Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest.
Oh come on. Why don't you just start name-calling while you're at it?
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, that fact doesn't make them morally bankrupt or *puts pinkie near mouth*... E-VILE.
I'm sure if you bothered to look, you'd find that there are just as many corrupt liberal politicians as there are (neo-)conservative ones. Or did you forget Bill Clinton's involvement with the Chinese during his run?
Don't get me wrong, the Bush administration is dead wrong with respect to global warming, but that doesn't mean they sold their souls, eat babies, or whatever else you'd have us believe.
...and they still IMO are the best MMORPG development group in the world -- at least the Verant portion
Have you even played PlanetSide? Wow... talk about a good idea mercilessly bludgeoned by poor management and greed.
For starters, the game has been wrought by ridiculous balance issues, graphical engine problems, and unreliable servers since (and even before) its inception. Even the newest of computers grind to a halt or crash to desktop at times. Good luck trying to attract attention to these issues, though. At best, you'll get defensive and downright hostile responses from the devs--in the unlikely situation you hear anything at all.
Secondly, before I cancelled my account, gameplay was atrocious. Strategy basically amounted to "zerging" or getting as many people in your faction to attack at one base and then jump around to all of the completely identical bases nearby. There was no point in defending. It was ridiculous. SOE's solution? An incoherrent version of capture the flag. Wow... real original, guys. What's crazy is that they released this solution--if you can call it that--when there were some amazingly good ideas floating around from the community.
But the real kicker, the slap in the face that made me cancel my account: Not even three months after the game had been dubiously released, SOE, as any hardened EQer' would expect, released the Core Combat expansion pack. It's main features? Vehicles and gameplay elements that were promised on the box of the original game, of course. Oh and just incase you were thinking you could get away with not buying their thirty dollar patch, be prepared to get killed by the new unbalanced, uber weapons wielded by everyone who did.
Sorry to disagree, parent, but SOE sucks. Their market share isn't due to brilliance or innovation. It's from stringing customers along from expansion pack to expansion pack and letting the competitive and addicting nature of MMORPG communities do the rest for them.
If space is such a big issue, they need more desks, not smaller keyboards.
But comfortability isn't the ONLY reason. I can only speak for myself here, but the only time I go to the library is when I'm doing some kind of research. I don't go there to surf the web. I, as well as MOST Americans at this point, can do that at home. And research requires that I have desk space to write and set books on.
The Congressperson must be present in order to vote within a small window of time.
But that's the one time when they really "represent" us? You know, this is, afterall, a *representative* democracy.
Don't think I'm attacking Kerry when I say this; it goes for all congress people: I understand missing one or two unimportant votes--I really do. But when you're too busy whoring yourself out to special interest groups and corporations to be bothered by your "civic duty," there's a problem.
I think we need to enact a law that requires at least 70% attendance for all votes or else the congressperson is sent back to his or her district for re-election. No exceptions.
Of course this would require that congress itself impose this limitation--fat chance, but one could always hope that those its against wouldn't vote as usual.
The truth of the matter is, we don't know how often this has happened before because the ??AA makes the accused sign non-disclosure agreements upon settlement. Something which shouldn't be considered admission of guilt, by the way.
The American civil justice system is broke. It operates under the false assumption that all parties have equal legal representation and funding. But that's not even remotely the case when a multi-billion dollar coalition of corporations sues a middle-class citizen for millions of dollars in "damages."
Given this, why should the MPAA care to check the validity of its legal threats? As far as they're concerned, they the only MISTAKE they made was to send the letter to another company/group. Had it gone to the low-income parents of another thirteen-year old girl, we wouldn't even be talking about it. No bad PR--just the life-savings of a person who strayed from the righteous path of consumerism.
All I can say is welcome to the politics section of Slashdot. Be prepared to burn some karma and have your posts modded into oblivion by mods who don't agree.
Consider yourself lucky, though. At least your views are liberal, which explains why this is only the first time it's happened to you. Us moderates-conservatives/conservatives have almost completely given up the fight here on slashdot.
I've posted this before, and I'll probably have to post it again.
-----
Is there ever such a thing as a truly unique and novel idea? Is it that unreasonable to believe that nearly all our thoughts are ultimately rooted in (or limited by) our culture, books, language, body of sciences, collection of arts, and so on? Albert Einstein, hailed as one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time once said, "If I have seen farther than others it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." He was referring to the intellectuals before him which provided the necessary groundwork for his theories. It's in that sense that Memetic Theory contends we aren't quite the champions of free will and individual thought we would like to think we are. In light of this, a new sense of urgency about the media emerges because if Memetic Theory is right, the media has not only the power to shape how we think but ultimately who we are.
Given this, it should be paramount to promote an ethical and journalistic approach to informing the masses. Unfortunately this hasn't been the case. The world of broadcast journalism these days is a cutthroat business that tends to select for those who excel in office politics and Machiavellian tactics. The result has had a startling impact of the quality of the journalism in America and an immeasurable impact upon our society. When JFK was assassinated, Walter Cronkite was chastised for crying on air by his colleges because his emotional appeal was simply not good journalism. Contrast that with the nightly stories on what foods could kill you or your children, the threat of school shootings, or wild animal attacks that form the nightly lineup of the average national News show. In his book "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things," sociologist Barry Glassner, examines how the modern-day media, devoid of any ethical standards, intentionally exaggerates remote dangers like the ones above in order to scare the public in to watching. Recent data confirms this by showing that despite declining crime rates, public perception is that crime is on the rise.
Having already lost the sense of good journalism and ethics, can the modern-day media honestly be expected to NOT to interject their personal bias into their reporting of political issues? Even if we don't, certainly we could hope that the media is diverse enough to the point where one biased opinion would be countered by another. Unfortunately, recent data suggests that the media does not ideologically reflect the make-up of the United States at all. The Pew Research Center's latest poll conducted earlier this year finds that journalists are typically far more liberal than the average American. Only 7% of national journalists are self-described conservatives as opposed to the 33% that make up the general population. Similarly, only 20% of the population calls itself liberal while 34% of journalists do. What's more is there's also evidence to suggest that even the self-described moderates in the media are more liberal as well. The same study showed that while only 51% of the population thought homosexuality should be accepted by society, 88% of national journalists do. Clearly, a disproportionate number (~ +10%) of self-described moderates held this view with respect to the average population. It only stands to reason that, given the liberal nature of American journalists and the breakdown of ethical journalism, the media is, subsequently, liberal as well.
Some would argue that the corporate sponsorship of the media prevents a liberal slant from tainting the news and, if anything, makes the coverage conservative. I don't believe this to be the case. While corporate sponsorship may prevent one media source from reporting a particular story, what prevents other, non-sponsored media sources from reporting the same story? Even in this undesirable situation, the news still gets reported, despite the company's best intentions. Furthermore, who's to say that corporate nature or sponsorship of the m
...This only stands to reason, that if a forced National I.D. and registration is in the works, where will hundreds of thousands of citizens be shuttled to be processed?
Funny, and here I was thinking reason wasn't even a distant relative to your thought process.
Not to criticize your extensive research methods, but in the process of finding all this information out, did you ever come across the fact that the United States has hundreds of millions of citizens?
...but I would really enjoy knowing why you think they are handing it out.
I believe they're handing it out because they know his proactive approach to their cause is working. Furthermore, it gives them hope by showing the Achilles Heel of the giant after them--the U.S.'s complex internal politics. All they have to do is try to stay alive long enough for some idiot like Michael Moore to put some soldier's (who was probably killed by friendly fire anyway) mother in front of a camera and milk her for every last tear he can. Soon enough, they can bet on the instant-gratification culture we have to undermine our long-term goals of winning.
All I have heard from the right it terror, Terror, TERROR! All I hear from the right is how scared they are - despite the fact that this same bunch has been blowing crap up for years all across the globe - including the U.S. Islamic Extremism existed before George Bush and 9/11 and it will be here a long time after he is gone
You are correct. I'm not naive enough to believe that Islamic extremism is something new to the world. In fact, if you do a little homework, you'll find that a militant version of Islam started in the southern tip of Spain was the original impedes for the Crusades.
Perhaps I'm just an optimist but I believe you're wrong about one thing, though. We are in a unique position; one in which it IS possible to finally stamp out Islamic extremism for good. Globalization is the main reason. More and more every day, Arabic people see the fruits that capitalism, democracy, and human rights can bring. Contrast that with their Islamic Theocracies which have only brought them poverty, wonton corruption, and misery (for at the VERY least half their population: women). They're the ones fighting the losing game--not us! You think that bombing them makes more terrorists. I have faith that you give a man a decent way to make a living for him and his own and he'll be content, and if that means you had to bomb a few people he knew were crazy anyway to do it, I think he'll understand.
You make the mistake by comparing the RIAA to us. You have it backwards! The Islamic extremists are the ones desperately trying to cling to the past when technology and the times have made them irrelevant.
"Throwing away the organization that helped keep the world from being a glowing radioactive heap just because it doesnt want one half invading the other is just plain odd. The UN does many many good things and this kind of "New World Order" stuff never ceases to amaze me."
I'm not indicting what the UN WAS. I'm indicting what the UN IS. If the UN has been made irrelevant (and I'm not saying that's totally the case YET), it wasn't because of any action of the United States--they did it to themselves.
Fun chat though - keep up the fight! - even if I don't agree with you it is the discourse that matters the most.
The first is that the there is a known fact that a second term President has nothing to lose and so is willing to push all his craziest stuff.
Which still has to, for the most part, be approved by YOUR representatives in Congress. Or do you actually believe Bush would stage some sort of military coup?
Regardless, my point was that many liberals, for whatever reason or another, have completely lost their logic due their hatred of Bush. Ted Kennedy less than a week ago likened a vote for Bush to a vote for a nuclear bomb in a major American city. Almost makes me feel bad for wanting to vote for Bush--assuming I'm not already scared into voting for Kerry. Honestly, how does one even respond to something like that?
I get this strange feeling that some people hate Bush so much that, despite all their Orwellian-talk, would whole-heartedly believe 2+2=5 provided it meant Bush wouldn't get elected. And it's crap like this conspiracy-theory Slashdot thread and the CBS documents that only serve edify my convictions.
In all seriousness, I pride myself at my objectivity--especially with my politics. I'm not even going to try to defend much of Bush's domestic policies. In fact, being a moderate myself, I'm inclined to agree with much of what you've said.
Where Bush is right, however, is on the most important issue in my mind. And this is how to deal with terrorism or, let's not kid ourselves, Islamic extremism. Yes, you read me correctly; Not Osama Bin Laden (one man) or Al Qeada (one of literally thousands of similar groups) but the militant segment of Arabic culture which stands orthogonal to the ideals of United States, which, unlike some people, I believe are still unequivocally good. The way I see it, we are living in a most interesting time. Like our fathers/grandfathers before WWII, we are faced with the one great evil of our time. Yet, I fear that today's America doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to win.
Winning can't be done internally. Our infrastructure was never designed with this in mind. It was designed for efficiency, commerce, and freedom of movement--all of which are contrary to *real* security. Even attempting to do so would have diminishing returns and, ultimately, be self-defeating (e.g. Patriot Act) due to compromising the previously mentioned American ideals.
Similarly, winning won't be accomplished by playing footsie with Kofi Annan and his band of dictators. One needn't look farther than the current crisis in Sudan or the screw-up that was the "Oil for Food" program for proof of this. No, to actually win, we need to take a proactive stance. And if that means that Spain and the rest of Europe are too afraid to come along, then so be it.
You're into military tactics, so you should know we have to undermine them at every level: personnel, equipment, funding, and popular support. For all the criticisms leveled against the Bush administration, I see these things happening. Insurgents are pouring into Iraq to get killed wholesale. Libya saw what happened to Iraq and gave up its illegal weapons. Banks, in cooperation with the Bush administration, worldwide are making it much more difficult for these groups to obtain funds. And lastly, a stable, flourishing Iraq right smack in the middle of the Arabic world would make even the hardest of extremists wonder just what it is he's fighting against. Even if you don't agree with my assessment of the Bush administration's success in the war on terror, look no farther than the enemies. Hamas is handing out free copies of Fahrenheit 9/11!
"They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized."
Closely scrutinized?! Do you know anything about the forged letter? It lacked the correct letterhead; in fact, it didn't have one at all! It was done on computer rather than a typewriter. A computer that supported variable character spacing and superscripting of numbers("1st", "2nd", etc.) which means it was probably done in a modern version of Microsoft Word. All of these things are clues even your average slashdotter would have picked up after a couple minutes of examination.
But let's suppose CBS's crack team of analysts didn't know that stuff. At least they checked the facts, right?... Well not really. The "date" it was "written" was on a Saturday--when the offices are normally closed--by... this is the best part... an officer who had retired nearly a decade earlier than the date on the letter.
You people are ridiculous. Bush can't win for losing with you guys. His campaign office gets broken into and the first thought that comes to your minds is that of a twisted conspiracy with, at best, a very stupid and risky goal.
I've had it with the conspiracy theories, Nazi analogies, and hatred! BUSH IS NOT EVIL! He may not be the best man for the job--I'll agree with you on that! But he isn't Hitler--not even close. He's not trying to take over the world or whatever nefarious deeds you've conjured up in your imaginations. How could he? Even if he wins, he's still accountable to the American people--almost half of which ALREADY dislike him. And even if he went crazy in office, he'd only be there for, at most, 4 years.
For a website and readership who prides itself of its intelligence and logic, you guys really let me down sometimes.
You might want to avoid this rhetorical chestnut in the future, unless you honestly believe that everyone on Slashdot believes the exact same things. You'd have to be clinically retarded to do so...
Is that your diagnosis, doc? Seriously, all I was doing was pointing out the fact that the collective group of people, from here on known as "Slashdot," are mind-bogglingly liberal at times. Try and defend Fox News some time. You won't get a point. But spew anti-Bush rhetoric (regardless of whether its true or even logical), and you'll get modded to the top. It's the new brand of karma whoring.
This election is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils, and you have to be experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance to honestly think that voting for Bush is a good idea.
Another diagnosis, huh? So I guess that means that +45% of the country right now is experiencing severe psychological distress? Perhaps we should have everybody who doesn't vote the way we want committed, eh?
There is such a thing as legitimate disagreement. You and the rest of the far left need to wake up and realize that Bush isn't evil and that John Kerry isn't the panacea to all our nations problems. That kind of talk only alienates moderate, Independent voters like myself. As far as I'm concerned, you're right: it is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils. And, if the election were tomorrow, I'd be casting my vote against the far left which currently embraces nothing less than hatred and outright lies against a sitting president during a time of war.
"Just because you and Bush are dumbstruck pussies when shit hits the fan doesn't mean everyone else is one as well."
Says the Coward on slashdot tucked safely behind his computer.
A president who can't can't act quickly in a disaster is nothing but a liability for the nation as a whole.
And you think John Kerry will be any better in this regard? Sorry, but I don't think there will be time for him to check the polls and constantly flip-flop on what to do when the next terrorist attack happens.
Come on Slashdot! You complain about "Faux" News being a bastion of republican influence and then promote slanderous bile like this to a +5 score--sometimes in the same thread!
...needed Cheney with him at 9/11 comission hearings...
Say what you will, but if there were an organized determined segment of people trying to discredit you at every chance, you'd be careful too. It's not an indication of guilt. Were there any inconsistency between their stories--no matter how minor or insignificant--people like you would be calling for impeachment.
...was paralysed when informed of WTC attacks...
Weren't we all? The fact is that a terrorist attack already in progress is almost impossible to stop. I'd bet you believe that John Kerry would be Man-of-Action and get fighter jets up in the air within minutes of the first plane crash--bullshit. Hindsight is 20/20. Something the democrats are going to find out is that having ONLY criticism like the above without proposing better solutions for the future doesn't help anyone.
...his religious delusions of granduer ("God speaks through me")...
You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the conservative "Bible-Belt," with his personal beliefs. In actuality, GWB--and the Bush family in general--are quite religiously moderate.
...his alienation of the US from the world community, his simplistic black/white view of the world ("You're either with us, or against us"), his occasional grammatical gaffes...
Fair enough. Nobody except your conservative counterparts are saying he was the best president ever, and even though I myself will probably vote for him in November, I will have many reservations in doing so.
Systematic prisoner abuse in violation of international treaties that used to protect our soldiers being instigated by civillian contractors and nodded at to the very highest levels? Hard to see how you can blow that out of proportion.
But that WASN'T what happened. What you described is what the news organizations like the New York Times wanted it to be. There's no evidence to suggest that it was either systematic or at "very high levels" of either the Military or Executive branch. Turns out it was just a small group of idiot, frustrated soldiers getting seriously out of line, and unlike the innocent civilians killed in Iraq, I'll remind you that every prisoner left with his head on his shoulders. Now how does THAT warrant FIFTY front-page NYT articles --at least twenty of which were consecutive? September 11th didn't even get that kind of coverage!
You really don't see an agenda there?
You don't see an agenda ("Defeat Bush at any cost") in the former? All major news organizations harbor an agenda contrary to the truth today. Whether it's making money by scaring people over anthrax, wild-animal attacks, and so on or pushing a political agenda, none of them really care about objective, rational presentation. Journalistic integrity is dead.
But don't believe everything they tell you.
Nor should you take the NYT or Michael Moore's work as holy words from the mountain either. That's the key here. The world isn't as simple as that anymore. Everything has a slant, and yes that includes Fox News.
Okay, I misspelled it. The standard transliteration is Abu Graib. Funny, though such a serious error it was, you both knew what I was talking about.
My point was that both of you are failing to respond to the substance of my post and instead focusing on the minor spelling detail of one word. You're nit-picking rather than responding with an actual counter-point. Why is that?
If I'm wrong, tell me why. Don't worry, I won't care if you spell a single word wrong when you do it.
Hah... record time for the "Faux" News claptrap. Congrats.
Care to elaborate on the depth of my "fantasy", Coward? Or are you just content to bicker over my spelling of a proper noun from a language we've probably both never even heard spoken?
...But some of us dislike it because it's an unabashed propaganda outlet aimed directly at a potion of the populace that doesn't think too carefully about what it's looking at.
You're right, I mean, why isn't it obvious to all that simple-minded conservatives aren't capable of thinking for themselves? Especially, when placed beside an enlightened liberal such as yourself--who can!?
There couldn't possibly be any other impetus for disagreement with the liberal elite in our country but ignorance, and as such, we should dictate policy and information distribution, because, obviously we know what's best for the people, even if they don't know it themselves.
[/sarcasm] Fox News is generally conservative. I'll admit that, but why are you so quick to blame its success on ignorance?
I have a theory as to why Fox has become so popular; one that doesn't rely on calling millions of successful and intelligent people stupid. It's a backlash. Mom and pop, along with the rest of the silent, non-protesting majority in this country, are tired. They're tired of being subtly manipulated by the liberal media in our country. So, one day they turn the channel to find a network that finally tells them that America isn't all that bad after all. A network that doesn't blow out of proportion incidents like the Abu Graive affair and that actually reports things like the Nick Berg beheading. So, they watch it, and the keep watching it. They know it's conservative, but hey--it's refreshing to see something different and especially fun to see the old guys like CNN, The New York Times, and CBS squirm when their ratings go down.
Maybe for you. But Apple had already solved that problem.
Because Apple, as they still do today, doesn't have to worry about internal, third-party hardware. Hardly a good comparison.
People lined up in the rain at midnight to buy Win95. That's marketing
No, that's bullshit--on your part. Why is it that when people clamor to download a new linux app or distro the Slashdot-hive-mind attributes it to features/performance/usability/security but when people do the same for a "M$" product, it's somehow due to ignorance or deceptive marketing.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but let's be honest, Windows 95 was a real improvement for the PC market. It was the first OS for an x386 machine that didn't require you to hardly ever see a commandline for basic operation. You may not think it was significant with respect to the
blessed, do-no-wrong company known as Apple, but most people do. The market obviously confirmed their analysis. I dragged my feet switching from DOS/WIN 3.1 to Windows 95, but even I was impressed with the changes once I switched.
...Microsoft merely took what was already available, put it into their own product and then hyped that product enough that every idiot out there thought Microsoft had invented something new and wonderful and that they had to have it.
Something the Open Source Software community does all the time. Look at GIMP (free photoshop), OpenOffice(free knockoff MS Office) or FreeCiv (exact copy of Civilization II, I think). Somebody has done all of these things before, and oftentimes better. (And NO, it wasn't Apple or Steve Jobbs.) And yet, I like gimp. I like OpenOffice (after it *finally* loads), and I would probably like FreeCiv if I played it. Just because somebody has done something before (On a different hardware platform, no less...), doesn't diminish the good work of someone who emulates the idea in the future.
Hm, I get 1.5Mbps down, 128kbps up from Verizon DSL. Does this mean I don't have broadband?
No. You don't.
Somewhere along the line, the word "broadband" got a legal definition. Because of all the Peer-to-Peer stuff, though, most ISPs prefer to severely limit the upstream. This is why nearly all companies advertise their internet connections as "high-speed" rather than broadband now.
If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.
No... It means that the videocamera saw YOUR CAR breaking the law. There's a big difference, and that's what pisses people off. If an officer sees you, he can confirm your identity. The video camera can only confirm your car's identity.
I once had a friend who passed a cop on a double solid when he had beer in the car (he was 18 at the time). He promised me he wouldn't do anything stupid. It's situations like this that can screw up your driving record if we treat cameras as cheap, replacement police.
Here's a quote from my message that you obviously didn't read:
". I don't have a problem with the New York Times reporting on Abu Graive. In fact, I think the ability and willingness of the press to report it is a good thing.
I never said that a state-run media would be better. I never even said that the NYT had to be pro-American. What I'm saying is that their hatred of the Bush Administration is so deep that it no longer matters if a story is blown out of proportion or is even true--so long as it hurts Bush's reputation. It's not news reporting at this point, and in their zeal to get Bush, they're hurting our country.
Your "enemies" (who are they exactly?) don't get their news from the NYT.
I know it may be hard to believe, but even though they speak funny languages and live in the desert, muslim extremists can still read and get a copy of a paper if they know it betters their cause. Hell, they can read it over they internet if they have a FREE online subscription.
Here is a small sample.
That vile page is propaganda at best, and it's the exact reason why Saddam put weapon caches and anti-aircraft weapons in neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools--so idiots like you would be convinced that we revel in civilian casualties. Well we don't. If we wanted to... if this was really "Anglo-American Aggression" (whatever the fuck that is), we could have turned Iraq into a smoldering pile of glass in minutes, and still leave all the oil-fields intact for our nefarious deeds.
Irresponsibility started when an idiot started a war on facts that were wrong. You can't get more irresponsible. In most countries, this is at best resignation, at worst martial court and execution... Be a Nazi.
Like it or not, but most people in the United States agree with the invasion of Iraq. You and the rest of the far left are seem too busy concocting conspiracy theories and Nazi analogies that you miss that. If I were really a fascist, I wouldn't care about the vote. Funny... sounds more and more like the far left all the time.
This is a Democracy, and just because you, a Coward on Slashdot, don't agree with President Bush's administration, doesn't take any legitimacy out of its actions or presence.
Don't equate intelligence or technical adeptness with common sense. They're not the same thing. I've seen a guy who made a 1600 on his SATs pour hot coffee in his lap when asked the time.
Besides, if the person were so smart--why would he buy a ridiculously overpriced computer to begin with?
What specifically about the Abu Graib reporting was biased against the government? The Times didn't have to work to make the government look bad; the government did that all on its own.
That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? It's not like something is binary--reported or not. I don't have a problem with the New York Times reporting on Abu Graive. In fact, I think the ability and willingness of the press to report it is a good thing. What bothers me is when they hype up the story to the point where it's basically a rallying call for all of our enemies, and this is exactly what they did.
Think about it: FIFTY (at the time I wrote the essay) front page articles. Many of which state nothing new. Sure, Abu Graive was a big story, but was it bigger than September 11th? What about the US hostages that were brutally beheaded on tape for every Al Jazeera viewer to see? Kinda funny, because last time I heard, every Abu Graive prisoner left with his head on his shoulders. How can they justify this type of reporting?
The reason wasn't to "balance" their reporting or perception. What a load. The reason is far more simple. The NYT, along with nearly every liberal group out there, hate the Bush Administration, and the hope was that if it turned out that one single letter or word from Rumsfeld or another high ranking official within the administration said ANYTHING about negative treatment of prisoners, they could nail Bush to the wall in November. Unfortunately, for them, it turned out that there was no conspiracy. It was just the irresponsible actions of a few, which are currently being punished.
It's this kind of vigilantism on the left that is hurting our nation. In their minds, it doesn't matter if its false, if it's blown out of proportion, or endangers our troops abroad, as long as it means one less person votes for Bush: it's worth it. Let me put it this way, I really dislike the Bush administration. I think they've screwed up big-time (DMCA, Iraq, etc.) and their corporate ties make me sick. But because of shit like the NYT's Abu Graive and Michael Moore's exploits, and so on, I hate the far left. And that's why, at this point, in November, I'll be voting AGAINST Kerry and the far left.
Also, if the media is so biased to the left, how do you explain Fox News, Rush Limbough, Bill O'Reilly, etc. It is a well known fact, for instance, that the radio is dominated by conservatives. This is all described very humourously in Al Franken's book which I highly recommend.
Well Al Franken is an inflammatory imbicile.
Regardless, with the exception of Fox News (which I'll conceded is generally concervative), all of the media venues you speak of openly state that they are opinion pieces.
And that's the real issue here. It's not that people are expected to limit their speech to the point of mediocracy. That's why we have the first amendment. I don't think anybody would have a problem with Dan Rather telling us his political views in an independently published book, but what I would have a problem with is him sneaking said beliefs in what is supposed to be an objective forum like broadcast Journalism.
I think the real problem is large groups of people, on both sides, (but I believe MORE on the liberal side) think that they are enlightened. That they know what's best for the people, even if the people can't see that for themselves. So instead of laying out the facts and letting people decide for themselves, they skew support for their views through what basically amounts to trickery.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest.
Oh come on. Why don't you just start name-calling while you're at it?
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, that fact doesn't make them morally bankrupt or *puts pinkie near mouth*... E-VILE.
I'm sure if you bothered to look, you'd find that there are just as many corrupt liberal politicians as there are (neo-)conservative ones. Or did you forget Bill Clinton's involvement with the Chinese during his run?
Don't get me wrong, the Bush administration is dead wrong with respect to global warming, but that doesn't mean they sold their souls, eat babies, or whatever else you'd have us believe.
-Grym
Have you even played PlanetSide? Wow... talk about a good idea mercilessly bludgeoned by poor management and greed.
For starters, the game has been wrought by ridiculous balance issues, graphical engine problems, and unreliable servers since (and even before) its inception. Even the newest of computers grind to a halt or crash to desktop at times. Good luck trying to attract attention to these issues, though. At best, you'll get defensive and downright hostile responses from the devs--in the unlikely situation you hear anything at all.
Secondly, before I cancelled my account, gameplay was atrocious. Strategy basically amounted to "zerging" or getting as many people in your faction to attack at one base and then jump around to all of the completely identical bases nearby. There was no point in defending. It was ridiculous. SOE's solution? An incoherrent version of capture the flag. Wow... real original, guys. What's crazy is that they released this solution--if you can call it that--when there were some amazingly good ideas floating around from the community.
But the real kicker, the slap in the face that made me cancel my account: Not even three months after the game had been dubiously released, SOE, as any hardened EQer' would expect, released the Core Combat expansion pack. It's main features? Vehicles and gameplay elements that were promised on the box of the original game, of course. Oh and just incase you were thinking you could get away with not buying their thirty dollar patch, be prepared to get killed by the new unbalanced, uber weapons wielded by everyone who did.
Sorry to disagree, parent, but SOE sucks. Their market share isn't due to brilliance or innovation. It's from stringing customers along from expansion pack to expansion pack and letting the competitive and addicting nature of MMORPG communities do the rest for them.
-Grym
Exactly. Mod the Parent up.
If space is such a big issue, they need more desks, not smaller keyboards.
But comfortability isn't the ONLY reason. I can only speak for myself here, but the only time I go to the library is when I'm doing some kind of research. I don't go there to surf the web. I, as well as MOST Americans at this point, can do that at home. And research requires that I have desk space to write and set books on.
-Grym
The Congressperson must be present in order to vote within a small window of time.
But that's the one time when they really "represent" us? You know, this is, afterall, a *representative* democracy.
Don't think I'm attacking Kerry when I say this; it goes for all congress people: I understand missing one or two unimportant votes--I really do. But when you're too busy whoring yourself out to special interest groups and corporations to be bothered by your "civic duty," there's a problem.
I think we need to enact a law that requires at least 70% attendance for all votes or else the congressperson is sent back to his or her district for re-election. No exceptions.
Of course this would require that congress itself impose this limitation--fat chance, but one could always hope that those its against wouldn't vote as usual.
-Grym
Exactly.
The truth of the matter is, we don't know how often this has happened before because the ??AA makes the accused sign non-disclosure agreements upon settlement. Something which shouldn't be considered admission of guilt, by the way.
The American civil justice system is broke. It operates under the false assumption that all parties have equal legal representation and funding. But that's not even remotely the case when a multi-billion dollar coalition of corporations sues a middle-class citizen for millions of dollars in "damages."
Given this, why should the MPAA care to check the validity of its legal threats? As far as they're concerned, they the only MISTAKE they made was to send the letter to another company/group. Had it gone to the low-income parents of another thirteen-year old girl, we wouldn't even be talking about it. No bad PR--just the life-savings of a person who strayed from the righteous path of consumerism.
-Grym
No, it isn't fair.
But neither is this, this, or this.
All I can say is welcome to the politics section of Slashdot. Be prepared to burn some karma and have your posts modded into oblivion by mods who don't agree.
Consider yourself lucky, though. At least your views are liberal, which explains why this is only the first time it's happened to you. Us moderates-conservatives/conservatives have almost completely given up the fight here on slashdot.
-Grym
I've posted this before, and I'll probably have to post it again.
-----
Is there ever such a thing as a truly unique and novel idea? Is it that unreasonable to believe that nearly all our thoughts are ultimately rooted in (or limited by) our culture, books, language, body of sciences, collection of arts, and so on? Albert Einstein, hailed as one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time once said, "If I have seen farther than others it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." He was referring to the intellectuals before him which provided the necessary groundwork for his theories. It's in that sense that Memetic Theory contends we aren't quite the champions of free will and individual thought we would like to think we are. In light of this, a new sense of urgency about the media emerges because if Memetic Theory is right, the media has not only the power to shape how we think but ultimately who we are.
Given this, it should be paramount to promote an ethical and journalistic approach to informing the masses. Unfortunately this hasn't been the case. The world of broadcast journalism these days is a cutthroat business that tends to select for those who excel in office politics and Machiavellian tactics. The result has had a startling impact of the quality of the journalism in America and an immeasurable impact upon our society. When JFK was assassinated, Walter Cronkite was chastised for crying on air by his colleges because his emotional appeal was simply not good journalism. Contrast that with the nightly stories on what foods could kill you or your children, the threat of school shootings, or wild animal attacks that form the nightly lineup of the average national News show. In his book "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things," sociologist Barry Glassner, examines how the modern-day media, devoid of any ethical standards, intentionally exaggerates remote dangers like the ones above in order to scare the public in to watching. Recent data confirms this by showing that despite declining crime rates, public perception is that crime is on the rise.
Having already lost the sense of good journalism and ethics, can the modern-day media honestly be expected to NOT to interject their personal bias into their reporting of political issues? Even if we don't, certainly we could hope that the media is diverse enough to the point where one biased opinion would be countered by another. Unfortunately, recent data suggests that the media does not ideologically reflect the make-up of the United States at all. The Pew Research Center's latest poll conducted earlier this year finds that journalists are typically far more liberal than the average American. Only 7% of national journalists are self-described conservatives as opposed to the 33% that make up the general population. Similarly, only 20% of the population calls itself liberal while 34% of journalists do. What's more is there's also evidence to suggest that even the self-described moderates in the media are more liberal as well. The same study showed that while only 51% of the population thought homosexuality should be accepted by society, 88% of national journalists do. Clearly, a disproportionate number (~ +10%) of self-described moderates held this view with respect to the average population. It only stands to reason that, given the liberal nature of American journalists and the breakdown of ethical journalism, the media is, subsequently, liberal as well.
Some would argue that the corporate sponsorship of the media prevents a liberal slant from tainting the news and, if anything, makes the coverage conservative. I don't believe this to be the case. While corporate sponsorship may prevent one media source from reporting a particular story, what prevents other, non-sponsored media sources from reporting the same story? Even in this undesirable situation, the news still gets reported, despite the company's best intentions. Furthermore, who's to say that corporate nature or sponsorship of the m
Funny, and here I was thinking reason wasn't even a distant relative to your thought process.
Not to criticize your extensive research methods, but in the process of finding all this information out, did you ever come across the fact that the United States has hundreds of millions of citizens?
-Grym
I believe they're handing it out because they know his proactive approach to their cause is working. Furthermore, it gives them hope by showing the Achilles Heel of the giant after them--the U.S.'s complex internal politics. All they have to do is try to stay alive long enough for some idiot like Michael Moore to put some soldier's (who was probably killed by friendly fire anyway) mother in front of a camera and milk her for every last tear he can. Soon enough, they can bet on the instant-gratification culture we have to undermine our long-term goals of winning.
All I have heard from the right it terror, Terror, TERROR! All I hear from the right is how scared they are - despite the fact that this same bunch has been blowing crap up for years all across the globe - including the U.S. Islamic Extremism existed before George Bush and 9/11 and it will be here a long time after he is gone
You are correct. I'm not naive enough to believe that Islamic extremism is something new to the world. In fact, if you do a little homework, you'll find that a militant version of Islam started in the southern tip of Spain was the original impedes for the Crusades.
Perhaps I'm just an optimist but I believe you're wrong about one thing, though. We are in a unique position; one in which it IS possible to finally stamp out Islamic extremism for good. Globalization is the main reason. More and more every day, Arabic people see the fruits that capitalism, democracy, and human rights can bring. Contrast that with their Islamic Theocracies which have only brought them poverty, wonton corruption, and misery (for at the VERY least half their population: women). They're the ones fighting the losing game--not us! You think that bombing them makes more terrorists. I have faith that you give a man a decent way to make a living for him and his own and he'll be content, and if that means you had to bomb a few people he knew were crazy anyway to do it, I think he'll understand.
You make the mistake by comparing the RIAA to us. You have it backwards! The Islamic extremists are the ones desperately trying to cling to the past when technology and the times have made them irrelevant.
"Throwing away the organization that helped keep the world from being a glowing radioactive heap just because it doesnt want one half invading the other is just plain odd. The UN does many many good things and this kind of "New World Order" stuff never ceases to amaze me."
I'm not indicting what the UN WAS. I'm indicting what the UN IS. If the UN has been made irrelevant (and I'm not saying that's totally the case YET), it wasn't because of any action of the United States--they did it to themselves.
Fun chat though - keep up the fight! - even if I don't agree with you it is the discourse that matters the most.
Well, at least we agree one thing. =)
-Grym
The first is that the there is a known fact that a second term President has nothing to lose and so is willing to push all his craziest stuff.
Which still has to, for the most part, be approved by YOUR representatives in Congress. Or do you actually believe Bush would stage some sort of military coup?
Regardless, my point was that many liberals, for whatever reason or another, have completely lost their logic due their hatred of Bush. Ted Kennedy less than a week ago likened a vote for Bush to a vote for a nuclear bomb in a major American city. Almost makes me feel bad for wanting to vote for Bush--assuming I'm not already scared into voting for Kerry. Honestly, how does one even respond to something like that?
I get this strange feeling that some people hate Bush so much that, despite all their Orwellian-talk, would whole-heartedly believe 2+2=5 provided it meant Bush wouldn't get elected. And it's crap like this conspiracy-theory Slashdot thread and the CBS documents that only serve edify my convictions.
In all seriousness, I pride myself at my objectivity--especially with my politics. I'm not even going to try to defend much of Bush's domestic policies. In fact, being a moderate myself, I'm inclined to agree with much of what you've said.
Where Bush is right, however, is on the most important issue in my mind. And this is how to deal with terrorism or, let's not kid ourselves, Islamic extremism. Yes, you read me correctly; Not Osama Bin Laden (one man) or Al Qeada (one of literally thousands of similar groups) but the militant segment of Arabic culture which stands orthogonal to the ideals of United States, which, unlike some people, I believe are still unequivocally good. The way I see it, we are living in a most interesting time. Like our fathers/grandfathers before WWII, we are faced with the one great evil of our time. Yet, I fear that today's America doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to win.
Winning can't be done internally. Our infrastructure was never designed with this in mind. It was designed for efficiency, commerce, and freedom of movement--all of which are contrary to *real* security. Even attempting to do so would have diminishing returns and, ultimately, be self-defeating (e.g. Patriot Act) due to compromising the previously mentioned American ideals.
Similarly, winning won't be accomplished by playing footsie with Kofi Annan and his band of dictators. One needn't look farther than the current crisis in Sudan or the screw-up that was the "Oil for Food" program for proof of this. No, to actually win, we need to take a proactive stance. And if that means that Spain and the rest of Europe are too afraid to come along, then so be it.
You're into military tactics, so you should know we have to undermine them at every level: personnel, equipment, funding, and popular support. For all the criticisms leveled against the Bush administration, I see these things happening. Insurgents are pouring into Iraq to get killed wholesale. Libya saw what happened to Iraq and gave up its illegal weapons. Banks, in cooperation with the Bush administration, worldwide are making it much more difficult for these groups to obtain funds. And lastly, a stable, flourishing Iraq right smack in the middle of the Arabic world would make even the hardest of extremists wonder just what it is he's fighting against. Even if you don't agree with my assessment of the Bush administration's success in the war on terror, look no farther than the enemies. Hamas is handing out free copies of Fahrenheit 9/11!
-Grym
"They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized."
Closely scrutinized?! Do you know anything about the forged letter? It lacked the correct letterhead; in fact, it didn't have one at all! It was done on computer rather than a typewriter. A computer that supported variable character spacing and superscripting of numbers("1st", "2nd", etc.) which means it was probably done in a modern version of Microsoft Word. All of these things are clues even your average slashdotter would have picked up after a couple minutes of examination.
But let's suppose CBS's crack team of analysts didn't know that stuff. At least they checked the facts, right? ... Well not really. The "date" it was "written" was on a Saturday--when the offices are normally closed--by... this is the best part... an officer who had retired nearly a decade earlier than the date on the letter.
You people are ridiculous. Bush can't win for losing with you guys. His campaign office gets broken into and the first thought that comes to your minds is that of a twisted conspiracy with, at best, a very stupid and risky goal.
I've had it with the conspiracy theories, Nazi analogies, and hatred! BUSH IS NOT EVIL! He may not be the best man for the job--I'll agree with you on that! But he isn't Hitler--not even close. He's not trying to take over the world or whatever nefarious deeds you've conjured up in your imaginations. How could he? Even if he wins, he's still accountable to the American people--almost half of which ALREADY dislike him. And even if he went crazy in office, he'd only be there for, at most, 4 years.
For a website and readership who prides itself of its intelligence and logic, you guys really let me down sometimes.
-Grym
You might want to avoid this rhetorical chestnut in the future, unless you honestly believe that everyone on Slashdot believes the exact same things. You'd have to be clinically retarded to do so...
Is that your diagnosis, doc? Seriously, all I was doing was pointing out the fact that the collective group of people, from here on known as "Slashdot," are mind-bogglingly liberal at times. Try and defend Fox News some time. You won't get a point. But spew anti-Bush rhetoric (regardless of whether its true or even logical), and you'll get modded to the top. It's the new brand of karma whoring.
This election is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils, and you have to be experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance to honestly think that voting for Bush is a good idea.
Another diagnosis, huh? So I guess that means that +45% of the country right now is experiencing severe psychological distress? Perhaps we should have everybody who doesn't vote the way we want committed, eh?
There is such a thing as legitimate disagreement. You and the rest of the far left need to wake up and realize that Bush isn't evil and that John Kerry isn't the panacea to all our nations problems. That kind of talk only alienates moderate, Independent voters like myself. As far as I'm concerned, you're right: it is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils. And, if the election were tomorrow, I'd be casting my vote against the far left which currently embraces nothing less than hatred and outright lies against a sitting president during a time of war.
-Grym
"Just because you and Bush are dumbstruck pussies when shit hits the fan doesn't mean everyone else is one as well."
Says the Coward on slashdot tucked safely behind his computer.
A president who can't can't act quickly in a disaster is nothing but a liability for the nation as a whole.
And you think John Kerry will be any better in this regard? Sorry, but I don't think there will be time for him to check the polls and constantly flip-flop on what to do when the next terrorist attack happens.
-Grym
Umm...Mods? How in any way is this interesting?
Come on Slashdot! You complain about "Faux" News being a bastion of republican influence and then promote slanderous bile like this to a +5 score--sometimes in the same thread!
Say what you will, but if there were an organized determined segment of people trying to discredit you at every chance, you'd be careful too. It's not an indication of guilt. Were there any inconsistency between their stories--no matter how minor or insignificant--people like you would be calling for impeachment.
Weren't we all? The fact is that a terrorist attack already in progress is almost impossible to stop. I'd bet you believe that John Kerry would be Man-of-Action and get fighter jets up in the air within minutes of the first plane crash--bullshit. Hindsight is 20/20. Something the democrats are going to find out is that having ONLY criticism like the above without proposing better solutions for the future doesn't help anyone.
Oh really? Find me where and when he said that. Or was that just a quote from your imagination? I guess it doesn't matter if your sources are wrong, provided you have an unwavering faith in the validity of the overall story, right?
You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the conservative "Bible-Belt," with his personal beliefs. In actuality, GWB--and the Bush family in general--are quite religiously moderate.
Fair enough. Nobody except your conservative counterparts are saying he was the best president ever, and even though I myself will probably vote for him in November, I will have many reservations in doing so.
-Grym
Systematic prisoner abuse in violation of international treaties that used to protect our soldiers being instigated by civillian contractors and nodded at to the very highest levels? Hard to see how you can blow that out of proportion.
But that WASN'T what happened. What you described is what the news organizations like the New York Times wanted it to be. There's no evidence to suggest that it was either systematic or at "very high levels" of either the Military or Executive branch. Turns out it was just a small group of idiot, frustrated soldiers getting seriously out of line, and unlike the innocent civilians killed in Iraq, I'll remind you that every prisoner left with his head on his shoulders. Now how does THAT warrant FIFTY front-page NYT articles --at least twenty of which were consecutive? September 11th didn't even get that kind of coverage!
You really don't see an agenda there?
You don't see an agenda ("Defeat Bush at any cost") in the former? All major news organizations harbor an agenda contrary to the truth today. Whether it's making money by scaring people over anthrax, wild-animal attacks, and so on or pushing a political agenda, none of them really care about objective, rational presentation. Journalistic integrity is dead.
But don't believe everything they tell you.
Nor should you take the NYT or Michael Moore's work as holy words from the mountain either. That's the key here. The world isn't as simple as that anymore. Everything has a slant, and yes that includes Fox News.
-Grym
Okay, I misspelled it. The standard transliteration is Abu Graib. Funny, though such a serious error it was, you both knew what I was talking about.
My point was that both of you are failing to respond to the substance of my post and instead focusing on the minor spelling detail of one word. You're nit-picking rather than responding with an actual counter-point. Why is that?
If I'm wrong, tell me why. Don't worry, I won't care if you spell a single word wrong when you do it.
-Grym
Hah... record time for the "Faux" News claptrap. Congrats.
Care to elaborate on the depth of my "fantasy", Coward? Or are you just content to bicker over my spelling of a proper noun from a language we've probably both never even heard spoken?
-Grym
You're right, I mean, why isn't it obvious to all that simple-minded conservatives aren't capable of thinking for themselves? Especially, when placed beside an enlightened liberal such as yourself--who can!?
There couldn't possibly be any other impetus for disagreement with the liberal elite in our country but ignorance, and as such, we should dictate policy and information distribution, because, obviously we know what's best for the people, even if they don't know it themselves.
[/sarcasm] Fox News is generally conservative. I'll admit that, but why are you so quick to blame its success on ignorance?
I have a theory as to why Fox has become so popular; one that doesn't rely on calling millions of successful and intelligent people stupid. It's a backlash. Mom and pop, along with the rest of the silent, non-protesting majority in this country, are tired. They're tired of being subtly manipulated by the liberal media in our country. So, one day they turn the channel to find a network that finally tells them that America isn't all that bad after all. A network that doesn't blow out of proportion incidents like the Abu Graive affair and that actually reports things like the Nick Berg beheading. So, they watch it, and the keep watching it. They know it's conservative, but hey--it's refreshing to see something different and especially fun to see the old guys like CNN, The New York Times, and CBS squirm when their ratings go down.
-Grym
Maybe for you. But Apple had already solved that problem.
Because Apple, as they still do today, doesn't have to worry about internal, third-party hardware. Hardly a good comparison.
People lined up in the rain at midnight to buy Win95. That's marketing
No, that's bullshit--on your part. Why is it that when people clamor to download a new linux app or distro the Slashdot-hive-mind attributes it to features/performance/usability/security but when people do the same for a "M$" product, it's somehow due to ignorance or deceptive marketing.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but let's be honest, Windows 95 was a real improvement for the PC market. It was the first OS for an x386 machine that didn't require you to hardly ever see a commandline for basic operation. You may not think it was significant with respect to the blessed, do-no-wrong company known as Apple, but most people do. The market obviously confirmed their analysis. I dragged my feet switching from DOS/WIN 3.1 to Windows 95, but even I was impressed with the changes once I switched.
Something the Open Source Software community does all the time. Look at GIMP (free photoshop), OpenOffice(free knockoff MS Office) or FreeCiv (exact copy of Civilization II, I think). Somebody has done all of these things before, and oftentimes better. (And NO, it wasn't Apple or Steve Jobbs.) And yet, I like gimp. I like OpenOffice (after it *finally* loads), and I would probably like FreeCiv if I played it. Just because somebody has done something before (On a different hardware platform, no less...), doesn't diminish the good work of someone who emulates the idea in the future.
-Grym
Hm, I get 1.5Mbps down, 128kbps up from Verizon DSL. Does this mean I don't have broadband?
No. You don't.
Somewhere along the line, the word "broadband" got a legal definition. Because of all the Peer-to-Peer stuff, though, most ISPs prefer to severely limit the upstream. This is why nearly all companies advertise their internet connections as "high-speed" rather than broadband now.
-Grym
If the videotape shows that you did indeed run a red light, and the facts are indisputable, what does it matter that a cop didn't see it? Just because a police officer didn't see it, doesn't mean that you didn't break the law.
No... It means that the videocamera saw YOUR CAR breaking the law. There's a big difference, and that's what pisses people off. If an officer sees you, he can confirm your identity. The video camera can only confirm your car's identity.
I once had a friend who passed a cop on a double solid when he had beer in the car (he was 18 at the time). He promised me he wouldn't do anything stupid. It's situations like this that can screw up your driving record if we treat cameras as cheap, replacement police.
-Grym
Here's a quote from my message that you obviously didn't read:
". I don't have a problem with the New York Times reporting on Abu Graive. In fact, I think the ability and willingness of the press to report it is a good thing.
I never said that a state-run media would be better. I never even said that the NYT had to be pro-American. What I'm saying is that their hatred of the Bush Administration is so deep that it no longer matters if a story is blown out of proportion or is even true--so long as it hurts Bush's reputation. It's not news reporting at this point, and in their zeal to get Bush, they're hurting our country.
Your "enemies" (who are they exactly?) don't get their news from the NYT.
I know it may be hard to believe, but even though they speak funny languages and live in the desert, muslim extremists can still read and get a copy of a paper if they know it betters their cause. Hell, they can read it over they internet if they have a FREE online subscription.
Here is a small sample.
That vile page is propaganda at best, and it's the exact reason why Saddam put weapon caches and anti-aircraft weapons in neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools--so idiots like you would be convinced that we revel in civilian casualties. Well we don't. If we wanted to... if this was really "Anglo-American Aggression" (whatever the fuck that is), we could have turned Iraq into a smoldering pile of glass in minutes, and still leave all the oil-fields intact for our nefarious deeds.
Irresponsibility started when an idiot started a war on facts that were wrong. You can't get more irresponsible. In most countries, this is at best resignation, at worst martial court and execution... Be a Nazi.
Like it or not, but most people in the United States agree with the invasion of Iraq. You and the rest of the far left are seem too busy concocting conspiracy theories and Nazi analogies that you miss that. If I were really a fascist, I wouldn't care about the vote. Funny... sounds more and more like the far left all the time.
This is a Democracy, and just because you, a Coward on Slashdot, don't agree with President Bush's administration, doesn't take any legitimacy out of its actions or presence.
-Grym
Don't equate intelligence or technical adeptness with common sense. They're not the same thing. I've seen a guy who made a 1600 on his SATs pour hot coffee in his lap when asked the time.
Besides, if the person were so smart--why would he buy a ridiculously overpriced computer to begin with?
-Grym
What specifically about the Abu Graib reporting was biased against the government? The Times didn't have to work to make the government look bad; the government did that all on its own.
That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? It's not like something is binary--reported or not. I don't have a problem with the New York Times reporting on Abu Graive. In fact, I think the ability and willingness of the press to report it is a good thing. What bothers me is when they hype up the story to the point where it's basically a rallying call for all of our enemies, and this is exactly what they did.
Think about it: FIFTY (at the time I wrote the essay) front page articles. Many of which state nothing new. Sure, Abu Graive was a big story, but was it bigger than September 11th? What about the US hostages that were brutally beheaded on tape for every Al Jazeera viewer to see? Kinda funny, because last time I heard, every Abu Graive prisoner left with his head on his shoulders. How can they justify this type of reporting?
The reason wasn't to "balance" their reporting or perception. What a load. The reason is far more simple. The NYT, along with nearly every liberal group out there, hate the Bush Administration, and the hope was that if it turned out that one single letter or word from Rumsfeld or another high ranking official within the administration said ANYTHING about negative treatment of prisoners, they could nail Bush to the wall in November. Unfortunately, for them, it turned out that there was no conspiracy. It was just the irresponsible actions of a few, which are currently being punished.
It's this kind of vigilantism on the left that is hurting our nation. In their minds, it doesn't matter if its false, if it's blown out of proportion, or endangers our troops abroad, as long as it means one less person votes for Bush: it's worth it. Let me put it this way, I really dislike the Bush administration. I think they've screwed up big-time (DMCA, Iraq, etc.) and their corporate ties make me sick. But because of shit like the NYT's Abu Graive and Michael Moore's exploits, and so on, I hate the far left. And that's why, at this point, in November, I'll be voting AGAINST Kerry and the far left.
-Grym
Also, if the media is so biased to the left, how do you explain Fox News, Rush Limbough, Bill O'Reilly, etc. It is a well known fact, for instance, that the radio is dominated by conservatives. This is all described very humourously in Al Franken's book which I highly recommend.
Well Al Franken is an inflammatory imbicile.
Regardless, with the exception of Fox News (which I'll conceded is generally concervative), all of the media venues you speak of openly state that they are opinion pieces.
And that's the real issue here. It's not that people are expected to limit their speech to the point of mediocracy. That's why we have the first amendment. I don't think anybody would have a problem with Dan Rather telling us his political views in an independently published book, but what I would have a problem with is him sneaking said beliefs in what is supposed to be an objective forum like broadcast Journalism.
I think the real problem is large groups of people, on both sides, (but I believe MORE on the liberal side) think that they are enlightened. That they know what's best for the people, even if the people can't see that for themselves. So instead of laying out the facts and letting people decide for themselves, they skew support for their views through what basically amounts to trickery.
-Grym