"Original Type: WinWord 97/2000" according to my de-.doc-ifying program. I think that mean's it's not Made With Macintosh(TM), but not with XP either, which is what it's said in the ad she switched to (Word 2000 doesn't work on XP, does it?--I don't know; I've never used Windows (ever (really (I hate blue)))).
But Lynch is the "chosen loser," there just to make it look as though the Academy would--in theory, someday, maybe, but probably not--consder giving an award to one of the big-g Great Directors, rather than to a popular favorite/studio system whore--just like he was the "chosen loser" in the years he made Elephant Man and Blue Velvet (and, I think, Wild at Heart, but I don't remember).
Robert Altman is nominated for a similar reason. He should have won about thirty years ago for Nashville, but they blew it, like they blew it with Scorcese (and gave him the nod for Goodfellas, which is so much worse than Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Mean Streets, or King of Comedy, that it might as well have been made by George Lucas) and Kubrick and Hitchcock and.....
It's not every day we get a column on/. about an allegedly new, supposedly world-shattering intersection of art and technology, written by someone who doesn't know shit about art or technology, and is diagnosably functionally illiterate. We only get that every time Katz gets a new book about "internet culture" in the mail.
In, say, 1975, it may have been true that PBS showed a decent percentage of intelligent, out-of-mainstream programming--I certainly remember it being more high-minded when I was a kid--but that hasn't been the case for a long time.
Present-day PBS is devoted to promoting what used to be referred to derisively as "middle-class tastefulness," to stroking the self-satisfied "soft elitism" of a semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.
It's just another "lifestyle channel" with a superiority complex borne of its guaranteed existence regardless of its lack of popularity amongst the proles whom it deigns to "educate."
The specific show in question, Mental Engineering, has got to be the most miserable piece of shit I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen it, it goes like this: Attention-starved minor local media celebrities, failed academics, and a hack comedian play back a few tv commercials, and intersperse them with soft-spoken, moderately intelligent--if only by tv standards--commentary and slow-witted "quips," agree with each other about everything, and laugh dignified little fake laughs. Riveting stuff. It's kind of like a painfully drawn-out Daily Showsegment, but not as smart, not as critical of mainstream opinion, and not funny.
Since the number of currently moderating users in the category "credulous morons" is evidently greater than that in the category "Jews with even a sub-rudimentary knowledge of Judaism," I guess I--of the second category--have to point this out:
"Divrei Yamim B" is " 2nd Chronicles," and you, parent poster, are either an insufferable asshole, or a subtler troll than your grammar would suggest. If it's the latter, good job. If not, become a Christian; you'll fit in better.
Don't forget mkLinux -- a formerly Apple-developed distribution, which they started back in '95-96 (i.e., a few years before the majority of/. GNUtopians even knew Linux existed).
The participants considered their having punished someone--and the resultant feeling of power--to be a "profit" more valuable than real profit, just as the majority of "participants" in "real life" do.
The last Mac version of Limewire I tried (18 or 1.8, I think) didn't install any "spyware," per se; there was no piggybacked Trojan. But, according to my firewall's log from back then, it did try to "phone home" about seven times a day, and hunted for another open port when it failed. So, "Trash" is your friend.
Since it's Oval, it's more probably just a spec-violating "Track 0" that's confusing your CD-ROM. I have a handful of discs that I can't play on any of my computers because of that--and one (Melt-Banana, "Charlie") that just locks 'em all up.
Stick the disc in a regular CD player, press Play, then shuttle backward past the 00:00 of Track 1. It's probably a good song, since they went to the trouble of hiding it--if it's there.
And that skipping-disc sound was so "out" by 1993, it was already kitsch, you know-nothing poseur!!!;-)
Amusingly enough, 1984 is when posession of cash became a crime--or at least a punishable offense.
Check out fear.org for information and horror stories about the US's grand "asset forfeiture" laws.
If you ever get investigated for--not convicted of, not charged with, not necessarily even seriously suspected of--but investigated for any federal crime (which means just about any crime, these days), you're pretty well fucked.
Personally, I've been detained at the airport--long before 9/11--for having $300 cash on me. Only drug dealers have that kinda dough, y'know. So, having cash is cause for an investigation, and any investigation is cause for takin' all yer money, so...uh...buy gold, before they make that illegal, too....Oh, wait--
www.movielandexpress.com has the whole Radar Men series on VHS for $30--and somethingweird.com might have it, too, but their site's search almost never works, so who knows. Both companies offer endless heaps of classic tv/drive-in trash.
That picture never got me. It's pretty, and it's interesting, but it fails me on the "insignificance" front--probably because it looks too sci-fi, too much like a painting. The universe I picture us buried alive in is way more spooky and empty and sad than that.
This photo's a decent evocation of it:
http://www.solarviews.com/r/uranus/uranus.jpg
[sorry 'bout the plain text, but I assume any "Uranus" href link is "goatse until proven innocent" in this age of reflexive crack-modding]
1. Has anyone, ever, in the history of the world, ever admitted that maybe, just possibly, they might have bad taste? Just curious. Never seen it happen.
2. The opinions of experts in a field aren't likely to coincide with those of non-experts, because experts have a larger data set upon which to base their opinions--or, at least, their prejudices are more elaborate.
I would think that Windows' 95% market share would be evidence enough of this for most any/. reader. If you ask most of "us" computer experts, Gates & Co. are criminal purveyors of trash, whose customers sadly don't have enough information to undertstand that they're renting the devil's own poop. A similar case could be made by a "movie expert" against Steven Spielberg, George Lucas et al (and their customers). There's a world of "snobs" out there to whom, for example, Schindler's List seems as dorky and childish as Microsoft Bob does to Slashdot--and they can tell you why, but only by using secret expert (geek?) language, or half-assed analogies.
What your professor friend probably wants is to give you information. But first, you have to admit that you have a problem.
Semi-OT rant re: your comparison of psychology to lawyering--
Psychology--the study (or "science," if you're feeling generous)--is supposedly a discipline, an area of inquiry, whereas psychiatry--forcing social misfits into institutions, and/or "therapies" that they have no right to refuse--is a profession, a job, a social function (like carpenters or the Gestapo).
So, ideally, psychologists would be people who study human behavior in search of patterns (like anthropologists, economists, and philosophers do), then seek out the causes of--or at least names for--those patterns (either in the manner of anthropologists et al--with "theory"--or via the scientific method). Psychologists should be our friends, like physicists and microbiologists and other pattern-studiers are. But they're not.
When's the last time you had cause to curse the entire profession of astrophysics, for example? Probably never, because astrophysicists have no power to force us to live by their theories; their speculations are either right or wrong or unproven, and that's it--no one gets locked up for refusing to believe in dark matter or vacuum fluctuations. But the line, if ever there really was one, between psychology and psychiatry is blurred beyond seeing. The psychologist quoted in the Wired article is a perfect example: telling us who should marry whom, to let professionals normalize our odd kids, how unqualified we are to judge our own mental fitness. These are the words of priests, police, seers--not scientists--people who can ruin our lives if they don't like us.
In the study of law, there's a similar division between legal scholars and working attorneys. Academic lawyers study the history of the law, theorize about it, write densely argued papers to each other, and very slowly, over the course of decades, they sometimes slightly alter the "slant" of the judiciary. Conversely, working lawyers sue 2600, advertise on late-night television to assist you with your insurance fraud plot, and run for Congress. They're the ones Shakespeare tells us to kill first. They add a lot of low-level misery to all of our lives, but seldom have us all rounded up and gassed. When academic lawyers cross over into "real life," and their weird theories are taken for gospel--that's when the really terrible shit happens, e.g., Canada's anti-pornography laws (Catherine MacKinnon), campus speech codes (Stanley Fish), and the PMRC (Andrea Dworkin). Fortunately, though, theory and practice seldom meet, because "real lawyers," as vile as they are, have some checks on their zany ideas (judges and juries).
Long story short-- What's objectionable about modern psychology is its pretending to be a science like astophysics, when in fact it's a bunch of insufficiently self-critical hocus-pocus, imposing itself on us with the force of law, from the school counselor on up. [Insert requisite "Spanish Inquisition" ref. for amusement of autistic dorks.]
In case you couldn't tell, he was being sarcastic.
Huxley's book derives its title from a scene in The Tempest, in which Miranda, upon meeting a bunch of royal bad guys--whom she naively perceives as regal, not as the bunch of usurping, murderous scum they really are under their shiny hats--says "O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in't!" to which Prospero--sad cynic, curmudgeonly nihilist, all-around smarty-pants, exiled in a world of criminal dipshits--says "'Tis new to thee."
Just admit you're wrong about the Apples, get four more of those $1000-limit credit cards from this "artist," and buy her a dual G4 with 1.5 gigs of RAM and an "old" (c.2000) Apple 17" CRT (it's the most color-accurate monitor you won't need another $1000 for). Then go back, get another few $1000 added to her limits (like, say, five) so you can buy a slide scanner whose output won't make any artist physically ill. Then, since she'll be broke for the next ten years, give her a Post-It with "alt.binaries.mac.applications" written on it, so she can get Illustrator, Photoshop, Expression, Canvas and FreeHand for 2D, Final Cut, Premiere and After Effects for video, Performer and ProTools for sound, etc.
As cool as an AMD running Debian is for merrily shooting packets around, or Windows is for...I don't know...replacing a typewriter and an N64, I guess, they're not going to make any artist happy (unless by "artist" you mean what most people mean when they say ridiculous, brain-shriveling things like "I'm an artist!"--i.e., they do the equivalent of what Martha Stewart does with macaroni and construction paper, but without getting paid).
Seriously. Apple has this one locked up. No one else does it right, yet. Getting an arty chick a non-Apple is like getting you an Apple--understand?
(Or, if you can't do that, that Propaganda guy who hangs out here probably has a few used Amigas to get rid of.)
Oregon's definition of a "valid need" is, oddly,
"marketing," according to a trial transcript I read yesterday @ http://cryptome.org/usa-v-jdb-dt.htm. Anyone who thinks our judicial system isn't horribly broken needs to read that; its incoherence alone is enough to make a sane man want to flee the country.
There's a case summary--a very boring, high-school-paper-like summary,
padded to death with the kind of stuff kids copy from encyclopedias
to meet word-count requirements--@ http://cartome.org/homeland.htm.
Essentially, an 3v17 h4x0r was convicted entirely on innuendo, and is going to jail for a long, long time, for the crime of having determined the previous address of an ATF agent, for non-"marketing" purposes. Should have tried to sell him something, I guess.
The Mac version may not install any spyware, per se, but, ever since I installed 1.8--though I don't use it because 1.7 gets more results on the same searches (why?)--my firewall's blocked four or five mystery outgoing connection attempts on various ports in the Limewire range (between 6352 and 6421, thus far) while 1.7 has been running. So, watch your connections; it's trying to do *something* without asking.
Why does nearly everyone who's obviously a "non-artist" (commodities traders, sysadmins, housekeepers, George Lucas, Barbra Streisand, etc.), whenever a question like this arises, display a deep psychological need to be labeled a member of the profession/vocation/lifestyle/whatever of "artist", while those who obviously are "artists" (great painters, poets, composers, etc.) mostly don't give a shit whether anyone thinks they're "artists" or not?
IE caches into one single file that I don't know how to get into.
The Mac IE "Download Cache" file is a corrupted.zip file that no unzipping utility recognizes as one (because it's corrupted, because Microsoft is evil). However, the guys who make iCab also make a little util called WAC, which converts IE's messed-up.zip files into regular zip files (with iCab type/creator info). So, go to icab.de, get WAC, drop your IE "Download Cache" on it, then drop the resulting file on ZipIt or Stuffit Expander, and fish through the folders for what you want to save. Total pain in the ass, but it works.
It was either the guy from your sig or Theodor Adorno (I think) who said (paraphrased) "There is nothing the Spectacle enjoys more than talking about itself" --Katz's piece being a fine example.
The media translates every real-world problem into a media problem--a crisis of coverage--as a way of reinforcing its members' monstrous sense of self-importance. By playing on this tendency--timing the second plane-into-WTC to be seen on live television (leading to endlessly replayed debate over whether or not to replay it), and sending anthrax mostly to members of the press (who've been waiting their whole lives for the opportunity to do stories only about themselves)--the terrorists will succeed in creating terror to a degree that they couldn't have by more "traditional" means.
By not taking credit, The Bad Guys take themselves out of the story, leaving in their place an infinite media loop wherein the press talk about themselves talking about themselves talking about themselves talking about terrorism, ad nauseam, and project their own auto-suggested hysteria onto the population via saturation coverage--coverage of the (fictional) hysteria, not the (real) attacks.
While few of us now are nearly as terrorized and overwrought as we're told that we are, if the media repeat it often enough, eventually most of us will be.
Simply: Katz doesn't understand the media as well as The Bad Guys do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Original Type: WinWord 97/2000" according to my de-.doc-ifying program. I think that mean's it's not Made With Macintosh(TM), but not with XP either, which is what it's said in the ad she switched to (Word 2000 doesn't work on XP, does it?--I don't know; I've never used Windows (ever (really (I hate blue)))).
But Lynch is the "chosen loser," there just to make it look as though the Academy would--in theory, someday, maybe, but probably not--consder giving an award to one of the big-g Great Directors, rather than to a popular favorite/studio system whore--just like he was the "chosen loser" in the years he made Elephant Man and Blue Velvet (and, I think, Wild at Heart, but I don't remember).
Robert Altman is nominated for a similar reason. He should have won about thirty years ago for Nashville, but they blew it, like they blew it with Scorcese (and gave him the nod for Goodfellas, which is so much worse than Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Mean Streets, or King of Comedy, that it might as well have been made by George Lucas) and Kubrick and Hitchcock and
It's not every day we get a column on
Our world is changed forever!
Again!
!!!
In, say, 1975, it may have been true that PBS showed a decent percentage of intelligent, out-of-mainstream programming--I certainly remember it being more high-minded when I was a kid--but that hasn't been the case for a long time.
Present-day PBS is devoted to promoting what used to be referred to derisively as "middle-class tastefulness," to stroking the self-satisfied "soft elitism" of a semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.
It's just another "lifestyle channel" with a superiority complex borne of its guaranteed existence regardless of its lack of popularity amongst the proles whom it deigns to "educate."
The specific show in question, Mental Engineering, has got to be the most miserable piece of shit I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen it, it goes like this: Attention-starved minor local media celebrities, failed academics, and a hack comedian play back a few tv commercials, and intersperse them with soft-spoken, moderately intelligent--if only by tv standards--commentary and slow-witted "quips," agree with each other about everything, and laugh dignified little fake laughs. Riveting stuff. It's kind of like a painfully drawn-out Daily Showsegment, but not as smart, not as critical of mainstream opinion, and not funny.
Since the number of currently moderating users in the category "credulous morons" is evidently greater than that in the category "Jews with even a sub-rudimentary knowledge of Judaism," I guess I--of the second category--have to point this out:
"Divrei Yamim B" is " 2nd Chronicles," and you, parent poster, are either an insufferable asshole, or a subtler troll than your grammar would suggest. If it's the latter, good job. If not, become a Christian; you'll fit in better.
Don't forget mkLinux -- a formerly Apple-developed distribution, which they started back in '95-96 (i.e., a few years before the majority of
The participants considered their having punished someone--and the resultant feeling of power--to be a "profit" more valuable than real profit, just as the majority of "participants" in "real life" do.
The last Mac version of Limewire I tried (18 or 1.8, I think) didn't install any "spyware," per se; there was no piggybacked Trojan. But, according to my firewall's log from back then, it did try to "phone home" about seven times a day, and hunted for another open port when it failed. So, "Trash" is your friend.
Since it's Oval, it's more probably just a spec-violating "Track 0" that's confusing your CD-ROM. I have a handful of discs that I can't play on any of my computers because of that--and one (Melt-Banana, "Charlie") that just locks 'em all up.
Stick the disc in a regular CD player, press Play, then shuttle backward past the 00:00 of Track 1. It's probably a good song, since they went to the trouble of hiding it--if it's there.
And that skipping-disc sound was so "out" by 1993, it was already kitsch, you know-nothing poseur!!!
They make things and sell them. It's a "model" that works for everything.
Amusingly enough, 1984 is when posession of cash became a crime--or at least a punishable offense.
Check out fear.org for information and horror stories about the US's grand "asset forfeiture" laws.
If you ever get investigated for--not convicted of, not charged with, not necessarily even seriously suspected of--but investigated for any federal crime (which means just about any crime, these days), you're pretty well fucked.
Personally, I've been detained at the airport--long before 9/11--for having $300 cash on me. Only drug dealers have that kinda dough, y'know. So, having cash is cause for an investigation, and any investigation is cause for takin' all yer money, so...uh...buy gold, before they make that illegal, too.
www.movielandexpress.com has the whole Radar Men series on VHS for $30--and somethingweird.com might have it, too, but their site's search almost never works, so who knows. Both companies offer endless heaps of classic tv/drive-in trash.
http://allmacintosh.xs4all.nl/preview/206564.html
http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/
That picture never got me. It's pretty, and it's interesting, but it fails me on the "insignificance" front--probably because it looks too sci-fi, too much like a painting. The universe I picture us buried alive in is way more spooky and empty and sad than that.
This photo's a decent evocation of it:
http://www.solarviews.com/r/uranus/uranus.jpg
[sorry 'bout the plain text, but I assume any "Uranus" href link is "goatse until proven innocent" in this age of reflexive crack-modding]
Two things:
1. Has anyone, ever, in the history of the world, ever admitted that maybe, just possibly, they might have bad taste? Just curious. Never seen it happen.
2. The opinions of experts in a field aren't likely to coincide with those of non-experts, because experts have a larger data set upon which to base their opinions--or, at least, their prejudices are more elaborate.
I would think that Windows' 95% market share would be evidence enough of this for most any
What your professor friend probably wants is to give you information. But first, you have to admit that you have a problem.
[big smiley on that]
[paraphrasing...]
No talking! "Payable to the EFF" are the only words we want to hear from you.
Semi-OT rant re: your comparison of psychology to lawyering--
Psychology--the study (or "science," if you're feeling generous)--is supposedly a discipline, an area of inquiry, whereas psychiatry--forcing social misfits into institutions, and/or "therapies" that they have no right to refuse--is a profession, a job, a social function (like carpenters or the Gestapo).
So, ideally, psychologists would be people who study human behavior in search of patterns (like anthropologists, economists, and philosophers do), then seek out the causes of--or at least names for--those patterns (either in the manner of anthropologists et al--with "theory"--or via the scientific method). Psychologists should be our friends, like physicists and microbiologists and other pattern-studiers are. But they're not.
When's the last time you had cause to curse the entire profession of astrophysics, for example? Probably never, because astrophysicists have no power to force us to live by their theories; their speculations are either right or wrong or unproven, and that's it--no one gets locked up for refusing to believe in dark matter or vacuum fluctuations. But the line, if ever there really was one, between psychology and psychiatry is blurred beyond seeing. The psychologist quoted in the Wired article is a perfect example: telling us who should marry whom, to let professionals normalize our odd kids, how unqualified we are to judge our own mental fitness. These are the words of priests, police, seers--not scientists--people who can ruin our lives if they don't like us.
In the study of law, there's a similar division between legal scholars and working attorneys. Academic lawyers study the history of the law, theorize about it, write densely argued papers to each other, and very slowly, over the course of decades, they sometimes slightly alter the "slant" of the judiciary. Conversely, working lawyers sue 2600, advertise on late-night television to assist you with your insurance fraud plot, and run for Congress. They're the ones Shakespeare tells us to kill first. They add a lot of low-level misery to all of our lives, but seldom have us all rounded up and gassed. When academic lawyers cross over into "real life," and their weird theories are taken for gospel--that's when the really terrible shit happens, e.g., Canada's anti-pornography laws (Catherine MacKinnon), campus speech codes (Stanley Fish), and the PMRC (Andrea Dworkin). Fortunately, though, theory and practice seldom meet, because "real lawyers," as vile as they are, have some checks on their zany ideas (judges and juries).
Long story short-- What's objectionable about modern psychology is its pretending to be a science like astophysics, when in fact it's a bunch of insufficiently self-critical hocus-pocus, imposing itself on us with the force of law, from the school counselor on up. [Insert requisite "Spanish Inquisition" ref. for amusement of autistic dorks.]
...that has such people in't!" --Shakespeare
In case you couldn't tell, he was being sarcastic.
Huxley's book derives its title from a scene in The Tempest, in which Miranda, upon meeting a bunch of royal bad guys--whom she naively perceives as regal, not as the bunch of usurping, murderous scum they really are under their shiny hats--says "O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in't!" to which Prospero--sad cynic, curmudgeonly nihilist, all-around smarty-pants, exiled in a world of criminal dipshits--says "'Tis new to thee."
Not an inappropriate sentiment, in this case.
But of course you knew that.
Just admit you're wrong about the Apples, get four more of those $1000-limit credit cards from this "artist," and buy her a dual G4 with 1.5 gigs of RAM and an "old" (c.2000) Apple 17" CRT (it's the most color-accurate monitor you won't need another $1000 for). Then go back, get another few $1000 added to her limits (like, say, five) so you can buy a slide scanner whose output won't make any artist physically ill. Then, since she'll be broke for the next ten years, give her a Post-It with "alt.binaries.mac.applications" written on it, so she can get Illustrator, Photoshop, Expression, Canvas and FreeHand for 2D, Final Cut, Premiere and After Effects for video, Performer and ProTools for sound, etc.
As cool as an AMD running Debian is for merrily shooting packets around, or Windows is for...I don't know...replacing a typewriter and an N64, I guess, they're not going to make any artist happy (unless by "artist" you mean what most people mean when they say ridiculous, brain-shriveling things like "I'm an artist!"--i.e., they do the equivalent of what Martha Stewart does with macaroni and construction paper, but without getting paid).
Seriously. Apple has this one locked up. No one else does it right, yet. Getting an arty chick a non-Apple is like getting you an Apple--understand?
(Or, if you can't do that, that Propaganda guy who hangs out here probably has a few used Amigas to get rid of.)
Oregon's definition of a "valid need" is, oddly, "marketing," according to a trial transcript I read yesterday @ http://cryptome.org/usa-v-jdb-dt.htm. Anyone who thinks our judicial system isn't horribly broken needs to read that; its incoherence alone is enough to make a sane man want to flee the country.
There's a case summary--a very boring, high-school-paper-like summary, padded to death with the kind of stuff kids copy from encyclopedias to meet word-count requirements--@ http://cartome.org/homeland.htm.
Essentially, an 3v17 h4x0r was convicted entirely on innuendo, and is going to jail for a long, long time, for the crime of having determined the previous address of an ATF agent, for non-"marketing" purposes. Should have tried to sell him something, I guess.
The Mac version may not install any spyware, per se, but, ever since I installed 1.8--though I don't use it because 1.7 gets more results on the same searches (why?)--my firewall's blocked four or five mystery outgoing connection attempts on various ports in the Limewire range (between 6352 and 6421, thus far) while 1.7 has been running. So, watch your connections; it's trying to do *something* without asking.
More interesting than the article's question:
Why does nearly everyone who's obviously a "non-artist" (commodities traders, sysadmins, housekeepers, George Lucas, Barbra Streisand, etc.), whenever a question like this arises, display a deep psychological need to be labeled a member of the profession/vocation/lifestyle/whatever of "artist", while those who obviously are "artists" (great painters, poets, composers, etc.) mostly don't give a shit whether anyone thinks they're "artists" or not?
Hm.
IE caches into one single file that I don't know how to get into.
The Mac IE "Download Cache" file is a corrupted
It was either the guy from your sig or Theodor Adorno (I think) who said (paraphrased) "There is nothing the Spectacle enjoys more than talking about itself" --Katz's piece being a fine example.
The media translates every real-world problem into a media problem--a crisis of coverage--as a way of reinforcing its members' monstrous sense of self-importance. By playing on this tendency--timing the second plane-into-WTC to be seen on live television (leading to endlessly replayed debate over whether or not to replay it), and sending anthrax mostly to members of the press (who've been waiting their whole lives for the opportunity to do stories only about themselves)--the terrorists will succeed in creating terror to a degree that they couldn't have by more "traditional" means.
By not taking credit, The Bad Guys take themselves out of the story, leaving in their place an infinite media loop wherein the press talk about themselves talking about themselves talking about themselves talking about terrorism, ad nauseam, and project their own auto-suggested hysteria onto the population via saturation coverage--coverage of the (fictional) hysteria, not the (real) attacks.
While few of us now are nearly as terrorized and overwrought as we're told that we are, if the media repeat it often enough, eventually most of us will be.
Simply: Katz doesn't understand the media as well as The Bad Guys do.
...but you have to pay RedEraser $300 per Sharpening Incident.
...