying for it, yes. Since that's the biotech equivalent of "it fell off a truck", I'm not very sympathetic with the farmers.
And not to defend Monsanto's legal shenanigans, but it's hard to see that they had much choice. Not acting in response to a plausible act of infringement jeopardizes their patents down the road - if they don't act in defense, the technologies in question could be held to be in the public domain.
Monsanto could have handled it better. Those farmers could have not essentially stolen from Monsanto. Patent law could catch up to the biotech revolution. It's all a lot more complicated than "Monsanto is TEH EVUL!"
Perhaps my words aren't the correct scientific words. I'm just trying to explain to you plants pass their dna to surrounding plants.
Yes, the same way you pass your DNA on to surrounding humans - by sexual reproduction. Which sterile plants, by definition, can't do. The problem here isn't that you're using the wrong words. The problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Show you the study that says that something scientifically impossible isn't going to happen? Show you the study that allays a concern than only you, in your ignorance, are concerned about?
It's your assertion that V-GURT genes have this effect on fecundity. It's your obligation to show some evidence for it.
Do you even realize most of the world objects vehemently to this stuff?
As a result of your hysterical, ignorant fearmongering, yes. Congratulations. The very people around the world most in the position to benefit from GMO crops are now too afraid to grow them. You've doomed them to death by starvation.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
You've never heard "air on the side of caution"? How am I the uninformed here...
Because, apparently, you've never been informed that it's actually "err on the side of caution." Air has nothing to do with it. And your claims of "caution" are somewhat contradicted by all the times you've referred to Monsanto as absolute evil.
However - do remember that traits are not passed "in full". You are some combination of your ancestors...
Hi. I'd like to introduce you to Gregor Mendel, discoverer of genetics in the 19th century.
Maybe you'd like to read up on his discoveries about how traits are inherited before you again utter such counterfactual nonsense.
Plants are different.
Plants reproduce sexually just like humans, friend. They have sexual parts. Genitals. You've seen them; they're called "flowers.".
No, the rules aren't different. That's why Mendel's discoveries - learned from pea plants - continue to be relevant to the genetics of all living things.
Even if you are correct - in that terminator seeds will not lead to increased reproduction problems among non terminator plants - there's still the issue of allowing a transnational corporation control of the world's food supply...
Control of what? If people don't like Monsanto's seeds, they're perfectly free to buy them from somewhere else, or hold over their heirloom seeds as, you say, farmers have been doing forever.
"Control of the world's food supply"? This is just more of the hysteric nonsense I've come to expect from you people.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a lot of effort to avoid answering a question. Just answer it. You can even have the last word to do so.
Where did you get this, "Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?" thing?
You don't recognize the question I've been asking you this whole time? You've ignored it so long you've forgotten what it was?
Just answer it. You can have the last word to do so, I promise (it's clearly important that you have the last word); but you have to actually answer it. A website for a Canadian journalism organization doesn't answer a question about how journalism serves the American people.
Just answer. When a journalist promises that all statements by government officials are off the record unless they generously state otherwise, does that serve the American people, or the government's elites?
Just answer the question. There's no delusion, here; there's just your refusal to answer a plain question.
Just answer it.
That's a great deal of print to not answer a question.
Answer the question. Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?
Answer the question. It's an either/or, and everyone can see that you've been dodging it. So stop, and answer it.
Answer the question. Your internet psychoanalysis falls somewhat short of the truth.
Answer the question. Can you?
Answer the question.
You can't even begin to, can you?
FTR: "The Office" is a newsroom at a medium-market Canadian television station.
Then Canadian journalism is a lot worse than I've heard. (I don't believe you, of course.)
there is no correlation between the quality of a journalist's work and what ethical rules they use
This is an amazingly idiotic statement of yours, and it's the statement that proves you're no journalist.
especially with respect to one narrowly-defined situation.
Calling people on the phone?! Yeah, what a corner-case. Hardly ever happens, I'm sure!
You're a fucking moron. Beyond doubt.
Answer the question. You've given me four irrelevant links - the first takes the idiosyncratic cowardice of the American press and tries to argue that it's universal with examples that prove that it's not. The second doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. The third is about journalistic shield laws in an entirely different country. And the fourth isn't anything but the CAJ's homepage.
Russert was a political commentator in the United States, maybe you didn't know that. Issues of Canadian journalism aren't particularly relevant, here. The American press has specific responsibilities to our citizens, related to our exercise of democracy, and they are given specific protections under our Constitution to protect them when they carry those out.
Those protections come with a responsibility - to privilege the concerns of the people over the concerns of powerful public figures.
Answer the question, already. Your four links have failed to do so. Who does it serve?
People who think the US Attorney Scandal was really a "scandal" also think the Iraq War is really a "war".
Firing qualified attorneys because they refuse to take part in political witchhunts would count as a major scandal under any other president (and was, under Clinton, if you'll remember) - it's only by juxtaposition with the rest of the Bush administration's criminal level of incompetence and corruption that the USA scandal seems tame.
The Iraq War is not a war? What?
For all your archaic English you misunderstand the meaning of the current words.
"Archaic English"? Since I'm pretty sure I'm not posting from the 18th Century, I can't imagine what you think you're talking about.
Truly you've posted nothing but incomprehensible idiocy. (Although I've enjoyed the paranoid delusion in your sig file.)
I ran this thread around the office and the votes are in: You're an idiot.
Two stuffed animals and an empty Cheetos bag don't count as an "office."
Look, answer the question.
When a journalist is on the record that the only conversations with elected officials he'll report on are the ones they specifically say he can report on, does that serve the American public, or does that serve the elected officials?
Just answer the question.
So which one is right?
Both are right. Where's the contradiction? Russert had responsibilities as a journalist in a democratic society.
One of those responsibilities is to defend the confidentiality of sources when it's in the interest of the people, and to break that confidentiality when it's in the interest of the people.
Russert had it completely backwards. He broke that confidentiality when he thought it would serve Libby's interest, and then went back and tried to hide behind that confidentiality when he saw that it was likely to hurt Libby at his trial.
Nowhere in that did he do what was advantageous for the people - come right out with the name of who had publically betrayed a covert CIA operative. Russert turned the purpose of journalistic shielding on its head - he used it to protect the powerful, instead of protecting whistle-blowers from the powerful.
I can't believe I have to explain this to an American adult. I blame your teachers.
I understand that you think the press should be constantly fighting the government and exposing all the horrible things they do to those that aren't wearing tin-foil hats, but who is doing that anymore? Have there been great journalistic strides in reporting lately that I've missed?
Sure. Josh Marshall won a Polk award for his almost single-handed coverage of the US Attorneys scandal. Just because Russert was at the head of a concerted effort by the mainstream press to abdicate their responsibilities as newsmen doesn't mean everybody has to follow suit.
I think he was out there doing more for your beloved Fifth Estate than anyone else in mainstream media.
What? What was he doing?
Nobody whose praised the guy has offered any concrete examples; it's just been general platitudes about his "toughness." Well, that's bullshit. The only people he got tough on were the powerless. When it came to the government's elites, he was craven and submissive, to preserve his easy access.
Well, fuck his access. If he's just going to softball these guys his access is worthless to the American people. It's not supposed to be easy for a journalist.
Secondly, Russert's show was not live. You think the President is going to sit there for a second longer than he has to while being asked questions he doesn't want to be asked? Honestly? No, he stands up, takes his mike off, and leaves.
So let's see that. Let's see the President terminate an interview because he doesn't like the questions. Honestly? I think he doesn't leave, I think any modern President knows that that's a sure-fire way to look like you have something to hide.
Let's see him walk off the stage. If Russert had been half the journalist people like you have been saying he was, then half the people he had on his show should have walked off, and we would have been better for it.
Instead Russert gave them a platform to bamboozle the American people, and lent them the legitimacy of his reputation.
All in the name of useless "access." Russert gets to keep hob-nobbing with elites and the rest of us get buried under the bullshit.
Get real. He can't do that to the President and nobody does. There's a reason for it.
Yeah. Cowardice.
Which is better, being on national television asking at least some hard questions to everyone but the President, or being on the internet ranting about this theory or that with no interviews?
Better for Russert, or better for the American people?
Do you see my point? Sure, asking the hard questions would have been bad for Russert. I get that. But that's the responsibility of a journalist. It's not supposed to be an easy job. It's not supposed to make you millions.
Everything Russert did as a journalist, though, was for the enrichment of Russert. None of it served the interest of the American people. None of it deserved to be called journalism.
You are a sad, strange little man who h
The issue is ground rules for telephone interviews.
Interviews with journalists, yes.
Is it your contention that Russert stopped being a journalist when he picked up the phone?
Why don't you answer the question? Are his "standards" consistent with his responsibilities as a journalist?
My original point was that the ground rules Russert set up for his telephone interviews say nothing about what kind of journalist he was...good or bad.
But how does that make sense to you? We're not talking about whether or not he had the lights on. That would be completely irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not he discharged the relevant responsibilities of a journalist when he picked up the phone - something journalists do - and it's abundantly obvious that, with that "standard", he did not.
Whether I conduct telephone interviews with the lights on or in the dark has nothing to do with the quality of journalist I am.
If you think that's a relevant analogy, you must be as worthless a journalist as Russert was.
A journalist with a belief structure?
A belief structure entirely at odds with his responsibilities as a member of the Fifth Estate.
You do understand the role of the media in a democratic society, yes? Surely you can see how implicit confidentiality with powerful elites undermines those responsibilities?
The interview is done, and the moderator will likely never get another interview like it from anyone.
It's his job to get the interviews whether people want to give them or not. The relationship between the press and the government is supposed to be antagonistic. That's why the media has legal protection.
Didn't you ever wonder why we have a First Amendment? I mean, if the government and the press are going to be such great pals all the time, why is it even necessary?
Because it's not supposed to be like that. The media is protected because they're supposed to be the thorn in the government's side. If those are the terms of the interview the President demands, it's the job of the media to ignore them and get the interview, anyway.
Christ, it's not supposed to be easy. What, journalists are afraid of hard work? How craven.
See the above.
See what above? Where on Earth in your ignorant, idiotic screed do you explain why the American media is supposed to say precisely and exactly what the government tells it to?
If the media are supposed to be nothing but court stenographers, why do we have both a media and stenographers? Isn't that redundant?
If you cared about the Fifth Estate you would have realized that having standards is what got him to where he was
What standards did he have? Craven submission to power at every turn?
I never heard of Tim Russert reporting from anywhere dangerous. To hear him described as "heroic" and "courageous" is the height of hilarity.
that protecting sources is one of the most important things a reporter can do
Protecting sources is only important when it serves the interests of the people. In the case of the Libby trial it was done to serve the interest of the powerful. If that's an example of Russert's "standards" then I maintain my stance that his standards were completely backwards.
The discussion concerned telephone interviews. I haven't been a fan of Meet the Press under Russert, but that's another issue entirely.
How is that another issue entirely? Was Russert a journalist, or wasn't he?
Do you think that's just a press hat you can put on and take off, as it suits Beltway elites?
Whatever the case, the key is that the ground rules are understood by both sides.
Clearly - because we know from their direct statements - the Bush Administration felt that the "ground rule" on Meet the Press was that they could totally control the message.
Is that the kind of hard, probing journalism that you all remember Tim Russert, for? Because it's precisely the sort of craven submission to power that I remember Tim Russert for.
Ok, now that the "24-hour-can't-say-anything-critical-about-a-dead-man" period is over, can I just ask - huh? Are you sure you're talking about the right Tim Russert?
I remember a Tim Russert who insisted in open court that his personal journalistic philosophy was that, when talking to a public official, anything that was said was implicitly off the record unless that public official said that it could go on the record, explicitly.
I remember a Tim Russert who adamantly refused to testify during the Libby trial, who refused to testify against a source who had committed treason against the United States (according to George HW Bush), a Russert who privileged his own journalistic access to the nation's elites over the interests of the people his journalism was meant to serve.
I remember a Russert who, in 2004, basically rolled over for the President. I don't remember any "hardballs"; I remember a craven submission to the bamboozlement of an administration he, along with the rest of his Beltway buddies, allowed to lie to us for years.
I remember a Tim Russert who the Bush administration knew was a sympathetic media outlet to their talking points, a Tim Russert whose "Meet the Press" was a preferred venue because, in the words of a top Cheney aide, they could "control the message."
I can't for the life if me imagine how you remember Russert as some kind of dogged truth-seeker who stuck politicians to the sticking place. Those of us who were paying attention to his show know that Russert was at the head of the destruction of American journalism; the leader of an abdication of their responsibilities as the Fifth Estate.
Who the fuck are you talking about? Because it wasn't, in any way, Tim Russert, official stenographer for the Bush Administration.
P.S. Maybe he was a great dad, and a great guy, I don't know. I feel bad for his father, I really do. But this Tim Russert you keep talking about, the one who was so brave and asked such probing questions... well, I sure as hell wished that Tim Russert had actually existed, instead of the craven, obsequious Tim Russert we actually had on Meet the Press, because maybe with a media that actually did it's job we wouldn't be in so many of the messes we're in.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this kind of nonsense common in philosophy? If so I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to it as little as possible.
Since Kant one cannot say that there's any Universe "in itself", at all, outside of our modes of perception
I'm aware of Kant's crusade to, essentially, destroy all human knowledge. I don't see why he should be taken seriously.
If you try to do it too hard, yes.
No, look, either you introduce sets or you don't, and if you do, then you have all the problems that Russel identified in set theory - sets that contain themselves, etc.
After all, mathematics isn't 100% self consistent either (Godel), but that doesn't prevent us from using those bits and pieces of it that fit with the physical objects we manage to abstract from natural phenomena.
Because that's precisely what we invented it to do. Why should I be surprised to find that a human invention does what it was invented to do? Especially if it's one that, as you say, doesn't do so perfectly?
Therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that we "invent".
I apologize, but since the whole of your argument is a very large non sequitur, the onus is still on you. I've presented an argument. You chose to ignore it and complain about human environmental destruction.
At best your argument proves that science is a process of discovery, not invention; but that's not a position I disagree with, so you've not accomplished much.
I'm also disheartened by Hollywood's diminishing lack of new ideas
Depending on how you count, there are only about 7 (maybe as many as 12) different plots in the entire world, in any kind of work - film, the written word, theatre, anything. 7 plots, total, if even that. They were identified in ancient Greek times, though they were with us since someone first told a story around the fire.
Hollywood isn't any less creative than anybody else. Nobody's come up with a new kind of story since paleolithic pre-history. All that happens is that the same stories are told, and re-told, with different names and settings and macguffins.
There's not a single truly original work. Not ever. Not a single one you can name that isn't a pastiche, homage, or re-hash of some prior work. It all goes back to the original seven plots.
Your entire argument feels like almost religious doctrine that says "it doesn't make sense that we should understand the universe".
I think it makes perfect sense that we should understand the universe, because a creature that evolved with serious misunderstandings about the universe would not be as successful as one who didn't.
What doesn't seem true is that a physical brain, unlike any other organization of matter, can somehow "pick up" universal-truth broadcasts from the idea-space. There are only two ways that ideas can enter our minds - they can be picked up by our senses, like when we hear speech or read text; or they can originate there, developed by our imaginations and wills.
There's no third way. We don't have the organs for it. Thus, human ideas about mathematics must be invention, not discovery.
However, it is a fact that nature has produced us through a progressive process (we did not simply "appear" by accident as nihilists would like to argue).
It's a fact? I guess I'd like to see the evidence for that "fact." Humans are an evolutionary corner case, important to no one but ourselves. We are not the "end product" of some teleological evolution.
The math in our universe makes sense because we exist in THIS universe.
The math we possess makes sense to us, obviously, because we are the inventors of it. We do not use the math of Alpha Centurions because we are not Alpha Centurions, we are humans.
We can even simulate reality by applying mathematical formulae and object oriented computation.
Because that's what we invented those tools to do. Why should I find that any more surprising than the fact that a hammer is a useful tool to pound nails? But you would have me believe that hammers are good for nail-pounding because it is a truth of the universe that they should be so.
Sets aren't real, though. These distinctions would be arbitrary, and thus, exist only in our heads, not the universe (or the universe of ideas.) And, again, apprehending the sets is the same problem as inventing the ideas, so the question becomes meaningless - both outcomes are identical.
Similarly, surely introducing sets into ontology introduces all the paradoxes in set theory?
those who see it as being invented are nihilists who cannot see that there is great order to the universe.
I may be the nihilist, but you're the egotist - the one who believes that the order he sees in the universe is really there, not simply the result of his choice to define "order" in such a way that some parts of the universe seem to fit.
To suggest that we invent math is pompous at best.
To suggest that we discover it - that our brains, somehow, are able to tune in to an entire dimension of mystical mathematical truths - is arrogant.
And I have to ask you the question that completely dispels mathematical platonism - where do the wrong ideas come from? If they come from a special universe for wrong ideas, then discerning the difference is the same thing as inventing them. If they come from human imagination, if humans can invent wrong ideas, then surely they can invent right ideas too, and again, it's all invention.
Platonism collapses under its own contradictions.
The late mathematician Paul Erds used to say, perhaps metaphorically, that the most elegant proof of every mathematical theorem was written in a great book in God's library.
So where are the wrong proofs written? The inelegant ones?
Another book? Say, Satan's book? Then the human brain is "inventing" which book to pull them out of; like Babel's Library, where finding a book is exactly the same thing as writing it. The conclusion here is that we do invent, not discover, the proofs.
Or in no book at all? Then the human brain has the capacity to invent, by itself, some kinds of proof; once we've admitted that, there's no reason to suspect that the human brain can't invent by itself all kinds of proof, including the elegant ones. The conclusion again is that we do invent, not discover, the proofs.
The proofs may very well exist in God's book; all mathematical truths known and unknown may very well wait out there in some idea-space, already formed. But that's irrelevant; humans invent, we don't discover, mathematical truths, whether they're out there or not.
The extra yield doesn't come for free, more energy is used, the sunlight is essentially free, but more water will also be used;
Evidence?
if you think monsanto is able to give you a free lunch then perhaps you should consult the laws of thermodynamics and the processes of cellular biology.
I'm aware that the processes of cellular biology aren't already maximally efficient; there's room for improvements.
I agree with your premise but not your observations about organic farming, most organic farming techniques emphasise less water use.
When you have to grow three tomatoes for every one you can take to market, that's a great deal of water waste, regardless of how much "less water" you're using per crop. The fact that organic produces so much less usable crop completely obviates the gains in water efficiency.
But given their track record I simply don't believe them.
Their track record of success in the field of plant breeding? Their track record of charitable contributions worldwide to the tune of 30 million dollars? Their track record of funding public research all over the country?
Compared to the track record of the anti-GMO hysterics - wrong on every substantive point - I actually think they come out looking ok. Not saintly, but then no corporation is. But they're not "pure evil." What nonsense!
I don't necessarily disagree with the science but a full balanced scientific review of the technology is not going to be forthcoming from Monsanto's management, and that is all I am really wanting...
Do you think that Monsanto is the only outfit in the nation doing work on GMO's? The scientific review is already out there. I've been telling you what they determined! If you want it, go out and get it!
And for you to claim that I was making such an argument is ingenuous at best.
It's the inevitable result of turning our back on GMO technologies. There's simply too many people to feed with inefficient, wasteful organic farming. Too many people to risk widespread e. coli poisoning. Too many people to expose to pesticides, either in the crop naturally, or on the surface of produce people didn't wash because they thought "oh, organic means no pesticides."
that's part of the strategy herbicide resistant crops so you can be completely indiscriminant in your use of herbicides.
Wrong again. The point is to use blanket coverage of pesticides once, when weeds are especially susceptible to them; instead of having to hit the weeds over and over again, because you had to wait for your crops to mature enough to be resistant to pesticide drift and other accidental exposure.
Varietals like glyphosphate-resistant crops result in the use of less pesticides overall. Even more so when we consider crops like Bt corn and soybeans, which can protect themselves from insect pests without the need for pesticide sprays.
Pesticides are expensive. They constitute a large portion of a farmer's budget. Reducing the required applications is a large part of how GMO crops make economic sense for farmers, and ecological sense for the rest of us.
Perhaps you are shilling for them then?
Maybe you own an organic farm? We could play this all day.
The truth of the matter is that I researched some of Monsanto's crops in the USDA, and even locked horns with them at one point, for doing resistance studies that they would have preferred to do in-house (in case the results were unflattering.) We did the studies anyway, of course.
I'm not shilling for anybody but the science, here. I don't get paid by Monsanto, but I know a lot of the people that are being slandered here - personally - and it's tiring to have them accused of being "pure evil", and worthy of being murdered, for the crime of wanting to feed people.
I'm not done with you yet kid...
You were done the second you made up your mind on the issue before learning any of the facts.
That's why people of the world starve. That's always why people of the world have starved.
Because people have a right to compensation for their work? Farmers should give away their food? Plant breeders should give away their products?
As it turns out, Monsanto's charitable contributions to world hunger add up to almost $30 million. Hardly the behavior of "evil" starvation-profiteers, I think.
There's enough food now. There's always been enough food.
There's not enough food. The US has less than a 30-day supply of wheat, as I noted upstream. Countries around the world are rolling back food exports to ensure adequate supply locally. As arable land and usable water decrease, the food problem will only get worse.
Yet you are gullible enough to actually believe some company wants to solve *world hunger* with technology.
I'm just looking at history. There was a time, not too long ago, that, as the human population approached 4.5 billion, every sociologist on the planet was convinced that mass starvation was imminent. Remember? People were convinced that there was no way India and Pakistan could grow enough food. People were prepared for nuclear war - war in order to secure food.
Look up Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution. And if you ever get into a philanthropic dick-waving contest, try to have Norman Borlaug on your side. Nearly single-handedly he saved the lives of more than 2 billion people.
With biotechnology. Gullible? No, I'm just informed. Maybe you should attempt to inform yourself as well before you completely dismiss the contributions of a field you don't know the first thing about.
Imagine the plants closest to the terminator plants are 75% less fertile - gradient outward just like with color. That is scientifically possible no?
Why would it be?
What's your evidence?
I'm fully aware there's not a scientist alive who isn't a Monsanto employee willing to state gm crops pose no threat in terms of ecology or health.
All crops are GM crops! There's not a single crop grown by humans that hasn't been shaped by eons of genetic manipulation. We've been mucking around with DNA since the dawn of civilization. The beginning of agriculture is the beginning of human manipulation of DNA.
If we cannot prove they pose no threat - why is 70% of America planted with GM crop?
Because they've been proven to be safe, and their benefits are so profound that even in the face of relentless, unscientific fearmongering, farmers simply can't turn their backs on the economic sense that the new GMO's make. Like science vs. religion, the real world always wins out, eventually. And in the real world, GMO crops are just as safe as regular crops - because all crops are GMO's, essentially - despite your relentless torrent of nonsense.
Which is why BGH milk contains 30% higher puss levels. To compensate cows are then injected with mass quantities of antibiotics.
And as a result milk is $3 a gallon instead of $10, and poor children can afford it.
Christ you're talking about something that comes out of an evolved sweat gland. There's pus in milk anyway, I guarantee it.
A cursory bit of googling would inform you the majority of the world's population are opposed to this.
The majority of the world's population have a number of counterfactual beliefs. Argumentum ad populum is, and continues to be, a fallacy.
So you haven't heard about Monsanto suing farmers whose land they contaminating forcing them to destroy what was once their heirloom seed?
I've heard about Monsanto suing farmers who took advantage of a windfall to use Monsanto's genetic property without paying for it, yes. Since that's the biotech equivalent of "it fell off a truck", I'm not very sympathetic with the farmers.
And not to defend Monsanto's legal shenanigans, but it's hard to see that they had much choice. Not acting in response to a plausible act of infringement jeopardizes their patents down the road - if they don't act in defense, the technologies in question could be held to be in the public domain.
Monsanto could have handled it better. Those farmers could have not essentially stolen from Monsanto. Patent law could catch up to the biotech revolution. It's all a lot more complicated than "Monsanto is TEH EVUL!"
Perhaps my words aren't the correct scientific words. I'm just trying to explain to you plants pass their dna to surrounding plants.
Yes, the same way you pass your DNA on to surrounding humans - by sexual reproduction. Which sterile plants, by definition, can't do. The problem here isn't that you're using the wrong words. The problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Show you the study that says that something scientifically impossible isn't going to happen? Show you the study that allays a concern than only you, in your ignorance, are concerned about?
It's your assertion that V-GURT genes have this effect on fecundity. It's your obligation to show some evidence for it.
Do you even realize most of the world objects vehemently to this stuff?
As a result of your hysterical, ignorant fearmongering, yes. Congratulations. The very people around the world most in the position to benefit from GMO crops are now too afraid to grow them. You've doomed them to death by starvation.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
You've never heard "air on the side of caution"? How am I the uninformed here...
Because, apparently, you've never been informed that it's actually "err on the side of caution." Air has nothing to do with it. And your claims of "caution" are somewhat contradicted by all the times you've referred to Monsanto as absolute evil.
However - do remember that traits are not passed "in full". You are some combination of your ancestors...
Hi. I'd like to introduce you to Gregor Mendel, discoverer of genetics in the 19th century.
Maybe you'd like to read up on his discoveries about how traits are inherited before you again utter such counterfactual nonsense.
Plants are different.
Plants reproduce sexually just like humans, friend. They have sexual parts. Genitals. You've seen them; they're called "flowers.".
No, the rules aren't different. That's why Mendel's discoveries - learned from pea plants - continue to be relevant to the genetics of all living things.
Even if you are correct - in that terminator seeds will not lead to increased reproduction problems among non terminator plants - there's still the issue of allowing a transnational corporation control of the world's food supply...
Control of what? If people don't like Monsanto's seeds, they're perfectly free to buy them from somewhere else, or hold over their heirloom seeds as, you say, farmers have been doing forever.
"Control of the world's food supply"? This is just more of the hysteric nonsense I've come to expect from you people.
I prefer to air on the side of extreme caution.
You prefer to what?