I think the global-warming alarmists are merely anti-commerce zealots in disguise. But, if CO2 really is causing harm, then it seems silly that it wouldn't fall under the EPA's jurisdiction to regulate it.
Maybe this will cause an actual discussion of the facts instead of the media-proxy debate that we've had in the past.
> if you sell your house and then take that money you earned to buy a new one IANAL either, but I have sold my house before. Housing is a special case. There are a few subtle details, but the main point is that if you live in your house for more than two years, then you don't pay any taxes. There is a limit to how much money you can make (like over $1Million, you pay taxes anyway).
If you live in your house less than two years, then you need to keep track of your basis (how much money you have in the house) and pay taxes on the price at wich you sell minus your basis. If you make any home improvements, for example, you can add them to your basis.
If you use that money to buy a new house, then you don't pay the taxes (there is a time limit). But, you do need to adjust the basis. In other words, the profit you made rolls over to be profit on the new house when you sell it (within two years).
The most annoying part of the whole deal is keeping an accurate basis accounting. Get it wrong, or lose receipts, and you lose real money.
The tax is deffered until the final conversion to cash. I imagine that means that if you never convert, then there are no taxes. I wonder how this would apply if, say a baker and a butcher trade each other. Wouldn't their transactions be taxable? The butcher never sells the bread her receives from the baker, and the baker never sells the meat he receives from the butcher. I can't believe the IRS would let this go untaxed.
Imagine the basis-tracking nightmare for WOW. Virtual goods could trade hands dozens of times before conversion to cash.
>You, nor many others are really getting it. They're not going to tax your stuff in game
Why not? If the stuff has real world value, then trading it in the virtual world is equivalent to a real-world exchange of value.
It isn't exactly the same thing, but: if I have say baseball cards, and I trade them to you for some other baseball cards, we are technically required to pay taxes based on the fair market value of the transaction. It isn't difficult to argue that the same thing should apply with WOW gizmos.
Btw, I think it's crap. But, I think it will end up being so.
The point is: the dust-bowl-causing drought was natural. If it occurred today, it would be used by the global warming community to "prove" global warming.
I personally like the other posts I've seen here that say emmissions are bad even without invoking global warming. Smog sucks. All those other chemicals (Carbon Monoxide, sulfuric acid, etc.) in exhaust fumes suck too.
I'm also very sceptical of anyone that claims to know any temerature earlier than the mid 20th century (when there are records of direct measurements). I don't doubt that its possible to infer approximate temperatures. But, we're talking about a rise of average temperatures by a fraction of a degree C over decades. It's difficult enough to measure an actual temperature to that precision.
> He was impeached for lying in the Lewinsky case, not about Paula Jones. He lied about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. There never was a Monica Lewinsky case. Though, props to the press for changing the subject. It was less damning to have the issue be about "consentual sex" than "sexual harrasment".
>I would guess that we still use more per capita. But not 5x as much.
I suspect its because a huge percent of the world's population don't use much energy at all. The rural Chinese and Indian people aren't commuting to work, or using their electric air conditioners.
I assume the more important number is pollution produced. It's probably still high, but I would guess that its significantly lower than 25%. I only assume that because the reporter is most likely to choose the more sensational number.
>Please explain what Monica Lewinsky voluntarily blowing the President has to do with Paula Jones.
Paula Jones' lawyers were trying to demonstrate a pattern. Clinton "denied having 'sexual relations' with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her" (from http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicala rchive-Clintonimpeach.htm).
> You do realize that the court dismissed the Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton Yes. But, _after_ he lied under oath. Paula Jones had the right to bring her suit. The President doesn't get to lie under oath just because its a sexual harrasmant case. He was impeached for that, remember?
>It most certainly was a lie.... It is their job to interpret the threats posed by the intelligence agencies and they interpreted it to their benefit, not in an honest way. Hind sight tells us they were wrong. But, that doesn't mean they lied. I remember the runup to the war. Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs. He was denying access to WMD inspectors, etc. A reasonable person could look at the intelligence, and conclude that he had WMDs. He was playing a dangerous game - and bluffing. The US will go to war to call that bluff in the post 9/11 world.
>The current political landscape is a testbed for unfounded moral equivalency. A lie about a blowjob is not the same as a lie about a war
It wasn't a lie about a blow job. It was one part of a broad effort to deny justice to Paula Jones in her sexual harrasment lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
Imho, Taken out of this context, the blow job is none of our business. But, I find it disgraceful that the Liberals side with Clinton on this one. Who's left to protect the weak from the strong? Isn't that what the Democrats are supposed to do?
And, it wasn't a lie about a war. Although, it certainly was an overly paranoid reading of the facts, and based on facts-at-the-time that turned out not to be true. There is no evidence that the adminstration was deliberately misleading. The intelligence community is bipartisan. The left had access to the same information at the time. Practically all the Washington politicians were on board when the Iraq war started.
I just wish the Left could muster the same distate for terrorists that it has for the Right. We are in a real war, on many fronts. All this bickering gives the enemy hope.
Not sure why you got mod'd 0. I thought it was a very interesting point. What if the actual laws of the universe were created by the event itself! That would imply some grander laws goverining the creation of laws, but that bends away from science and toward philosophy.
> Sorta like continuous creation? Sure. I never heard of that before:) Although, I was thinking less steady-state, and more multi-episodic.
The wiki says that continuous creation is effectively disproved by the background radiation predicted by the big bang. But, what if the background radiation is the result of the random energy/mass creation taking place uniformly throughout the universe, instead of being a remnant of a single huge event?
Of course, I'm obviously not a cosmologist. Its just hard to wrap my head around the fact that the laws of the universe support a single, HUGE event, but not variations in between. And, that the extreme case should be more rare than the milder ones.
I've always wondered the same thing. Matter and anti-matter are constantly created in the void of space. The big bang was an extremely rare event where an entire universe of matter and anti-matter was created. Why isn't it more likely that smaller energy/mass creation events occur more frequently?
In other words, if the laws of the universe allow for a single, giant, highly improbably event, then why don't they allow for multiple, smaller, slightly-more-probable, events?
Hello Alsee, thanks for replying. I just checked my email and noticed your reply. But, I doubt anyone will see this, since the thread has long been abandoned.
I agree with you. There are significant differences between Al Gore's movie, and the youtube video. Only two things that are exactly alike have no differences. That they are different doesn't refute the assertion that they are both propaganda.
They are also different in the magnitude of their consequences. Al Gore's movie will likely result in a change in the allocation of hundreds of millions, even billions, of tax dollars. The youtube video is of near-zero consequence.
Al Gore is manipulating the issue of Global Warming in a bid to control the world's energy usage. He may be doing this because he believes it is good for humanity. I will concede that he likely believes what he is saying. However, I strongly disagree with his doomsday conclusions. So do others. Many of them Ph.Ds.
There is abundant scientific debate on the consequences of global warming. I Googled "global warming" (Note: intentionally choosing the pejorative term). The top result is a government link.
It states things like: "Scientific understanding of these other factors - most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols - remains incomplete."
"...but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time"
"...but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.""
"But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult"
"...research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño."
It is false to assert that scientists agree with Al Gore. I would agree that, in general, they are politically aligned with him and would like their results to match his agenda. He is a power-hungry fear monger, and his video is a destructive piece of propaganda.
Al Gore is not the world's first or most prominent fear monger. In the 19th century it was common knowledge that the world was going to run out of food. Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich "proved" that to be true. Their science was flawed. The world did not run out of food. This does not, of course, prove that Al Gore is wrong. It's just an example of how we are susceptible to those that sell dystopian futures.
> Now, I'm not saying necessarily that contrar1an was the one...
I actually wouldn't know how to edit them. I didn't even know they could be edited I assumed there was some approval process. I had no idea wikkipedia was so shaky.
I'll find my supporting data elsewhere in the future.
Well said. I do believe there is objective truth. And there is a difference in degrees between Al Gore's movie and the youtube video. If true, the youtube video has an extra level of slimy to it.
In a way, though, Al Gore's movie is worse. No one would take the youtube video seriously. It's a (bad, sure) joke. That there are thousands of people that see Al Gore's movie as "truth" worries me. It's blatant propaganda. And effective propaganda at that.
> Every piece of information ever published repeatedly by someone with an opinion is "propaganda". Yep. My favorite statement along these lines is from Diego Rivera: "All art is propaganda." His point is that the _purpose_ of making a statement is to influence others.
I assert that Al Gore's presentation is just as slimy as the youtube video. Maybe he believes it, but that doesn't make it true.
From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)
There is considerable scientific debate [6][7][8][9][10] as to how much human activity contributes to Greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the Greenhouse effect, since at most, mankind contributes only 3% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2. This is important to policy makers, because if global warming is attributed overwhelmingly to non-anthropogenic causes, then people and governments cannot impact global climate through the economically costly restriction of carbon and other gas emissions.[11] Yet, even if all people on earth were eliminated, the total reduction of carbon dioxide, itself a minor Greenhouse gas as compared to natural water vapor, would be at most, 3%.[12]
I will take a shot:) I will respond with questions of my own.
1. Where does the CO2 come from? We know our cars produce it. But, in what proportion compared to breathing, forest fires, cows, etc. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) says that CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. They also say:
"There is considerable debate ast to how much human activity can be attributed to the Greenhouse effect, since at most, mankind contributes only 3% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2" In other words, the CO2 is rising, but 97% of the rise isn't related to human activity.
2. Where does the CO2 go? We know trees, grass, etc consume it. But, in what proportion to algae, etc. In the end, I wonder what the net loss of CO2 consumption is from deforestation. I couldn't find anything on this one.
3. It isn't realistic that we will stop driving, flying, and using electricity any time soon. What is a reasonable expectation of CO2 emission reduction?
You didn't blame the oil companies, but I've seen it as a common theme in this thread. So, forgive me for adding it to this reply. But, the oil companies aren't to blame (conceding for a moment that blame is to be had). It's us. I drive, I fly, I use electricity. And so do the rest of you. Blaming the oil companies is just a cop out.
> find it peculiar that somebody who seems so concerned with having both sides of the story Actually, I assert that almost every view with which we are presented is biased propaganda. Getting one side and ignoring the other is not a path to understanding. I don't know if the MIT professor is conservative (the WSJ arguably is), but his argument provides balance.
> the scientific community... has nothing to gain for reporting their findings When you see that this statement isn't true, you will understand my position. There is huge money in the study of global warming. Billions and billions of dollars. Scientists that don't produce dire conclusions don't get a part of the money.
These scientists are backed by the Liberals. They have everything to gain: "The sky is falling, and you need to elect us to save you". Global warming could very well cause the disasters they claim. But, their politicizing of it makes lots of people not trust them. I feel cheated. I want to believe the science. But, the politics have muddied this issue such that I can't trust it.
btw, I intentionally chose 'contrarian' as my username (well, someone else had it, so I chose 'contrar1an'). I'm nervous when there is broad agreement. Group think is a very dangerous phenomenon. That many people agree doesn't make truth.
Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
"you're still wrong. There is no such equivalence" Maybe if you say it enough it will be true. That tactic works well for the Liberals.
Gore movie = propaganda Gore spoof = propaganda propaganda = propaganda
Are you asserting that the Gore movie is not propaganda? It isn't news. It isn't science. It's a one-sided view of an issue, designed to ellicit an emotional response. Pretty much the definition of propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of his comment was that Sony will expose low-level APIs, unlike Apple's prohibition of directly using the machine.
I think the global-warming alarmists are merely anti-commerce zealots in disguise. But, if CO2 really is causing harm, then it seems silly that it wouldn't fall under the EPA's jurisdiction to regulate it.
Maybe this will cause an actual discussion of the facts instead of the media-proxy debate that we've had in the past.
> if you sell your house and then take that money you earned to buy a new one
IANAL either, but I have sold my house before. Housing is a special case. There are a few subtle details, but the main point is that if you live in your house for more than two years, then you don't pay any taxes. There is a limit to how much money you can make (like over $1Million, you pay taxes anyway).
If you live in your house less than two years, then you need to keep track of your basis (how much money you have in the house) and pay taxes on the price at wich you sell minus your basis. If you make any home improvements, for example, you can add them to your basis.
If you use that money to buy a new house, then you don't pay the taxes (there is a time limit). But, you do need to adjust the basis. In other words, the profit you made rolls over to be profit on the new house when you sell it (within two years).
The most annoying part of the whole deal is keeping an accurate basis accounting. Get it wrong, or lose receipts, and you lose real money.
The tax is deffered until the final conversion to cash. I imagine that means that if you never convert, then there are no taxes. I wonder how this would apply if, say a baker and a butcher trade each other. Wouldn't their transactions be taxable? The butcher never sells the bread her receives from the baker, and the baker never sells the meat he receives from the butcher. I can't believe the IRS would let this go untaxed.
Imagine the basis-tracking nightmare for WOW. Virtual goods could trade hands dozens of times before conversion to cash.
Doug
>You, nor many others are really getting it. They're not going to tax your stuff in game
Why not? If the stuff has real world value, then trading it in the virtual world is equivalent to a real-world exchange of value.
It isn't exactly the same thing, but: if I have say baseball cards, and I trade them to you for some other baseball cards, we are technically required to pay taxes based on the fair market value of the transaction. It isn't difficult to argue that the same thing should apply with WOW gizmos.
Btw, I think it's crap. But, I think it will end up being so.
The point is: the dust-bowl-causing drought was natural. If it occurred today, it would be used by the global warming community to "prove" global warming.
I personally like the other posts I've seen here that say emmissions are bad even without invoking global warming. Smog sucks. All those other chemicals (Carbon Monoxide, sulfuric acid, etc.) in exhaust fumes suck too.
I'm also very sceptical of anyone that claims to know any temerature earlier than the mid 20th century (when there are records of direct measurements). I don't doubt that its possible to infer approximate temperatures. But, we're talking about a rise of average temperatures by a fraction of a degree C over decades. It's difficult enough to measure an actual temperature to that precision.
How can there be a hurricane where there are no Republicans?
> He was impeached for lying in the Lewinsky case, not about Paula Jones.
He lied about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. There never was a Monica Lewinsky case. Though, props to the press for changing the subject. It was less damning to have the issue be about "consentual sex" than "sexual harrasment".
>I would guess that we still use more per capita. But not 5x as much.
I suspect its because a huge percent of the world's population don't use much energy at all. The rural Chinese and Indian people aren't commuting to work, or using their electric air conditioners.
I assume the more important number is pollution produced. It's probably still high, but I would guess that its significantly lower than 25%. I only assume that because the reporter is most likely to choose the more sensational number.
>Please explain what Monica Lewinsky voluntarily blowing the President has to do with Paula Jones. Paula Jones' lawyers were trying to demonstrate a pattern. Clinton "denied having 'sexual relations' with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her" (from http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicala rchive-Clintonimpeach.htm).
> You do realize that the court dismissed the Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton
... It is their job to interpret the threats posed by the intelligence agencies and they interpreted it to their benefit, not in an honest way.
Yes. But, _after_ he lied under oath. Paula Jones had the right to bring her suit. The President doesn't get to lie under oath just because its a sexual harrasmant case. He was impeached for that, remember?
>It most certainly was a lie.
Hind sight tells us they were wrong. But, that doesn't mean they lied. I remember the runup to the war. Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs. He was denying access to WMD inspectors, etc. A reasonable person could look at the intelligence, and conclude that he had WMDs. He was playing a dangerous game - and bluffing. The US will go to war to call that bluff in the post 9/11 world.
I'll bite.
>The current political landscape is a testbed for unfounded moral equivalency. A lie about a blowjob is not the same as a lie about a war
It wasn't a lie about a blow job. It was one part of a broad effort to deny justice to Paula Jones in her sexual harrasment lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
Imho, Taken out of this context, the blow job is none of our business. But, I find it disgraceful that the Liberals side with Clinton on this one. Who's left to protect the weak from the strong? Isn't that what the Democrats are supposed to do?
And, it wasn't a lie about a war. Although, it certainly was an overly paranoid reading of the facts, and based on facts-at-the-time that turned out not to be true. There is no evidence that the adminstration was deliberately misleading. The intelligence community is bipartisan. The left had access to the same information at the time. Practically all the Washington politicians were on board when the Iraq war started.
I just wish the Left could muster the same distate for terrorists that it has for the Right. We are in a real war, on many fronts. All this bickering gives the enemy hope.
Not sure why you got mod'd 0. I thought it was a very interesting point. What if the actual laws of the universe were created by the event itself! That would imply some grander laws goverining the creation of laws, but that bends away from science and toward philosophy.
> Sorta like continuous creation? :) Although, I was thinking less steady-state, and more multi-episodic.
Sure. I never heard of that before
The wiki says that continuous creation is effectively disproved by the background radiation predicted by the big bang. But, what if the background radiation is the result of the random energy/mass creation taking place uniformly throughout the universe, instead of being a remnant of a single huge event?
Of course, I'm obviously not a cosmologist. Its just hard to wrap my head around the fact that the laws of the universe support a single, HUGE event, but not variations in between. And, that the extreme case should be more rare than the milder ones.
I've always wondered the same thing. Matter and anti-matter are constantly created in the void of space. The big bang was an extremely rare event where an entire universe of matter and anti-matter was created. Why isn't it more likely that smaller energy/mass creation events occur more frequently?
In other words, if the laws of the universe allow for a single, giant, highly improbably event, then why don't they allow for multiple, smaller, slightly-more-probable, events?
Hello Alsee, thanks for replying. I just checked my email and noticed your reply. But, I doubt anyone will see this, since the thread has long been abandoned.
t ent/climateuncertainties.html
I agree with you. There are significant differences between Al Gore's movie, and the youtube video. Only two things that are exactly alike have no differences. That they are different doesn't refute the assertion that they are both propaganda.
They are also different in the magnitude of their consequences. Al Gore's movie will likely result in a change in the allocation of hundreds of millions, even billions, of tax dollars. The youtube video is of near-zero consequence.
Al Gore is manipulating the issue of Global Warming in a bid to control the world's energy usage. He may be doing this because he believes it is good for humanity. I will concede that he likely believes what he is saying. However, I strongly disagree with his doomsday conclusions. So do others. Many of them Ph.Ds.
There is abundant scientific debate on the consequences of global warming. I Googled "global warming" (Note: intentionally choosing the pejorative term). The top result is a government link.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/con
It states things like:
"Scientific understanding of these other factors - most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols - remains incomplete."
"...but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time"
"...but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.""
"But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult"
"...research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño."
It is false to assert that scientists agree with Al Gore. I would agree that, in general, they are politically aligned with him and would like their results to match his agenda. He is a power-hungry fear monger, and his video is a destructive piece of propaganda.
Al Gore is not the world's first or most prominent fear monger. In the 19th century it was common knowledge that the world was going to run out of food. Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich "proved" that to be true. Their science was flawed. The world did not run out of food. This does not, of course, prove that Al Gore is wrong. It's just an example of how we are susceptible to those that sell dystopian futures.
>Breathing doesn't produce more CO2...
Thanks. That makes sense.
> Now, I'm not saying necessarily that contrar1an was the one...
I actually wouldn't know how to edit them. I didn't even know they could be edited I assumed there was some approval process. I had no idea wikkipedia was so shaky.
I'll find my supporting data elsewhere in the future.
Well said. I do believe there is objective truth. And there is a difference in degrees between Al Gore's movie and the youtube video. If true, the youtube video has an extra level of slimy to it.
In a way, though, Al Gore's movie is worse. No one would take the youtube video seriously. It's a (bad, sure) joke. That there are thousands of people that see Al Gore's movie as "truth" worries me. It's blatant propaganda. And effective propaganda at that.
> Every piece of information ever published repeatedly by someone with an opinion is "propaganda".
Yep. My favorite statement along these lines is from Diego Rivera: "All art is propaganda." His point is that the _purpose_ of making a statement is to influence others.
I assert that Al Gore's presentation is just as slimy as the youtube video. Maybe he believes it, but that doesn't make it true.
From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)
There is considerable scientific debate [6][7][8][9][10] as to how much human activity contributes to Greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the Greenhouse effect, since at most, mankind contributes only 3% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2. This is important to policy makers, because if global warming is attributed overwhelmingly to non-anthropogenic causes, then people and governments cannot impact global climate through the economically costly restriction of carbon and other gas emissions.[11] Yet, even if all people on earth were eliminated, the total reduction of carbon dioxide, itself a minor Greenhouse gas as compared to natural water vapor, would be at most, 3%.[12]
Please add me to your foes list.
I will take a shot :) I will respond with questions of my own.
1. Where does the CO2 come from? We know our cars produce it. But, in what proportion compared to breathing, forest fires, cows, etc. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) says that CO2 causes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. They also say:
"There is considerable debate ast to how much human activity can be attributed to the Greenhouse effect, since at most, mankind contributes only 3% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2" In other words, the CO2 is rising, but 97% of the rise isn't related to human activity.
2. Where does the CO2 go? We know trees, grass, etc consume it. But, in what proportion to algae, etc. In the end, I wonder what the net loss of CO2 consumption is from deforestation. I couldn't find anything on this one.
3. It isn't realistic that we will stop driving, flying, and using electricity any time soon. What is a reasonable expectation of CO2 emission reduction?
You didn't blame the oil companies, but I've seen it as a common theme in this thread. So, forgive me for adding it to this reply. But, the oil companies aren't to blame (conceding for a moment that blame is to be had). It's us. I drive, I fly, I use electricity. And so do the rest of you. Blaming the oil companies is just a cop out.
> find it peculiar that somebody who seems so concerned with having both sides of the story
... has nothing to gain for reporting their findings
Actually, I assert that almost every view with which we are presented is biased propaganda. Getting one side and ignoring the other is not a path to understanding. I don't know if the MIT professor is conservative (the WSJ arguably is), but his argument provides balance.
> the scientific community
When you see that this statement isn't true, you will understand my position. There is huge money in the study of global warming. Billions and billions of dollars. Scientists that don't produce dire conclusions don't get a part of the money.
These scientists are backed by the Liberals. They have everything to gain: "The sky is falling, and you need to elect us to save you". Global warming could very well cause the disasters they claim. But, their politicizing of it makes lots of people not trust them. I feel cheated. I want to believe the science. But, the politics have muddied this issue such that I can't trust it.
btw, I intentionally chose 'contrarian' as my username (well, someone else had it, so I chose 'contrar1an'). I'm nervous when there is broad agreement. Group think is a very dangerous phenomenon. That many people agree doesn't make truth.
LOL. The definition (from dictionary.com):
Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Al Gore's movie on global warming = propaganda.
"you're still wrong. There is no such equivalence"
Maybe if you say it enough it will be true. That tactic works well for the Liberals.
Gore movie = propaganda
Gore spoof = propaganda
propaganda = propaganda
Are you asserting that the Gore movie is not propaganda? It isn't news. It isn't science. It's a one-sided view of an issue, designed to ellicit an emotional response. Pretty much the definition of propaganda.