Karl Rove, or someone who learned at the feet of the master. Fits his M.O. perfectly. Read up on him (e.g., Bush's Brain by Moore and Slater, or The Architect by the same authors) and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Rove invented GWB as a political figure.
Bingo. We need to be able to mod to 6 for comments like this.
I've always called this tactic "innoculation", and it's pure Karl Rove. The recipe is to pre-empt the potential release of damaging information with alternative damaging information that is provably fake. Once the fake documents are discredited, the media and the public will ignore any successive release of similar documents, even if they are genuine. You can innoculate the public against the truth by priming them with similar-sounding lies.
And you're spot-on about the position this puts the Dems in, as well. Even if they had the Real Thing (through whatever channels), any release now would associate them with the extortionists.
There must be something awfully damning in those tax returns for the GOP to be going full-Rove on them like this!
I've read most of the comments here, and what's depressing to me is that amidst all of the complaining and finger-pointing, I haven't seen anyone suggest even the possibility that there might be some collective action that could be taken to fight the problem and those whose greed is responsible for it.
What if every student in a class refused to buy the assigned textbook, and instead agreed on free or low-cost textbooks and resources? What if the instructors who are getting kickbacks at the cost of their students were publicly held accountable? There are probably dozens of things that could be done, if students could only find their common ground and act.
No, you're fucking yourselves raw by not standing up in unity and saying "no". Society is a competitive game and it's played without honor on a slanted field. If your only response to the raw deal you're getting is whiny helplessness, I will guaran-fucking-tee you that you'll be getting an even rawer deal than that. It's a vicious cycle that leads all the way to the bottom, and unless you're in "the 1%" you're on the express elevator down. Start pressing some buttons.
As a tail-end "baby boomer", what has always struck me the most about successive generations is how incredibly passive they have been in the face of some really serious shit being done to them. This isn't about one generation screwing the next any more than it's ever been. It's about a war that's been waged in the U.S. against the middle and working classes (of all ages) for the past 30 years. Public education has been under attack, along with labor unions, Social Security, Medicare, etc. But instead of hitting the streets and demanding a better deal, all we've seen since then (except for OWS) is helpless whining and complaining, just like yours. And mine, too, for that matter, because times have changed and we've forgotten how to act.
If your parents did you any disservice, maybe it was a failure to instill a sense of collective power and efficacy. But it seems that every generation through history has had to discover that on its own.
If you're affluent enough, you can pretty much erase any need to ever leave your home, and I've seen quite a few people who are hell-bent on doing just this. Big houses in the burbs with gyms, home theaters complete with popcorn machines, the works. It's kind of pathetic, actually.
If you have a choice where you live, find a place where you can safely walk, run or bike interesting routes to worthwhile nearby destinations, and get out of your house every day. The exercise problem will be solved, and you'll be a happier person.
Explorers have unsuccessfully sought a Northwest Passage for a lot longer than climate satellites have been orbiting the Earth, so it seems likely that the current minimum dates back to pre-industrial times, at least.
But if you're arguing that "we need more research", then by all means advocate for that to your congressional representatives. House Republicans have been trying to slash climate research funding for a long time. They're also trying to prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding health economics studies. I wonder what issue that might relate to?
I know several people who never took any interest in any scientific matter whatsoever, and yet are now passionate in their critique of climate science and the vast global conspiracy that all scientists and smart people are obviously parties to. If this is what it takes to finally get them interested in science, maybe it's a good thing?
Oh, please. I've been using Linux "on the desktop" for years, and I can tell you I wouldn't go back to Windows if it were just as free (as in beer). The subject of this article is only one more in a long series of reasons why.
These "not ready for the desktop" commentaries pop up on queue with almost every mention of Linux. They remind me of the manufactured doubt that the fossil fuel industry spews to convince the ignorant and gullible that they should cling forever to their traditional energy sources. And why not, there are billions of dollars at stake there, too.
Linux didn't come with your computer and it's not advertised on the tee vee, so I have no doubt that you'd cling to what you're running even if it punched you in the face and pissed on your shirt every time you boot up. Which is pretty much what it's coming to...
But, with Linux at least you have options, and always will. I recently ditched Gnome3 for Xfce with no fuss, and it works fine and makes me happy. Would my grandmother be likely to do that? Well, she's dead, but if she were alive I'd gladly do it for her, and I'm sure she'd be happy too.
What are your options if you want the lastest Windows OS but don't like the interface formerly known as Metro?
You don't sound American. Here in the U.S., we brag about working long hours and not taking vacations. Whoever gets the rawest deal from the massah is the winner!
A similar thing has been happening on Linux, with Gnome3 and Unity opting for that tablet/cellphone experience on the desktop. The main difference is that there are at least half a dozen other desktop environments and window managers to choose from, so we can all vote with our feet (as I have).
I used to chuckle (to myself, of course) because that's how my GF uses her computer. Everything she uses, no matter how piddly, she maximizes full-screen. I guess the joke's on me now.
It's funny you should mention that since it is conservative groups that ended segregation, and supported suffragettes. Through history Democrats have long been the party to resist real progress, and very little has changed.
You're really going to have to elaborate on that gem a little. Conservatives as advocates for the downtrodden and disenfranchised. If they were the real champions of progressive values, wouldn't they, ummm, not be conservatives anymore? Or is this yet another shining example of their prodigious talent for turning reality upside-down?
If people "accept delivery" of the ads but don't look at them (as I suspect most don't), you will in the short term get your exposures. But these people do not contribute to the effectiveness of the ad, and ultimately it's the return on advertising that determines its value. Over the long haul any failure to actually patronize advertisers will depress ad revenue equivalently, regardless of how that failure happens. You can have fewer exposures, but to receptive people who are more likely to buy, or more exposures, but to people who are less responsive. In the end, merchants need $X in advertising costs to generate some multiple of $X in incremental revenue, or they're not going to keep doing it. Maybe there's some of that going on right now?
So should I feel guilty if I don't actually buy whatever your advertisers are selling? Because I can assure you I won't, regardless of how many ads you manage to litter my screen with. Whether and how you can monetize your content simply isn't my problem or responsibility, if I can do without it.
The attack by conservatives on science and reason has nothing to do with "control over your life". It's quite the opposite, in fact. Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
And before conservatives complain about government abridging their freedoms, they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
Of course they would choose topics that are points of contention between the parties. If Republicans see that as bias, maybe they're not as confident about their positions as they pretend to be.
I'm sorry, but anyone who looks at your site is free to look at whatever they want to look at, and not one thing more. It's always been that way, even in the age of print. The exception would be that I never heard a magazine publisher rant about people who turn directly to an article instead of leafing through page-by-page like idiots to read each and every ad.
Slashdot Mirror
Karl Rove, or someone who learned at the feet of the master. Fits his M.O. perfectly. Read up on him (e.g., Bush's Brain by Moore and Slater, or The Architect by the same authors) and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Rove invented GWB as a political figure.
Bingo. We need to be able to mod to 6 for comments like this.
I've always called this tactic "innoculation", and it's pure Karl Rove. The recipe is to pre-empt the potential release of damaging information with alternative damaging information that is provably fake. Once the fake documents are discredited, the media and the public will ignore any successive release of similar documents, even if they are genuine. You can innoculate the public against the truth by priming them with similar-sounding lies.
And you're spot-on about the position this puts the Dems in, as well. Even if they had the Real Thing (through whatever channels), any release now would associate them with the extortionists.
There must be something awfully damning in those tax returns for the GOP to be going full-Rove on them like this!
Everybody? Let's see how that turns out.
I've read most of the comments here, and what's depressing to me is that amidst all of the complaining and finger-pointing, I haven't seen anyone suggest even the possibility that there might be some collective action that could be taken to fight the problem and those whose greed is responsible for it.
What if every student in a class refused to buy the assigned textbook, and instead agreed on free or low-cost textbooks and resources? What if the instructors who are getting kickbacks at the cost of their students were publicly held accountable? There are probably dozens of things that could be done, if students could only find their common ground and act.
No, you're fucking yourselves raw by not standing up in unity and saying "no". Society is a competitive game and it's played without honor on a slanted field. If your only response to the raw deal you're getting is whiny helplessness, I will guaran-fucking-tee you that you'll be getting an even rawer deal than that. It's a vicious cycle that leads all the way to the bottom, and unless you're in "the 1%" you're on the express elevator down. Start pressing some buttons.
As a tail-end "baby boomer", what has always struck me the most about successive generations is how incredibly passive they have been in the face of some really serious shit being done to them. This isn't about one generation screwing the next any more than it's ever been. It's about a war that's been waged in the U.S. against the middle and working classes (of all ages) for the past 30 years. Public education has been under attack, along with labor unions, Social Security, Medicare, etc. But instead of hitting the streets and demanding a better deal, all we've seen since then (except for OWS) is helpless whining and complaining, just like yours. And mine, too, for that matter, because times have changed and we've forgotten how to act.
If your parents did you any disservice, maybe it was a failure to instill a sense of collective power and efficacy. But it seems that every generation through history has had to discover that on its own.
Why yes, I now see that you did. You are hereby vindicated!
Ribose is an important component of RNA (and deoxy-ribose of DNA), so yeah, I'd say it's pretty central to life.
If you're affluent enough, you can pretty much erase any need to ever leave your home, and I've seen quite a few people who are hell-bent on doing just this. Big houses in the burbs with gyms, home theaters complete with popcorn machines, the works. It's kind of pathetic, actually.
If you have a choice where you live, find a place where you can safely walk, run or bike interesting routes to worthwhile nearby destinations, and get out of your house every day. The exercise problem will be solved, and you'll be a happier person.
Explorers have unsuccessfully sought a Northwest Passage for a lot longer than climate satellites have been orbiting the Earth, so it seems likely that the current minimum dates back to pre-industrial times, at least.
But if you're arguing that "we need more research", then by all means advocate for that to your congressional representatives. House Republicans have been trying to slash climate research funding for a long time. They're also trying to prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding health economics studies. I wonder what issue that might relate to?
See no evil, hear no evil...
I know several people who never took any interest in any scientific matter whatsoever, and yet are now passionate in their critique of climate science and the vast global conspiracy that all scientists and smart people are obviously parties to. If this is what it takes to finally get them interested in science, maybe it's a good thing?
Sorry Linux fanbois
Thanks, but I'm a rank amateur at that. A real fanboi would keeping taking the crap and paying for the privilege.
Er, that's "on cue"...
Oh, please. I've been using Linux "on the desktop" for years, and I can tell you I wouldn't go back to Windows if it were just as free (as in beer). The subject of this article is only one more in a long series of reasons why.
These "not ready for the desktop" commentaries pop up on queue with almost every mention of Linux. They remind me of the manufactured doubt that the fossil fuel industry spews to convince the ignorant and gullible that they should cling forever to their traditional energy sources. And why not, there are billions of dollars at stake there, too.
Linux didn't come with your computer and it's not advertised on the tee vee, so I have no doubt that you'd cling to what you're running even if it punched you in the face and pissed on your shirt every time you boot up. Which is pretty much what it's coming to...
But, with Linux at least you have options, and always will. I recently ditched Gnome3 for Xfce with no fuss, and it works fine and makes me happy. Would my grandmother be likely to do that? Well, she's dead, but if she were alive I'd gladly do it for her, and I'm sure she'd be happy too.
What are your options if you want the lastest Windows OS but don't like the interface formerly known as Metro?
You don't sound American. Here in the U.S., we brag about working long hours and not taking vacations. Whoever gets the rawest deal from the massah is the winner!
A similar thing has been happening on Linux, with Gnome3 and Unity opting for that tablet/cellphone experience on the desktop. The main difference is that there are at least half a dozen other desktop environments and window managers to choose from, so we can all vote with our feet (as I have).
I used to chuckle (to myself, of course) because that's how my GF uses her computer. Everything she uses, no matter how piddly, she maximizes full-screen. I guess the joke's on me now.
force this on everybody who has no choice
People have more choice than they're aware of. It's just not advertised on the tee vee.
It's funny you should mention that since it is conservative groups that ended segregation, and supported suffragettes. Through history Democrats have long been the party to resist real progress, and very little has changed.
You're really going to have to elaborate on that gem a little. Conservatives as advocates for the downtrodden and disenfranchised. If they were the real champions of progressive values, wouldn't they, ummm, not be conservatives anymore? Or is this yet another shining example of their prodigious talent for turning reality upside-down?
If people "accept delivery" of the ads but don't look at them (as I suspect most don't), you will in the short term get your exposures. But these people do not contribute to the effectiveness of the ad, and ultimately it's the return on advertising that determines its value. Over the long haul any failure to actually patronize advertisers will depress ad revenue equivalently, regardless of how that failure happens. You can have fewer exposures, but to receptive people who are more likely to buy, or more exposures, but to people who are less responsive. In the end, merchants need $X in advertising costs to generate some multiple of $X in incremental revenue, or they're not going to keep doing it. Maybe there's some of that going on right now?
So should I feel guilty if I don't actually buy whatever your advertisers are selling? Because I can assure you I won't, regardless of how many ads you manage to litter my screen with. Whether and how you can monetize your content simply isn't my problem or responsibility, if I can do without it.
When there are no enforcers, force is unavailable as an option.
So you and what army are going to keep the enforcers at bay?
The attack by conservatives on science and reason has nothing to do with "control over your life". It's quite the opposite, in fact. Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
And before conservatives complain about government abridging their freedoms, they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
Of course they would choose topics that are points of contention between the parties. If Republicans see that as bias, maybe they're not as confident about their positions as they pretend to be.
I'm sorry, but anyone who looks at your site is free to look at whatever they want to look at, and not one thing more. It's always been that way, even in the age of print. The exception would be that I never heard a magazine publisher rant about people who turn directly to an article instead of leafing through page-by-page like idiots to read each and every ad.