It might be interesting to look at Ben barnes, who claims he helped Bush get into the TANG in 1968, as Lt GOV of Texas. The only problem being that Barnes was not sworn in as LT GOV until 1969 -- in May '68, when Bush was sworn into the Guard, Barnes was actually UN Representative to Geneva.
The LA Times and CNN investigated these exact allegations in 1999, and concluded there was nothing to them.
I'm not comparing their "hate filled twisted perspective" to your average Democrat.
I'm comparing them to the DU "democrats" who say things like "Bush is Hitler", "Bush is a chimp," "Bush was AWOL/a deserter", or that Republicans "instantly assume poor people like being poor, that gay people are inherently evil, that rich people are great guys, or that immigrants want to usurp the US and bleed it dry from the inside."
In other words, I'm pointing out that hate-filled bigotry that dehumanizes people who have different opinions is probably a sign that you're not going to get lots of objectivity.
The most obvious tie is that Saddam was funding the PLO, and funding suicide bombers on a retail basis (with, eg,big payments to their families).
As to your other point, how do you know he isn't? Saying "Saddam must go" isn't exclusive to saying "the House of Saud must go."
Of course there are some distinctions: the Saudis weren't violating a cease-fire agreement, starving an ethnic subgroup for political purposes, and hadn't been trying to assassinate an ex-President.
And the 9-11 Commission's Finding: [cnn.com] "No 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and [al Qaeda]"
actually, you're quoting CNN's interpretation of a pre-release working paper. So it's already a noisy channel.
If you follow the same CNN story and it's followups, you'll find Lee Hamilton (a Democrat and co-chair of the commission) saying that there was no conflict between the Commission's findings and what Cheney said.
Actually, this is a very nice example of why you need to get at more than one source, and compare and contrast.
On the other hand, it's run by a former Republican hack who has already made it clear that he was willing to write whatever he thought his market wanted, and is funded by a a guy (Soros) who has said he's do pretty much anything to beat Bush.
Interesting source? You bet.
Unbiased source? Doubtful.
Reliable source? Depends -- how did you feel about Jayson Blair's reliability?
Because that's the statutory language he had to meet; it's a quote from the authorizing legislation. In fact, the whole sentence is quoted from the authorizing legislation, which authorized action against Iraq consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The letter is saying specifically that action is authorized and that Bush doesn't believe it conflicts with other actions against terrorists, including those responsible for 9/11.
In other words, the letter not only doesn't make an association between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it specifically draws a distinction between them.
Gold star for including the context correctly, but ten points off for poor reading comprehension.
That's a good point. You can usually, with a little examination, figure out what a particular source's slant is -- but if they're open about their slant, it's a lot easier.
One quibble about Fox: they're sometimes annoyingly even-handed. For example, their canonical political story is to set up some political point, then bring in two people from utterly divergent places to talk about it. Say, Katrina van den Heuvel and Ann Coulter, or Rich Lowry and Susan Esterich, or a random pair of Republican and Democrat political consultants.
This ends up even but uninformative. Remember that the definition of "information" comes down to unpredictability -- Katrina and Ann, or a couple of political consultants, don't generally provide any surprises, and thus no information.
... except that PIPA's definition of "unbiased" is very much slanted in itself. It makes the definition more or less circular; the PIPA definition of "unbiased" corresponds very closely to the editorial position of NPR, so it vacuously finds NPR "unbiased".
If you read a little more broadly, you can also find people who make strong cases for many of the positions that PIPA seems as lies or misleading.
I stand by my original point -- if you want detailed political information, read lots of different sources, look at what their slants may be, and then think for yourself.
So if you believe in censorship and/or political imposition of reading standards, you can't be reasoned with because your moral compass is broken?
I'm willing to bet that some of the people defending porn and oral sex feel at least equally strongly that you're position is immoral as you do theirs.
C'mon, at least try to think; it only hurts a little. Here, I'll help: if you assume, for a moment, that what I wrote, in context, had some meaning, what would it be?
Might it, for example, mean to suggest that if what you read doesn't occasionally challenge your preconceptions, that you're not actually thinking so much as repeating a bunch of shibboleth's, passwords, catch-phrases, that don't represent thought as much as they represent membership in a sociological in-group?
Let me know if you need any help with the big words and complicated punctuation.
You're right, saying that a couple of witches deserved to die for practicing the Old Way is nuts.
Saying that George HW Bush is a hidden child molester and George W is a closeted gay is also nuts.
But then obsessing about the naughty things FR is saying, as a reply to someone who specifically named FR as being a poor source is, well, it's not very reassuring.
As to the other, I'm just saying that I've been active politically since Nixon and active on the nets since usenet was a wire between Duke CS and Duke Physiology, and I've never gotten even one death threat.
That DU is more likely to help you get good information because they say they'll ban people for ideological reasons, while Free Republic says they'll ban you because it's their damn site and they'll ban whom they please?
If you think that The National Review is "unintelligent" but Andrew Sullivan, Slate, or The New Republic are more "intelligent" or more inherently reliable, then you're not getting it. You're a parrot.
If you think Rich Lowry, George Will, or Jonah Goldberg are more "intelligent" than Andrew Sullivan or TNR, then you're still not getting it. You're still a parrot.
If you read Daily Kos or Free Republic and think either one is particularly accurate, you're not getting it.
When you stop thinking that people on one side are fools and the other side is the only one that has morality or truth on its side, then you'll be getting it.
Don't trust one source. Read right and left publications. Follow up -- the web and Google are your friend. Remember that it's not "information" if it doesn't have a surprise in it -- if you agree with everything you read, you're not learning anything.
Remember what the Buddha said: "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own common sense."
Um. It appears I was hypocaffeinaemic when I wrote this, or it got edited slightly.
The two links go to separate places, and at least when I wrote the article, the second link led to a page that included very large files, including one that advertised 40MB. I downloaded it but didn't pay attention, and it's on my system at home, so I can't check.
I just tried it, and the second link goes to a blacnk page right now, so I suspect it's getting throttled or otherwise/.-ed.
Slashdot Mirror
On Kerry's medals.
Bush AWOL: Case Closed
It might be interesting to look at Ben barnes, who claims he helped Bush get into the TANG in 1968, as Lt GOV of Texas. The only problem being that Barnes was not sworn in as LT GOV until 1969 -- in May '68, when Bush was sworn into the Guard, Barnes was actually UN Representative to Geneva.
The LA Times and CNN investigated these exact allegations in 1999, and concluded there was nothing to them.
He's also a major Kerry contributor and lost his position at Lt Gov in a stock fraud scandal..
The point would be the old one about the mote in your brother's eye and the beam in your own.
A better demonstration of my point could hardly be made.
I'm not comparing their "hate filled twisted perspective" to your average Democrat.
I'm comparing them to the DU "democrats" who say things like "Bush is Hitler", "Bush is a chimp," "Bush was AWOL/a deserter", or that Republicans "instantly assume poor people like being poor, that gay people are inherently evil, that rich people are great guys, or that immigrants want to usurp the US and bleed it dry from the inside."
In other words, I'm pointing out that hate-filled bigotry that dehumanizes people who have different opinions is probably a sign that you're not going to get lots of objectivity.
On either side.
The most obvious tie is that Saddam was funding the PLO, and funding suicide bombers on a retail basis (with, eg,big payments to their families).
As to your other point, how do you know he isn't? Saying "Saddam must go" isn't exclusive to saying "the House of Saud must go."
Of course there are some distinctions: the Saudis weren't violating a cease-fire agreement, starving an ethnic subgroup for political purposes, and hadn't been trying to assassinate an ex-President.
And the 9-11 Commission's Finding: [cnn.com] "No 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and [al Qaeda]"
actually, you're quoting CNN's interpretation of a pre-release working paper. So it's already a noisy channel.
If you follow the same CNN story and it's followups, you'll find Lee Hamilton (a Democrat and co-chair of the commission) saying that there was no conflict between the Commission's findings and what Cheney said.
Actually, this is a very nice example of why you need to get at more than one source, and compare and contrast.
On the other hand, it's run by a former Republican hack who has already made it clear that he was willing to write whatever he thought his market wanted, and is funded by a a guy (Soros) who has said he's do pretty much anything to beat Bush.
Interesting source? You bet.
Unbiased source? Doubtful.
Reliable source? Depends -- how did you feel about Jayson Blair's reliability?
Why would he mention September 11th?
Because that's the statutory language he had to meet; it's a quote from the authorizing legislation. In fact, the whole sentence is quoted from the authorizing legislation, which authorized action against Iraq consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The letter is saying specifically that action is authorized and that Bush doesn't believe it conflicts with other actions against terrorists, including those responsible for 9/11.
In other words, the letter not only doesn't make an association between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it specifically draws a distinction between them.
Gold star for including the context correctly, but ten points off for poor reading comprehension.
That's a good point. You can usually, with a little examination, figure out what a particular source's slant is -- but if they're open about their slant, it's a lot easier.
One quibble about Fox: they're sometimes annoyingly even-handed. For example, their canonical political story is to set up some political point, then bring in two people from utterly divergent places to talk about it. Say, Katrina van den Heuvel and Ann Coulter, or Rich Lowry and Susan Esterich, or a random pair of Republican and Democrat political consultants.
This ends up even but uninformative. Remember that the definition of "information" comes down to unpredictability -- Katrina and Ann, or a couple of political consultants, don't generally provide any surprises, and thus no information.
... except that PIPA's definition of "unbiased" is very much slanted in itself. It makes the definition more or less circular; the PIPA definition of "unbiased" corresponds very closely to the editorial position of NPR, so it vacuously finds NPR "unbiased".
If you read a little more broadly, you can also find people who make strong cases for many of the positions that PIPA seems as lies or misleading.
I stand by my original point -- if you want detailed political information, read lots of different sources, look at what their slants may be, and then think for yourself.
So if you believe in censorship and/or political imposition of reading standards, you can't be reasoned with because your moral compass is broken?
I'm willing to bet that some of the people defending porn and oral sex feel at least equally strongly that you're position is immoral as you do theirs.
Another excellent example of not thinking.
C'mon, at least try to think; it only hurts a little. Here, I'll help: if you assume, for a moment, that what I wrote, in context, had some meaning, what would it be?
Might it, for example, mean to suggest that if what you read doesn't occasionally challenge your preconceptions, that you're not actually thinking so much as repeating a bunch of shibboleth's, passwords, catch-phrases, that don't represent thought as much as they represent membership in a sociological in-group?
Let me know if you need any help with the big words and complicated punctuation.
Rich Lowry writes about baseball.
Or at least about the Yankees.
Sure, DU has its own agenda, but the agenda it's persuing is one of tolerance and acceptance
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
Okay, take a couple of deep breaths.
You're right, saying that a couple of witches deserved to die for practicing the Old Way is nuts.
Saying that George HW Bush is a hidden child molester and George W is a closeted gay is also nuts.
But then obsessing about the naughty things FR is saying, as a reply to someone who specifically named FR as being a poor source is, well, it's not very reassuring.
As to the other, I'm just saying that I've been active politically since Nixon and active on the nets since usenet was a wire between Duke CS and Duke Physiology, and I've never gotten even one death threat.
No, but somehow I manage to say things like that -- even at Republican conventions and such -- without getting death threats.
I'm just suspicious that if you're getting a lot of death threats, you might be a little intemperate in your phrasing.
okay, which of these are you proposing as an argument for either one? Openly untrustworthy? Untrustworthy but not open about it? Fewer death threats?
(Fewer death threats? I never get death threats. Are you sure you're not being a little over-intense, maybe?)
In any case, the point is that neither one is likely to be very helpful in becoming well inormed.
And if you had a point, it would be what?
That DU is more likely to help you get good information because they say they'll ban people for ideological reasons, while Free Republic says they'll ban you because it's their damn site and they'll ban whom they please?
You're not getting it either.
You can have very much the same experience at Kos or Democratic Underground.
In fact, that's probably another rule: if you hear of a number of people being banned for thoughtcrime, er, incorrect opinions, be suspicious.
If you think that The National Review is "unintelligent" but Andrew Sullivan, Slate, or The New Republic are more "intelligent" or more inherently reliable, then you're not getting it. You're a parrot.
If you think Rich Lowry, George Will, or Jonah Goldberg are more "intelligent" than Andrew Sullivan or TNR, then you're still not getting it. You're still a parrot.
If you read Daily Kos or Free Republic and think either one is particularly accurate, you're not getting it.
When you stop thinking that people on one side are fools and the other side is the only one that has morality or truth on its side, then you'll be getting it.
Yes, exactly my point.
If everything you read is on one side of the spectrum, you're not thinking, you're parroting.
Don't trust one source. Read right and left publications. Follow up -- the web and Google are your friend. Remember that it's not "information" if it doesn't have a surprise in it -- if you agree with everything you read, you're not learning anything.
Remember what the Buddha said:
"Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense."
Cool. I never saw that one. Have you got a copy?
Um. It appears I was hypocaffeinaemic when I wrote this, or it got edited slightly.
/.-ed.
The two links go to separate places, and at least when I wrote the article, the second link led to a page that included very large files, including one that advertised 40MB. I downloaded it but didn't pay attention, and it's on my system at home, so I can't check.
I just tried it, and the second link goes to a blacnk page right now, so I suspect it's getting throttled or otherwise