Well the article linked at the top indicates that it would create a black hole that wouldn't accumulate mass quickly if at all. So if despite that article's predictions we create a blackhole that destroys the earth, there will probably still be at least SOME truth to the linked article (i.e. we'd be occupying some sort of middle ground between that article and the doomsday people), meaning there might be a period where the black hole is only increasing in size slowly, but physicists are able to predict it will accelerate in the mass it's accumulating once it's reached some critical mass.
So don't rule out the hypothetical New York Times headline "World ends tomorrow".
And God damn it, is there any way to keep your posts formatted correctly (i.e. paragraphs, newlines and such) without inserting HTML tags (e.g. p and br tags)?
This is a more complicated question we're dealing with here than whatever Asimov was referring to.
The 'destruction' in this case is the destruction of the entire civilization that gave birth to the knowledge to begin with, and represents not just a destruction of ourselves but a destruction of the knowledge and the possibility of recreating that knowledge. And not just that knowledge (of physics) but all knowledge our civilization has accumulated including things like our technological advancement.
We know that the evolution of life up to the point of the creation of a technologically endowed society is an extremely unlikely event. As far as we know, an event so unlikely it's never happened before, or at the very least, never before happened in this corner of the visible Universe (otherwise we would have picked up signs of intelligence through things like radio telescopy). Assuming barriers impossed by the speed of light upon the maximum expansion of
a civilization, this makes our civilization infinitely valuable as the cosmological event that has the potential to spread life across this part of the universe, and what's more, we're (relatively speaking) very near fulfilling that potential (maybe 100-500 years in the future). The "desctruction" of ourselves in this case thus represents a much more profound loss than anything Asimov could possibly have referred to. Our destruction results in the reduction to empty cold silence from what could have been a living universe. Thus, it destroys the possibility of there ever again even BEING someone else do the knowing, and in that sense, destroys the knowledge itself, negating its value as knowledge.
On the other hand, this risk, however small, can be avoided without foresaking knowledge. If we waited a few hundred years, and waited for space exploration and colonization to develop enough to ameliorate this risk, we could obtain the same knowledge without risking the destruction of life. Say we have a respectable colony on a different planet and we accidentally blow up earth. It took us what, 300 years of free market economics to get us to where we are now (patent rights >> industrial revolution >> internet >> today)? That's nothing in cosmological terms. We could easily do it again, so there would be little risk to "life" in that sense. We could then perform particle physics experiments without imposing these cosmological risks. So, if we do end up destroying ourselves here it would really be a shame, because it will represent the ultimate loss to reality, right as reality was establishing its insurance policy (the colonizations of multiple planets by life) and the reason for it will be reduced to a matter of us not being patient.
I'm guessing that Asimov's "destruction" din't involve any of this.
This is a three part post, the first two parts address concerns Sumdumass posted that may not be relevant for anyone else,
so for any third party that might be reading this feel free to just jump ahead to part 3 (in bold).
You did not express that as your opinion and in fact make some very assertive claims like "Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to". I already presented good arguement as to why that might not be the case.
First, on opinions:
For whatever reason you seem to be having difficulty with this, maybe it's the use of the word "knows" rather than "thinks". Claiming that 'everyone knows we were blatantly lied to' is not a claim about being lied to. The subject of the statement is "everyone", not the lies, this is a statement about what people think, the idea being that the media does not report what's important to us. Your arguments don't address this in the slightest, they address whether or not people lied which is not the point (if you can internalize this then maybe you'll be able to stop worrying about my opinions throughout all this). I probably should have said "most people think" but I wasn't here to make an analytic claim worthy of publication I was here to give my two cents. Why not make an analytic claim? Because it takes a lot of time and effort and I'm too lazy to do it for every slashdot post I make. You're in luck though because you've caught me in a weird place. You were on to something when you said
You don't know what to tell me because you don't have a strong basis for your opinions. It is obvious to you because you are already biased.
I actually haven't looked into this topic for three years. I formed an opinion then, and it's stuck, despite the fact that I've forgotten much of the evidence that led to it in the first place. Figured it was a good time to refresh my memory, not only to respond to you but also for myself. We should all be thankful that you're here though to draw this out into what it's become (your choice to do so may even be what the mod had in mind when he labeled you a troll).
First, if you don't mean it as fact, then don't present it that way.
I think it should be clear now that presenting it as fact is NOT what I'm trying to do, you're the one that interpreted it that way. We've since more than cleared up any confusion you had about this, so let's let this opinion vs. fact debate die here. It should have died after my first reply, let's not waste our time with it anymore. Ok?
Second, your methodology:
Remember how I keep saying this is about media coverage, not the side that's taken? Well, here's where you seem to have a problem understanding:
Look at it from all sides. UNSCUM or UNMOVIC was presenting a "risk" over chemical weapons in Iraq well after the 2003 invasion. Just read the quarterly reports [un.org] and see for yourself.
The "quarterly reports" link should be pointing to a mainstream media source that covered the issue for this to be a relevant argument. un.org would be considered a non-mainstream news source. Great, UNSCUM or UNMOVIC actually showed a "risk"? Then why doesn't CNN and Fox say so in a visible way? They actually might have, but the point is that for your arguments to be relevant you should have linked me to THAT, not un.org. The fact that you linked to un.org shows that you're misunderstand this debate to some extent. The extent of your misunderstanding actually spans the entirety of your last response making it all almost completely irrelevant this debate. Here is another example:
Listen to yourself here. Op-ed stands for opinion and editorial. Your making my point, it presents opinions.
You need to realize that the Supreme Court can't actually do anything about this until someone presents them with a case, and that won't happen until lower courts have had their decisions appealed. The 'peep' (if it comes) probably won't come for a few years.
Look clearly much of what I've said is opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I presented it as fact, I think I've labeled it as opinion when it was, or when I presented it as fact, pointed out that I had no actual evidence to back it up, so don't criticise me for the ethics of the methodology I use to present my ideas.
You claim I present opinion as fact, but you'll notice that I explain why I believe what I do and I invite you to disagree. So while I may have said "five years ago bush lied to us" if you just read on a bit you'll notice what I mean by this:
Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to, and everyone is pissed (at least this is what I gather from blogs, forums, slashdot, and from people I run into).
I don't mean "it's absolute fact that bush lied" I mean, a lot of people believe he lied, and it's an issue that's important to many people. Therefore the media should address it, not necessarily take a particular stance, just address it. Although, now that you mention it, a particular stance would be great (as long as it was presented as such, and not as fact) since it would instigate dialogue. You go on to talk about how everything I say is based on opinion and how I'm pissed that MY opinion isn't being represented. I hope that this has been addressed for you now, and that you don't have anymore misconceptions about me being pissed that my opinion isn't being represented.
Anyways your off on them not reporting it. You see, they have reported on it. What they did was give the facts that allowed you to form your opinion. I've formed my opinion based on nonmainstream media sources, most people dont know of or don't have the time to find these sources themselves. The mainstream is there for a reason, and that's to inform the masses. I am one person, I am not the masses, so while I may be informed, that doesn't prove anything. And when it comes down to it, I've been given very few actual facts even by the nonmainstream sources, clearly (by your own admission) I could use more. Where's the media to fill this void? The fact that we don't KNOW if Bush lied or not five years in, is ridiculous. The fact that we as a society have yet to even try to find out is unacceptable. Why don't we know the answer to the question? Because mainstream media refuses to ask it among many others.
Now on to examples of news and "news". I quickly navigated to Fox's homepage and saw this prominently displayed:
If you want to give me examples from other news sources, they're all welcome of course. Fox is just an easy target for me.
Here's more of what I would like to see:
Of course this is really just an op-ed where the author sides with me, but the point is that serious issues are being addressed in the article. For whatever reason Fox decided to display the link I showed you (significantly). The fact that they would present that at all causes me to raise an eyebrow, but more shocking to me was that it was by far the most prominently displayed article on their homepage, the only article displayed with a picture and text. In a different location on the page they had an article on Iran (titled: U.N. Official: Iran Attack Would Set Mideast Afire). Was it displayed as prominently? No actually. It was a link off on the side mixed among several others. Why is destruction therapy a more important issue than the reprecussions of a US invasion of Iran?
Everything I've said here is pretty obvious to me, I'm not sure why it's not to you. If it's because you've never thought of it this way, you should keep your eyes open over the next few months and see what you think. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.
while I agree that the government needs a thrashing, I don't believe that anything compels the news media to do it.
The problem is that five years ago our president lied to his country to convince us to get involved in a war that has damaged us as a country and made the world a more dangerous place for Americans. At the time there was some controversy over whether or not he had in fact lied flat out. By this point however that controversy has died out. Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to, and everyone is pissed (at least this is what I gather from blogs, forums, slashdot, and from people I run into). If a media group decided to thrash Bush for a while, I would watch, and everyone I know would watch, but aside from Keith Olbermann, nobody has done this. Why not? Ratings would improve from this increased viewership, especially for traditionally 'liberal' outlets, so there's actually money to be made.
Granted I haven't proven that ratings increase from Bush bashing, and there's a chance I'm wrong (I was unable to find ratings information for olbermann's "I accuse you mr. bush" special report), and if you want to disagree with me there, that's legitimate, but I think a lot of people (maybe yourself included?) would agree that they would be more interested in seeing Bush get a trashing than hear about the local cat being saved from a tree on Fox News.
The fact that not a single news outlet has reported on this yet, is what bothers me.
your comment on the intelligence of patronage to news sources are purely speculative and opinion
Yes, and while I'm at it let me continue with my speculation:
I think there may be a correlation between the intelligence of the audience and the proportion of airtime an organization devotes to the entertainment. Notice how the most intellectually demanding material comes from newspapers and journals and not TV, and that there is proportionally less bullshit in print than on TV (correct me if I'm wrong, this is based on my experience, which is biased because I only read certain news sources).
It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with personal taste and partisan disdain of their audience.
Partisanship doesn't explain why Fox News is not news and why the Wallstreet Journal is. Taste may have something to do with it, but there's a relationship between taste and intelligence. A dumb person isn't going to have a taste for the Wallstreet Journal, but may have a taste that's compatible with Fox News.
Also note that Fox News is different from Fox. Fox News is presented in the guise of "news", so while it may be entertainment instead of discussion of relevant political issues, that's not an argument for you. It's an argument against you, because "entertainment" is exactly the kind of bullshit idiots would be given to distract them from real issues, that affect them in real life, and as important as entertainment is to some people I think they would be more interested in having their frustration with the current political situation acknowledged (polling indicates a lot of people are frustrated with Bush and his regime, a majority even). After all, they have regular TV for entertainment, and it's normally much better entertainment than what you get from News outlets, i.e. I don't watch Fox News for entertainment because I have the Simpsons for that.
Keith Olbermann Bush Smackdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60
Could you explain your theory within the context of this video? Things aren't as clearcut as you might think.
ah, my bad. You're right, I forgot about that part of NCLB. Haven't actually looked into it for a few years now, so I was pretty hazy on it.
Hopefully nobody listened to me.
You misunderstand. We don't need a 'centrist' to appeal to both sides of the issue. We need someone who is extremely socially liberal (pro civil liberties) and someone who is extremely fiscally conservative (pro small government, anti intervention into the economy, i.e. low taxes). In other words, we need a libertarian candidate, which is actually what's most consistent with our political culture and our history if you think about it. Think about how highly we value 'freedom' as Americans.
The problem is twofold:
1. Politicians use the divide of liberalism to divide us and thus weild political power in their own interest rather than ours. They do this by creating political parties that are ideologically inconsistent and presenting it as a legitimate debate through institutionalized media (a mix of libertarian and totalitarian on both sides of the isle: with the exception of gun control the republicans are pretty anti civil liberties but -up until the current administration- paradoxically anti big government, while the democrats are for huge government and powerful government, but lots of civil liberties, doesn't exactly make sense if you stop to think about it).
2. Politicians have further brought religion into politics (where it has no place, remember we have supposed separation of church and state) using it to further divide us, and created two of the issues of the "God, Gun's and Gays" trio of American politics where before there were none. This is tantamount to politicians walking into a room where there's a mob of people working to solve the leak in the roof, throwing out accusations towards one subgroup of these people on behalf of the rest of the room, and then setting up a forum for the two sides to debate the issue while the politician arbitrates. Everyone forgets about the leak in the center of the ceiling. Did I forgot to mention something? Oh, right, the leak in the ceiling usually has a nasty side effect of enriching the business partners of the politician while drowning everyone else in the room.
If you stop to think about it American politics isn't historically defined by a dislike of 'centrists' (as the above poster mentioned), in fact, extremists are seen as just as dangerous (notice how the media tried to make an issue out of Obama's radicalism, and think back to general political 'coldness' (for lack of a better word) directed towards the socialists of the 1920s and 1930s). Criticising a candidate for centrism in whatever way is really just another tool used by the media establishment to promote their candidate(s) of choice, the same way accusing someone of 'extremism' is used to promote different candidates at other times. Rather than saying the US doesn't like centrists, you should rather say the US is a country with a political political system that has no love of serving it's people and instead is used to promote the interests of the "top 1% richest in the country", and that this one percent intentionally chooses to attack people for "centrism" or "extremism" to further those intersts. (For more on this see the Harvard historian Howard Zinn).
We need to realize that politics is a show and nothing more. A lot of people know this but few realize what it means. It means voting won't change anything, but in light of the political dominance of the wealthy it also means that unless you do something else other than vote, your government will progressively serve you less, and less and less, until it doesn't serve you at all, and all it does is control and exploit the average citizen. I'm not advocating anyone stop voting here, we just shouldn't have any illusion about what we're voting for. If you're voting Democrat or Republican you're voting for the person that will screw you less. If you're voting for a third party it means you're either desparate or stupid. We could of course all vote en mass for a third party, but I think as a society we always have some hope that maybe the person that wins will go against the system once he's be
The issue is not partisan, it's not a question of media bias favoring democrats or republicans, it's a question of the media refusing to scruitinize government period. Democrats and especially Republicans deserve a thrashing, because both have intentionally supported legislation over the past eight years that has clearly been detrimental to our country (pick whatever your favorite unpopular legislation is, there's enough of it to go around) legislation that was forseen to be detrimental for our country, and continue to do so with greater audacity then ever.
As for all of them spouting shit you have a point. There is a difference though. Each is geared towards a different intelligence bracket, fox being geared towards the least intelligent (spouts the most bullshit, only idiots buy into it) while something like CNN or the New York Times market to slightly more intelligent people and do a better job masking the propoganda they push, and push less of it because their audience is more likely to notice. The problem though is that ALL of them ignore the real issues, it's just a question of how many fake issues they push of their own initiative.
I'll be honest, I don't get my news from mainstream sources anymore. I have the New York Times, BBC news, and The Economist in my bloglines, all maxed out for new entries. Why? Because I haven't read any of them in a month. What bloglines link do I click on for news-like material every day though?/.
Accidentally hit submit rather than edit, for the above post so there are a number of typo's, the only significant one being:
*Linux dominates the server market (just like windows dominates the DESKTOP market)
Sorry.
You need to stop and think about what you're saying a bit more.
Targetting unpatched linux servers is not the same thing as targetting OSX. The people searching for vulnerabilities aren't looking for vulnerabilities in 'unpached linux servers'. If you're looking for a NEW vulnerability it's not going to have a patch for it, so patched or not makes no difference. The security professionals and hackers that look for exploits in linux find them in the most up to date linux servers. The problem is only unpatched servers end up getting hit by these exploits. Why? Because the exploit gets published and a patch is made to prevent it. Only the 'unpatched linux servers' remain vulnerable.
Why is this different from OSX? Because people have much more of an incentive to hack linux than even Windows, this is so unlike OSX that one would rather draw comparisons with Windows' situation rather than OSX's. Linux dominates the server market (just like windows dominates the server market), and as far as value is concerned, servers tend to contain much more information of value than desktops. Hackers have more of an incentive to hit Linux than even Windows. The reason linux stay's secure is because of the open source mentality which eases identification of vulnerabilities by security professionals (and others) and results in speady patches.
Actually, the 'unpatched linux servers' argument is actually an argument against you. Linux is generally accepted to be the most secure OS. Why? Because all known vulnerabilities get patched as soon as they're found. But yet these vulnerabilities are still exploited and black-hats still target it looking for futher vulnerabilities despite it's alleged 'security'. Why does this happen? Market share. The same or much worse would probably happen to OSX if had a dominant market share.
The reason they never got passed phase 2 is because capitalism and the bourgeosie was never defeated. The West won. Can you imagine what would have happened (what the US would have done) had Russia disarmed and then dissolved it's government to transfer power to 'communes'?
I think you're forgetting about No Child Left Behind. It may not say "you can't study X" but it certainly does say that if you don't study A,B and C, and study them better than last year, you're funding is cut. Eventually this crowds out other things, effectively turning into Federal dictated curriculum.
Schools in wealthy suburbs can normally ignore this because they don't need federal funding. Inner city schools and generally schools with less funding can't ignore NCLB and you'll actually notice a prominent convergence of curriculums amongst these.
I can't agree with the above post enough. Notice how the only major protest relevant to American politics that has gotten any media coverage in the past 10 years was the WTO protests in Seattle, where we actually did burn our streats. The protesters overwhelmed law enforcement and the city was reduced to mob rule for a day, what did the rest of us hear about it all? Did the media discuss the issues surrounding globalization? No. How about why people were pissed off at the WTO, was that addressed? Again, no, mostly we were just told Seatle was rioting and since then there's been no mention of it.
There's a massive disinformation campaign in the United States. I go to one of the best Universities in the country, I follow my current events, and I'd like to think I'm a pretty bright person, but I didn't know about the WTO or Genoa protests until a few months ago when Wikipedia enlightened me. I now tell my friends and peers about it and it's news to most of them too. These are some of "the best and the brightest" we're talking about. At the point where it's not even discussed by students in America's Universities (normally a hotbed for progressive politics), what hope does the American electorate have of ever knowing anything about these sorts of events?
The problem is that the average american is too stupid/uneducated to verify sources and to question the media establishment. To put this into perspective, we have so much trouble as a nation questioning the media establishment that Fox News is actually considered a legitimate news outlet here (for non-Americans, Fox News is the ?Republican? propoganda channel, in every sense of the word 'propoganda'). The reason the average American is so stupid is because our public school system is in an abominable state, our Federal government is (arguably) hurting it even more (thank you No Child Left Behind), and the average American can't afford to attend private schools.
The above poster says that things haven't gotten 'that bad yet'. The only reason this is the case is because the (practically speaking) disenfranchised still have a stable financial situation (and we also expect something to change when Bush leaves, I doubt anybody would put up with any of this if they saw 8 more years of Bush coming up). And by stable I mean we still have enough disposable income to aspire for a nicer car, a bigger house, to buy a new TV or game system, to go shopping for summer clothes, etc. As soon as that goes away and the average American starts to worry about how he's going to pay the bills or how he's going to feed his family (lets see where this recession takes us), that's when the average American will wake up and realize, "wait a minute, I've just be f*** up the a**." Maybe then we'll end up doing something about it, but only then. This is the 'bright side' I'm looking forward too when our economy finally goes to shit.
Actually, Wikipedia needs to be updated for the post 9/11 world.
Terrorist actually means an amorphous invisible third world enemy, 'the other' that wants to hurt you and your western children and it's definition is now inextricably linked to it's use to justify oppression and agression against the worlds poor and destitute. It represents the enemy in the 'cultural' war (quoted because Western culture is more the destruction of culture than anything more in the 'there's no diversity because we're all burning in the melting pot' sense for any Immortal Technique fans, so this cultural war is really a war engaged by the third world against the west in an attempt to retain their own culture).
The reason 'there are no terrorists' because the above definition is actually incompatible with reality. Terrorists don't want to hurt you and your western children, they want to hurt the military-industrial complex and the big business and institutions like the WTO that are actually responsible for the exploitation. Notice how terrorists didn't attack a nuclear reactor (there's one close to NYC that would have been an easy target, and caused much greater damage) or even the statue of liberty (probably the most recognizable symbol of America as a country). They attacked a commercial building and the pentagon. Big business and the US military. The actual terrorists per it's old definition is the US military and big business, but it's practically taboo to accuse the US government of terrorism at this point, it's seen as almost treasonous by the average person when all one needs to do is look at the death tolls. The West: 2500 WTC victims + ~5-6000 (last I checked). Iraq: ~1 million violent deaths + now uncountable excess death.
It's not even masked anymore, the crimality is blatant, and no action is taken, no response has been made to the lies we were told to go into this war in the first place; basically our government(s) has(/have) been hijacked. The only response left is cynasism. "There are no terrorists, quick, catch those elves."
For the record, I'm an American, and I say this based on what I've seen from the inside out, based on the trash we've been fed by the media and the Bush administration.
haha, great observation. And to think that 50 years ago you'd probably be hauled before the house on un-american activities committee for even proposing something like this. We're such hypocrites. But hey, at least we're giving postmodern philosophers/cultural theorists something to laugh about.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the article linked at the top indicates that it would create a black hole that wouldn't accumulate mass quickly if at all. So if despite that article's predictions we create a blackhole that destroys the earth, there will probably still be at least SOME truth to the linked article (i.e. we'd be occupying some sort of middle ground between that article and the doomsday people), meaning there might be a period where the black hole is only increasing in size slowly, but physicists are able to predict it will accelerate in the mass it's accumulating once it's reached some critical mass.
So don't rule out the hypothetical New York Times headline "World ends tomorrow".
And God damn it, is there any way to keep your posts formatted correctly (i.e. paragraphs, newlines and such) without inserting HTML tags (e.g. p and br tags)?
This is a more complicated question we're dealing with here than whatever Asimov was referring to.
The 'destruction' in this case is the destruction of the entire civilization that gave birth to the knowledge to begin with, and represents not just a destruction of ourselves but a destruction of the knowledge and the possibility of recreating that knowledge. And not just that knowledge (of physics) but all knowledge our civilization has accumulated including things like our technological advancement.
We know that the evolution of life up to the point of the creation of a technologically endowed society is an extremely unlikely event. As far as we know, an event so unlikely it's never happened before, or at the very least, never before happened in this corner of the visible Universe (otherwise we would have picked up signs of intelligence through things like radio telescopy). Assuming barriers impossed by the speed of light upon the maximum expansion of a civilization, this makes our civilization infinitely valuable as the cosmological event that has the potential to spread life across this part of the universe, and what's more, we're (relatively speaking) very near fulfilling that potential (maybe 100-500 years in the future). The "desctruction" of ourselves in this case thus represents a much more profound loss than anything Asimov could possibly have referred to. Our destruction results in the reduction to empty cold silence from what could have been a living universe. Thus, it destroys the possibility of there ever again even BEING someone else do the knowing, and in that sense, destroys the knowledge itself, negating its value as knowledge.
On the other hand, this risk, however small, can be avoided without foresaking knowledge. If we waited a few hundred years, and waited for space exploration and colonization to develop enough to ameliorate this risk, we could obtain the same knowledge without risking the destruction of life. Say we have a respectable colony on a different planet and we accidentally blow up earth. It took us what, 300 years of free market economics to get us to where we are now (patent rights >> industrial revolution >> internet >> today)? That's nothing in cosmological terms. We could easily do it again, so there would be little risk to "life" in that sense. We could then perform particle physics experiments without imposing these cosmological risks. So, if we do end up destroying ourselves here it would really be a shame, because it will represent the ultimate loss to reality, right as reality was establishing its insurance policy (the colonizations of multiple planets by life) and the reason for it will be reduced to a matter of us not being patient.
I'm guessing that Asimov's "destruction" din't involve any of this.
This is a three part post, the first two parts address concerns Sumdumass posted that may not be relevant for anyone else, so for any third party that might be reading this feel free to just jump ahead to part 3 (in bold).
You did not express that as your opinion and in fact make some very assertive claims like "Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to". I already presented good arguement as to why that might not be the case.
First, on opinions:
For whatever reason you seem to be having difficulty with this, maybe it's the use of the word "knows" rather than "thinks". Claiming that 'everyone knows we were blatantly lied to' is not a claim about being lied to. The subject of the statement is "everyone", not the lies, this is a statement about what people think, the idea being that the media does not report what's important to us. Your arguments don't address this in the slightest, they address whether or not people lied which is not the point (if you can internalize this then maybe you'll be able to stop worrying about my opinions throughout all this). I probably should have said "most people think" but I wasn't here to make an analytic claim worthy of publication I was here to give my two cents. Why not make an analytic claim? Because it takes a lot of time and effort and I'm too lazy to do it for every slashdot post I make. You're in luck though because you've caught me in a weird place. You were on to something when you said
You don't know what to tell me because you don't have a strong basis for your opinions. It is obvious to you because you are already biased.
I actually haven't looked into this topic for three years. I formed an opinion then, and it's stuck, despite the fact that I've forgotten much of the evidence that led to it in the first place. Figured it was a good time to refresh my memory, not only to respond to you but also for myself. We should all be thankful that you're here though to draw this out into what it's become (your choice to do so may even be what the mod had in mind when he labeled you a troll).
First, if you don't mean it as fact, then don't present it that way.
I think it should be clear now that presenting it as fact is NOT what I'm trying to do, you're the one that interpreted it that way. We've since more than cleared up any confusion you had about this, so let's let this opinion vs. fact debate die here. It should have died after my first reply, let's not waste our time with it anymore. Ok?
Second, your methodology:
Remember how I keep saying this is about media coverage, not the side that's taken? Well, here's where you seem to have a problem understanding:
Look at it from all sides. UNSCUM or UNMOVIC was presenting a "risk" over chemical weapons in Iraq well after the 2003 invasion. Just read the quarterly reports [un.org] and see for yourself.
The "quarterly reports" link should be pointing to a mainstream media source that covered the issue for this to be a relevant argument. un.org would be considered a non-mainstream news source. Great, UNSCUM or UNMOVIC actually showed a "risk"? Then why doesn't CNN and Fox say so in a visible way? They actually might have, but the point is that for your arguments to be relevant you should have linked me to THAT, not un.org. The fact that you linked to un.org shows that you're misunderstand this debate to some extent. The extent of your misunderstanding actually spans the entirety of your last response making it all almost completely irrelevant this debate. Here is another example:
Listen to yourself here. Op-ed stands for opinion and editorial. Your making my point, it presents opinions.
For an opinion to be presented
You need to realize that the Supreme Court can't actually do anything about this until someone presents them with a case, and that won't happen until lower courts have had their decisions appealed. The 'peep' (if it comes) probably won't come for a few years.
Look clearly much of what I've said is opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I presented it as fact, I think I've labeled it as opinion when it was, or when I presented it as fact, pointed out that I had no actual evidence to back it up, so don't criticise me for the ethics of the methodology I use to present my ideas.
You claim I present opinion as fact, but you'll notice that I explain why I believe what I do and I invite you to disagree. So while I may have said "five years ago bush lied to us" if you just read on a bit you'll notice what I mean by this:
Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to, and everyone is pissed (at least this is what I gather from blogs, forums, slashdot, and from people I run into).I don't mean "it's absolute fact that bush lied" I mean, a lot of people believe he lied, and it's an issue that's important to many people. Therefore the media should address it, not necessarily take a particular stance, just address it. Although, now that you mention it, a particular stance would be great (as long as it was presented as such, and not as fact) since it would instigate dialogue. You go on to talk about how everything I say is based on opinion and how I'm pissed that MY opinion isn't being represented. I hope that this has been addressed for you now, and that you don't have anymore misconceptions about me being pissed that my opinion isn't being represented. Anyways your off on them not reporting it. You see, they have reported on it. What they did was give the facts that allowed you to form your opinion. I've formed my opinion based on nonmainstream media sources, most people dont know of or don't have the time to find these sources themselves. The mainstream is there for a reason, and that's to inform the masses. I am one person, I am not the masses, so while I may be informed, that doesn't prove anything. And when it comes down to it, I've been given very few actual facts even by the nonmainstream sources, clearly (by your own admission) I could use more. Where's the media to fill this void? The fact that we don't KNOW if Bush lied or not five years in, is ridiculous. The fact that we as a society have yet to even try to find out is unacceptable. Why don't we know the answer to the question? Because mainstream media refuses to ask it among many others.
Now on to examples of news and "news". I quickly navigated to Fox's homepage and saw this prominently displayed:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369885,00.html
If you want to give me examples from other news sources, they're all welcome of course. Fox is just an easy target for me. Here's more of what I would like to see:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/17795
Of course this is really just an op-ed where the author sides with me, but the point is that serious issues are being addressed in the article. For whatever reason Fox decided to display the link I showed you (significantly). The fact that they would present that at all causes me to raise an eyebrow, but more shocking to me was that it was by far the most prominently displayed article on their homepage, the only article displayed with a picture and text. In a different location on the page they had an article on Iran (titled: U.N. Official: Iran Attack Would Set Mideast Afire). Was it displayed as prominently? No actually. It was a link off on the side mixed among several others. Why is destruction therapy a more important issue than the reprecussions of a US invasion of Iran?
Everything I've said here is pretty obvious to me, I'm not sure why it's not to you. If it's because you've never thought of it this way, you should keep your eyes open over the next few months and see what you think. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.
while I agree that the government needs a thrashing, I don't believe that anything compels the news media to do it.
The problem is that five years ago our president lied to his country to convince us to get involved in a war that has damaged us as a country and made the world a more dangerous place for Americans. At the time there was some controversy over whether or not he had in fact lied flat out. By this point however that controversy has died out. Everyone knows we were blatantly lied to, and everyone is pissed (at least this is what I gather from blogs, forums, slashdot, and from people I run into). If a media group decided to thrash Bush for a while, I would watch, and everyone I know would watch, but aside from Keith Olbermann, nobody has done this. Why not? Ratings would improve from this increased viewership, especially for traditionally 'liberal' outlets, so there's actually money to be made.
Granted I haven't proven that ratings increase from Bush bashing, and there's a chance I'm wrong (I was unable to find ratings information for olbermann's "I accuse you mr. bush" special report), and if you want to disagree with me there, that's legitimate, but I think a lot of people (maybe yourself included?) would agree that they would be more interested in seeing Bush get a trashing than hear about the local cat being saved from a tree on Fox News.
The fact that not a single news outlet has reported on this yet, is what bothers me.
your comment on the intelligence of patronage to news sources are purely speculative and opinion
Yes, and while I'm at it let me continue with my speculation:
I think there may be a correlation between the intelligence of the audience and the proportion of airtime an organization devotes to the entertainment. Notice how the most intellectually demanding material comes from newspapers and journals and not TV, and that there is proportionally less bullshit in print than on TV (correct me if I'm wrong, this is based on my experience, which is biased because I only read certain news sources).
It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with personal taste and partisan disdain of their audience.
Partisanship doesn't explain why Fox News is not news and why the Wallstreet Journal is. Taste may have something to do with it, but there's a relationship between taste and intelligence. A dumb person isn't going to have a taste for the Wallstreet Journal, but may have a taste that's compatible with Fox News.
Also note that Fox News is different from Fox. Fox News is presented in the guise of "news", so while it may be entertainment instead of discussion of relevant political issues, that's not an argument for you. It's an argument against you, because "entertainment" is exactly the kind of bullshit idiots would be given to distract them from real issues, that affect them in real life, and as important as entertainment is to some people I think they would be more interested in having their frustration with the current political situation acknowledged (polling indicates a lot of people are frustrated with Bush and his regime, a majority even). After all, they have regular TV for entertainment, and it's normally much better entertainment than what you get from News outlets, i.e. I don't watch Fox News for entertainment because I have the Simpsons for that.
Keith Olbermann Bush Smackdown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60 Could you explain your theory within the context of this video? Things aren't as clearcut as you might think.
ah, my bad. You're right, I forgot about that part of NCLB. Haven't actually looked into it for a few years now, so I was pretty hazy on it. Hopefully nobody listened to me.
You misunderstand. We don't need a 'centrist' to appeal to both sides of the issue. We need someone who is extremely socially liberal (pro civil liberties) and someone who is extremely fiscally conservative (pro small government, anti intervention into the economy, i.e. low taxes). In other words, we need a libertarian candidate, which is actually what's most consistent with our political culture and our history if you think about it. Think about how highly we value 'freedom' as Americans.
The problem is twofold:
1. Politicians use the divide of liberalism to divide us and thus weild political power in their own interest rather than ours. They do this by creating political parties that are ideologically inconsistent and presenting it as a legitimate debate through institutionalized media (a mix of libertarian and totalitarian on both sides of the isle: with the exception of gun control the republicans are pretty anti civil liberties but -up until the current administration- paradoxically anti big government, while the democrats are for huge government and powerful government, but lots of civil liberties, doesn't exactly make sense if you stop to think about it).
2. Politicians have further brought religion into politics (where it has no place, remember we have supposed separation of church and state) using it to further divide us, and created two of the issues of the "God, Gun's and Gays" trio of American politics where before there were none. This is tantamount to politicians walking into a room where there's a mob of people working to solve the leak in the roof, throwing out accusations towards one subgroup of these people on behalf of the rest of the room, and then setting up a forum for the two sides to debate the issue while the politician arbitrates. Everyone forgets about the leak in the center of the ceiling. Did I forgot to mention something? Oh, right, the leak in the ceiling usually has a nasty side effect of enriching the business partners of the politician while drowning everyone else in the room.
If you stop to think about it American politics isn't historically defined by a dislike of 'centrists' (as the above poster mentioned), in fact, extremists are seen as just as dangerous (notice how the media tried to make an issue out of Obama's radicalism, and think back to general political 'coldness' (for lack of a better word) directed towards the socialists of the 1920s and 1930s). Criticising a candidate for centrism in whatever way is really just another tool used by the media establishment to promote their candidate(s) of choice, the same way accusing someone of 'extremism' is used to promote different candidates at other times. Rather than saying the US doesn't like centrists, you should rather say the US is a country with a political political system that has no love of serving it's people and instead is used to promote the interests of the "top 1% richest in the country", and that this one percent intentionally chooses to attack people for "centrism" or "extremism" to further those intersts. (For more on this see the Harvard historian Howard Zinn).
We need to realize that politics is a show and nothing more. A lot of people know this but few realize what it means. It means voting won't change anything, but in light of the political dominance of the wealthy it also means that unless you do something else other than vote, your government will progressively serve you less, and less and less, until it doesn't serve you at all, and all it does is control and exploit the average citizen. I'm not advocating anyone stop voting here, we just shouldn't have any illusion about what we're voting for. If you're voting Democrat or Republican you're voting for the person that will screw you less. If you're voting for a third party it means you're either desparate or stupid. We could of course all vote en mass for a third party, but I think as a society we always have some hope that maybe the person that wins will go against the system once he's be
The issue is not partisan, it's not a question of media bias favoring democrats or republicans, it's a question of the media refusing to scruitinize government period. Democrats and especially Republicans deserve a thrashing, because both have intentionally supported legislation over the past eight years that has clearly been detrimental to our country (pick whatever your favorite unpopular legislation is, there's enough of it to go around) legislation that was forseen to be detrimental for our country, and continue to do so with greater audacity then ever.
/.
As for all of them spouting shit you have a point. There is a difference though. Each is geared towards a different intelligence bracket, fox being geared towards the least intelligent (spouts the most bullshit, only idiots buy into it) while something like CNN or the New York Times market to slightly more intelligent people and do a better job masking the propoganda they push, and push less of it because their audience is more likely to notice. The problem though is that ALL of them ignore the real issues, it's just a question of how many fake issues they push of their own initiative.
I'll be honest, I don't get my news from mainstream sources anymore. I have the New York Times, BBC news, and The Economist in my bloglines, all maxed out for new entries. Why? Because I haven't read any of them in a month. What bloglines link do I click on for news-like material every day though?
Accidentally hit submit rather than edit, for the above post so there are a number of typo's, the only significant one being: *Linux dominates the server market (just like windows dominates the DESKTOP market) Sorry.
You need to stop and think about what you're saying a bit more. Targetting unpatched linux servers is not the same thing as targetting OSX. The people searching for vulnerabilities aren't looking for vulnerabilities in 'unpached linux servers'. If you're looking for a NEW vulnerability it's not going to have a patch for it, so patched or not makes no difference. The security professionals and hackers that look for exploits in linux find them in the most up to date linux servers. The problem is only unpatched servers end up getting hit by these exploits. Why? Because the exploit gets published and a patch is made to prevent it. Only the 'unpatched linux servers' remain vulnerable. Why is this different from OSX? Because people have much more of an incentive to hack linux than even Windows, this is so unlike OSX that one would rather draw comparisons with Windows' situation rather than OSX's. Linux dominates the server market (just like windows dominates the server market), and as far as value is concerned, servers tend to contain much more information of value than desktops. Hackers have more of an incentive to hit Linux than even Windows. The reason linux stay's secure is because of the open source mentality which eases identification of vulnerabilities by security professionals (and others) and results in speady patches. Actually, the 'unpatched linux servers' argument is actually an argument against you. Linux is generally accepted to be the most secure OS. Why? Because all known vulnerabilities get patched as soon as they're found. But yet these vulnerabilities are still exploited and black-hats still target it looking for futher vulnerabilities despite it's alleged 'security'. Why does this happen? Market share. The same or much worse would probably happen to OSX if had a dominant market share.
The reason they never got passed phase 2 is because capitalism and the bourgeosie was never defeated. The West won. Can you imagine what would have happened (what the US would have done) had Russia disarmed and then dissolved it's government to transfer power to 'communes'?
I think you're forgetting about No Child Left Behind. It may not say "you can't study X" but it certainly does say that if you don't study A,B and C, and study them better than last year, you're funding is cut. Eventually this crowds out other things, effectively turning into Federal dictated curriculum. Schools in wealthy suburbs can normally ignore this because they don't need federal funding. Inner city schools and generally schools with less funding can't ignore NCLB and you'll actually notice a prominent convergence of curriculums amongst these.
I can't agree with the above post enough. Notice how the only major protest relevant to American politics that has gotten any media coverage in the past 10 years was the WTO protests in Seattle, where we actually did burn our streats. The protesters overwhelmed law enforcement and the city was reduced to mob rule for a day, what did the rest of us hear about it all? Did the media discuss the issues surrounding globalization? No. How about why people were pissed off at the WTO, was that addressed? Again, no, mostly we were just told Seatle was rioting and since then there's been no mention of it.
There's a massive disinformation campaign in the United States. I go to one of the best Universities in the country, I follow my current events, and I'd like to think I'm a pretty bright person, but I didn't know about the WTO or Genoa protests until a few months ago when Wikipedia enlightened me. I now tell my friends and peers about it and it's news to most of them too. These are some of "the best and the brightest" we're talking about. At the point where it's not even discussed by students in America's Universities (normally a hotbed for progressive politics), what hope does the American electorate have of ever knowing anything about these sorts of events?
The problem is that the average american is too stupid/uneducated to verify sources and to question the media establishment. To put this into perspective, we have so much trouble as a nation questioning the media establishment that Fox News is actually considered a legitimate news outlet here (for non-Americans, Fox News is the ?Republican? propoganda channel, in every sense of the word 'propoganda'). The reason the average American is so stupid is because our public school system is in an abominable state, our Federal government is (arguably) hurting it even more (thank you No Child Left Behind), and the average American can't afford to attend private schools.
The above poster says that things haven't gotten 'that bad yet'. The only reason this is the case is because the (practically speaking) disenfranchised still have a stable financial situation (and we also expect something to change when Bush leaves, I doubt anybody would put up with any of this if they saw 8 more years of Bush coming up). And by stable I mean we still have enough disposable income to aspire for a nicer car, a bigger house, to buy a new TV or game system, to go shopping for summer clothes, etc. As soon as that goes away and the average American starts to worry about how he's going to pay the bills or how he's going to feed his family (lets see where this recession takes us), that's when the average American will wake up and realize, "wait a minute, I've just be f*** up the a**." Maybe then we'll end up doing something about it, but only then. This is the 'bright side' I'm looking forward too when our economy finally goes to shit.
Right, they don't write 'songs', they write albums. It's like saying Beethoven's 9th only has one good movement.
Actually, Wikipedia needs to be updated for the post 9/11 world.
Terrorist actually means an amorphous invisible third world enemy, 'the other' that wants to hurt you and your western children and it's definition is now inextricably linked to it's use to justify oppression and agression against the worlds poor and destitute. It represents the enemy in the 'cultural' war (quoted because Western culture is more the destruction of culture than anything more in the 'there's no diversity because we're all burning in the melting pot' sense for any Immortal Technique fans, so this cultural war is really a war engaged by the third world against the west in an attempt to retain their own culture).
The reason 'there are no terrorists' because the above definition is actually incompatible with reality. Terrorists don't want to hurt you and your western children, they want to hurt the military-industrial complex and the big business and institutions like the WTO that are actually responsible for the exploitation. Notice how terrorists didn't attack a nuclear reactor (there's one close to NYC that would have been an easy target, and caused much greater damage) or even the statue of liberty (probably the most recognizable symbol of America as a country). They attacked a commercial building and the pentagon. Big business and the US military. The actual terrorists per it's old definition is the US military and big business, but it's practically taboo to accuse the US government of terrorism at this point, it's seen as almost treasonous by the average person when all one needs to do is look at the death tolls. The West: 2500 WTC victims + ~5-6000 (last I checked). Iraq: ~1 million violent deaths + now uncountable excess death.
It's not even masked anymore, the crimality is blatant, and no action is taken, no response has been made to the lies we were told to go into this war in the first place; basically our government(s) has(/have) been hijacked. The only response left is cynasism. "There are no terrorists, quick, catch those elves."
For the record, I'm an American, and I say this based on what I've seen from the inside out, based on the trash we've been fed by the media and the Bush administration.
haha, great observation. And to think that 50 years ago you'd probably be hauled before the house on un-american activities committee for even proposing something like this. We're such hypocrites. But hey, at least we're giving postmodern philosophers/cultural theorists something to laugh about.