PDA

View Full Version : Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Amir Krause
02-04-2007, 05:35 AM
This thread is based on the discussion I and Neil have started:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167013&postcount=562


The purpose of this thread is to try to examine how much does the news change as it travels around the world. What aren't we told about other places? What does the media forget to tell us, which may change our entire view of situations, etc.

I wish to avoid turning this into a political opinions thread, regarding Israel / Palestine or Republicans / Democrats etc. And keep it on the subject of the media choices what should we hear about in the news. For starters, lets try and stick with factual data rather then the language of the media discussion (a lot could be said about that, but I suggest to keep it for later on).

From that post:
I'm betting dollars to donuts you heard about Jack Abramoff...
Who is that? what happened about him?
The name rings no bells?
You owe dollars to someone of your choice :) though a search has shown some items about the name (in Hebrew)

Neil have you still heard nothing about the Ramon conviction? Here it remained the talk of the day through the weekend. People still argue about it and about the effect it should have over male female relations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/6320359.stm


Please feel free to bring up whatever central local news you have and we will see if it had any echo world wide?

Amir

Lorien Lowe
02-07-2007, 12:46 AM
I heard about a high-level Israeli minister being accused of sexual improrieties, but in the version I heard it was the prime minister, and he had been convicted of rape!

While the real behavior behind the story is unplesant, I'm glad to hear that it wasn't so bad as I thought.

Amir Krause
02-07-2007, 03:08 AM
Well, I think whoever told you this was confused between multiple different issues:

The Israeli president is being accused of multiple "sexual improprieties", including one count of rape and many counts of sexual harassment and using his authority for sexual favors. The office of president in Israeli is only symbolic and has no authority at all, as I have listed somewhere above the link in the first message.

Another Israel (past) minister - Ramon - was just convicted of "sexual improprieties", after he kissed a young female army officer against her wishes. The case is far from clear cut, though the verdict is clear cut, and many feel the court has gone a little too far in this case, some even claim it was a conspiracy since Ramon announced he will perform a revolution in the Judicial system ...

I doubt I could count the number of investigation against the current Israeli prime, but all of them are about monetary issues, mostly about getting payments in circumvent ways (getting payed too much for his apartment when he sold it etc.).

Personally, I am not sure if the situation has gone worse or actually has a turn for better cleaner concept, which forces out all those who try to keep the "old ways" of doing things and find the law enforcement no longer keeps a blind eye...

Amir

MM
02-07-2007, 09:27 AM
The purpose of this thread is to try to examine how much does the news change as it travels around the world. What aren't we told about other places? What does the media forget to tell us, which may change our entire view of situations, etc.


Hello Amir,

Here in the U.S., we're spoon fed politically driven stories that the media chooses to report, even when they're completely wrong. In fact, when they are wrong, the media usually doesn't print corrections. And the real story is usually a completely different picture which would change our view of the situation.

Here's one example:


Sunni residents in a volatile northwest Baghdad neighborhood claimed Friday that revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques

Here's a link to one CBS news article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/23/world/main2207491.shtml

The AP and the Main Stream Media here in the U.S. painted a picture that was not true in an attempt to portray a politically driven message to the people.

Some of the truth:
http://patterico.com/2007/01/21/5714/aps-destroyed-mosques-not-destroyed/

You can't deny video that shows the mosques still standing. Yet there has been no correction to this fabulous story spread by the MSM here in the U.S.

It goes beyond what the media "forgets" to tell us into a whole new world where the media is only telling us what it wants us to hear. There is no more "truth" in news in the U.S.

If you want a liberal spin on things, read the NY Times or watch CNN. If you want a conservative spin, go to the Internet or listen to the radio.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Mark

Neil Mick
02-08-2007, 03:51 AM
This thread is based on the discussion I and Neil have started:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167013&postcount=562


The purpose of this thread is to try to examine how much does the news change as it travels around the world. What aren't we told about other places? What does the media forget to tell us, which may change our entire view of situations, etc.

I wish to avoid turning this into a political opinions thread, regarding Israel / Palestine or Republicans / Democrats etc. And keep it on the subject of the media choices what should we hear about in the news.

See, Amir, here's the problem...the output of the US media cannot be discussed, except within the context of the encroaching monolith of the corporate MSM.

In 1996, Congress pretty much made it impossible for low-band radio outfits to get a license. Since then, the FCC (a committee empowered by Congress to oversee radio/TV giudelines are followed) has tried to open the door for media monopolization of the airwaves, but ppl of all political spectra fought back. Still, the struggle continues.

You can see the effects of such media blindness and corporate monopolization, from the local to the international level. Take the incident in Minot, ND, for example...

EXCLUSIVE... 911 Calls in North Dakota Town Reveal Dangers of Media Consolidation (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207&mode=thread&tid=25)

Five years ago this week, a one-hundred-twelve car train derailed just outside Minot, North Dakota - the state’s fourth largest city. The accident occurred shortly before two in the morning on January 18, 2002. Minutes later, the train’s conductor called the local emergency dispatch.

Minot, North Dakota 911 Dispatch Call.
Two hundred forty thousand gallons of anhydrous ammonia leaked out of the train producing a vapor plume that floated over the town. Limited exposure burns the eyes, the skin, and the lungs. Larger doses can shut down the human respiratory system. The chemical leak in Minot, North Dakota ended up killing one person. Approximately 330 were treated for immediate health problems and more than 1,000 people needed medical care for recurring illnesses in the next month. But questions remain to this day over how the crisis was handled and the role played by media consolidation.

The radio giant Clear Channel owned all six commercial stations in Minot, North Dakota. None of them broke into regular programming to provide emergency information to the city’s residents. After the town’s Emergency Alert System failed, local officials tried to call the stations - but no one answered. The stations continued to play music piped in from out of state.

The sociologist Eric Klinenberg examines this tragedy in the opening of his new book “Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media.” He obtained the 911 tapes from that night. In a moment Eric Klinenberg will join us here live, but first - let's hear some of the phone calls. These recordings have never been aired before.




Who is that? what happened about him?

Jack Abramoff, indicted in the US on several counts of influence peddling and bribery (I believe, not sure of the details). A bigwig who was mixed up in lobbying scams, tied up intimately with quite a few Republicans. Apparently tied to Israeli interests (unethically used $ designated for US innercity kids, actually went for "security equipment," for settlers).


You owe dollars to someone of your choice :) though a search has shown some items about the name (in Hebrew)

:D Apparently, I do! ;)

Neil have you still heard nothing about the Ramon conviction? Here it remained the talk of the day through the weekend. People still argue about it and about the effect it should have over male female relations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/6320359.stm


Please feel free to bring up whatever central local news you have and we will see if it had any echo world wide?

Amir

Interesting. No, I haven't heard of it. As I said, the news we get in the US is muffled, and filtered.

When it comes to info re the Occupied Territories, it is HEAVILY filtered.

Amir, what do you think of this...? http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/streamsArchive/index.php4

I like how it protrays the multilayered perspectives, within the ME.

Neil Mick
02-08-2007, 03:52 AM
Hello Amir,

Here in the U.S., we're spoon fed politically driven stories

Correction…we're spoon-fed economically driven stories. Sometimes, the economics masquerades as a political agenda, but never forget that the MSM are a collection of corporations, and corporations, first and foremost, want to make money.

And so, the MSM focus upon media that attracts the viewer's attention, over widening the viewer's perspective. Infotainment.

that the media chooses to report, even when they're completely wrong. In fact, when they are wrong, the media usually doesn't print corrections.

Correct. And, the retractions are often crammed at the bottom.

real story is usually a completely different picture which would change our view of the situation.

Yep.

Here's one example:

Here's a link to one CBS news article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/23/world/main2207491.shtml

The AP and the Main Stream Media here in the U.S. painted a picture that was not true in an attempt to portray a politically driven message to the people.

Some of the truth:
http://patterico.com/2007/01/21/5714/aps-destroyed-mosques-not-destroyed/

You can't deny video that shows the mosques still standing. Yet there has been no correction to this fabulous story spread by the MSM here in the U.S.

You forget an important detail. Michelle Malkin issued a challenge that Jamil Hussein did not exist. She said that she was off to Baghdad to interview him.

Of course, the Iraqi Minister of the Interior not only confimed that Hussein actually exists, but that he could be jailed for talking to the AP. Malkin issued a terse 4-word retraction on her website.

But then, of course, this isn't enough. The rightwingblogosphere (RWBoS) kept digging, and found out that (at least) portions of the story are bogus, exaggerated, or misreported (it is unclear, which).

Instead of decrying the slipping of journalistic ethics (Hussein is an alias, and this violates AP's ethical standards, to quote a person under a pseudonym), the RWBoS keeps trying to make this out to be some sort of attempt by AP, et al, to help the insurgency, by making the Occupation look so bad.

Let's be clear, here (and, I hope that we don't take up too much of this thread's time, with the subject): there simply IS no "Liberal Media Bias" within the MSM. There's plenty of data out there to support this.

It goes beyond what the media "forgets" to tell us into a whole new world where the media is only telling us what it wants us to hear. There is no more "truth" in news in the U.S.

Well...there IS some truth: but it is getting increasingly sketchy.

Every year, Project Censored gives note to the 25 stories of that year that should have made it to the media.

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006 (http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm)

Certainly, the fact that these stories never make it to the attention of the MSM gives proof to the lie of "Liberal media bias."

If you want a liberal spin on things, read the NY Times or watch CNN. If you want a conservative spin, go to the Internet or listen to the radio.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Mark

Stop, please. Remember Judith Miller? Somehow, I don't remember her being a big antiwar critic. In fact, I believe that it was the NYT (and CNN) who paraded a nonstop hit parade of pro-military pundits pom-pom'ing the war in its early-days.

Funny how the "Mission Accomplished" signs aren't waving, anymore.

Neil Mick
02-08-2007, 04:05 AM
And finally, there's the simple fact of how dangerous it is, for the media to do its job in certain areas of the world.

In Iraq, for instance, it is impossible for a Western journalist to get an accurate, firsthand picture of the "situation on the ground." Even the Iraqi journalists are under increased threat (both from the insurgents, and from a few detained, by the military).

This video gives an inciteful overview of the frustrations facing Western journalists, and Iraq (WARNING! video contains upsetting material, and should only be viewed by a mature audience).

Iraq: The Hidden War (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13420.htm)

Neil Mick
02-09-2007, 02:06 PM
*Bump*

Hey, this is a good topic: the media affects us all. No comment?

Amir Krause
02-11-2007, 05:01 AM
I think the basic problem is quite simple, we can not filter the news from all over the world ourselves. There are a lot of others who do this for us (one simple example - news in Israel are in Hebrew, someone has to decide on the content to be translated, I have often found a very insightful article in Hebrew that was not translated to English, same goes for many others languages).

The modern media is commercially biased. At best, this only means they try and decide on the content that would interest ost people. At worst, they have some other economical interests (advertisement for example) that affect their intentions.

Further, many of the people in the media are not the best in the fields they cover. No one would expect a Nobel prize winning economist to write a weekly news papers column, or a genius in physics to write the scientific column. The same holds for all other regions, the writers are often just as qualified as the reader, yet we have the wrong impression they know what they write about.

Finally there are the personal views of those selecting the news for us. They can edit and promote some topics instead of others. This can pertain to any issue with differing view, from Global warming to local politics and international conflicts.


Amir

Neil Mick
02-11-2007, 06:50 PM
I think the basic problem is quite simple, we can not filter the news from all over the world ourselves. There are a lot of others who do this for us (one simple example - news in Israel are in Hebrew, someone has to decide on the content to be translated, I have often found a very insightful article in Hebrew that was not translated to English, same goes for many others languages).

Absolutely. I notice how the quality of media content in the English language is declining rather rapidly, just within the past 10 years.

It used to be that the NYT was the flagaship of Western journalism. Now, it's occasionally the laughingstock, of it.

The modern media is commercially biased. At best, this only means they try and decide on the content that would interest ost people. At worst, they have some other economical interests (advertisement for example) that affect their intentions.

Further, many of the people in the media are not the best in the fields they cover. No one would expect a Nobel prize winning economist to write a weekly news papers column, or a genius in physics to write the scientific column. The same holds for all other regions, the writers are often just as qualified as the reader, yet we have the wrong impression they know what they write about.

Finally there are the personal views of those selecting the news for us. They can edit and promote some topics instead of others. This can pertain to any issue with differing view, from Global warming to local politics and international conflicts.


Amir

Lol, very well put. All true. I think we could put this post under the thread "We can all agree..." :cool:

MM
02-14-2007, 02:13 PM
You forget an important detail. Michelle Malkin issued a challenge that Jamil Hussein did not exist. She said that she was off to Baghdad to interview him.


No, I didn't. You're trying to sideline the issue. My point was about the AP story and the lies it told. Those lies have yet been corrected. Later AP stories even contradict the earlier one.



Let's be clear, here (and, I hope that we don't take up too much of this thread's time, with the subject): there simply IS no "Liberal Media Bias" within the MSM. There's plenty of data out there to support this.


ROTFL. Okay, I'll call. Show me the "plenty of data out there". I'd like to see it all.

Mark

Neil Mick
02-14-2007, 03:16 PM
No, I didn't. You're trying to sideline the issue. My point was about the AP story and the lies it told. Those lies have yet been corrected. Later AP stories even contradict the earlier one.

Wrong. I am trying to bring the issue into perspective. The RWBoS were practically wetting their collective, virtual pants about "Jamilgate."

When a person makes an accusation and then is proven wrong, that's important to the issue. Michelle Malkin made an accusation, was proven wrong, and decided to make some case about collusion btw the AP and supporting terrorists.

If you want to go on telling 1/2 the story: be my guest. But please--don't try to pretend that you're telling it honestly; or completely.

ROTFL. Okay, I'll call. Show me the "plenty of data out there". I'd like to see it all.

Mark

"All" of it would take several books, to fill (including the sham arguments, against).

This is a good start:

New Study Reveals Public TV Bias
And debunks conservative myths (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2560)

Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2971)

"the Liberal Media" — A Poltergeist That Will Not Die (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2177)

In interviews on major networks, Goldberg has emphasized his book's charge that American media outlets are typically in step with the biased practices he noticed at CBS News — where "we pointedly identified conservatives as conservatives, for example, but for some crazy reason didn't bother to identify liberals as liberals."

But do facts support Goldberg's undocumented generalization? To find out, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg searched a database of 30 large daily newspapers in the United States. He disclosed the results in an analysis that aired March 19 on the national radio program "Fresh Air."

Nunberg discovered "a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives — but not in the direction that Goldberg claims." Actually, the data showed, "the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does."

When Nunberg narrowed his search to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times — three dailies "routinely accused of having a liberal bias" — he learned that "in those papers, too, liberals get partisan labels 30 percent more often than conservatives do, the same proportion as in the press at large."

Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim
Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447)

Executive Summary

The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.

The findings include:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

Media Matters applies Bozellian logic: Since GOP readers outnumber Dems, online newspapers must be conservative (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608030006)

Summary: L. Brent Bozell III used data from a new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to suggest that programs such as PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Comedy Central's The Daily Show "can be identified as liberal since they are so passionately embraced by the Left." By that logic, online newspapers must be conservative, since the study found that Republican readers outnumber Democrats.

If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative (http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040001)

Summary: Following up on Media Matters' in-depth study showing that Republican and conservative guests outnumbered Democratic and progressive guests on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press over a nine-year period, an examination of the guest lists for those programs during the first three months of 2006 showed that Republican and conservative dominance continued unabated.

"LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" STUDY MADE ITS POINT - BY BEING DEEPLY FLAWED (http://www.albionmonitor.com/0602a/uclaliberalmediabias.html)

Previous Labeling Studies and Recent Examples (http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2002/stud20020625.asp)

MM
02-14-2007, 04:59 PM
Wrong. I am trying to bring the issue into perspective. The RWBoS were practically wetting their collective, virtual pants about "Jamilgate."

When a person makes an accusation and then is proven wrong, that's important to the issue. Michelle Malkin made an accusation, was proven wrong, and decided to make some case about collusion btw the AP and supporting terrorists.

If you want to go on telling 1/2 the story: be my guest. But please--don't try to pretend that you're telling it honestly; or completely.


The whole story? Well, let's see. AP, NYT, et. al. posted a story that was full of lies. No retraction, no correction. MM and the RWBoS caught them. According to you, MM posted that she erred in one part. AP, NYT, et. al. have yet to correct their lies. Now that's the whole story. Don't try painting a nice picture for the AP because they have yet to do what MM did. Not only that, but AP, NYT, et. al. have repeatedly used stories about the incident that contradicts other stories, yet none of them have printed retractions or corrections. That's the truth. Usage of terms like "practically wetting their collective, virtual pants" is merely a sidelining tactic that shows gaps in logistical analysis.

THE LIE: AP reported four mosques destroyed.
TRUTH: No mosques were destroyed.

Any sidelining of the above is just being a puppet for the MSM. The AP, NYT, et. al. are media and news outlets. Bloggers are supposedly not in their class. The former is supposedly professional and the latter is not.

And just to add further insult, there is zero evidence for anything else the AP reported in those stories.

You want to talk about honesty, you should be hammering the AP. Those stories had no truth to them and they still haven't issued a correction or an apology.

Nah, you won't though. You'll go on blaming MM or the RWGoS to uphold the AP and MSM. You'll call it bringing it into perspective just to hide the lies of the MSM.

Too off topic for me ... I'm done.

Mark

Neil Mick
02-15-2007, 12:54 AM
Too off topic for me ... I'm done.

Mark

Translation: I will go on believing what I want. Run awaaaay!!!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-032.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-032.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-032.gif

Croft Stanfield
02-16-2007, 10:44 AM
Yes, the all aspects of the media are generally slanted to control people's actions and conceal much knowledge and wisdom that could be more beneficial. That is why humanity should know that there are fundamental laws governing life, human mind and the movement of time. World conditions are worsening because of lack of knowledge of that and many other factors. That is why it is important to carefully analyze and think logically in all respects.

Neil Mick
02-16-2007, 05:53 PM
Yes, the all aspects of the media are generally slanted to control people's actions and conceal much knowledge and wisdom that could be more beneficial.

You lost me, Croft (unless, you are trying to be sardonic).

However, there's an old axiom among progressives..."The mainstream media is the propaganda of the status quo." This observation fits in well...and somewhat explains...the corporate, profit-driven motives of the MSM.

Corporations, first and foremost, seek profit. This is no different with the big media conglomerates. When a big corporation takes over a smaller outlet, the first thing that the corporation usually does is institute mass-firings and dismissals of whole sections.

Foreign news is often hardest hit. It's very expensive to keep a whole foreign news bureau going: far more cost-conscious to consolidate, at the risk of good journalism. Over a short time, we get slick, gloss infotainment, substituted for good watchdog journalism.

That is why humanity should know that there are fundamental laws governing life, human mind and the movement of time. World conditions are worsening because of lack of knowledge of that and many other factors. That is why it is important to carefully analyze and think logically in all respects.

"Humanity" has less to do with it, than corporate greed.

Oh yeah, and one more thing...

You want to talk about honesty, you should be hammering the AP. Those stories had no truth to them and they still haven't issued a correction or an apology.

Mucho bombast, doth not a careful reading, substitute.

Instead of decrying the slipping of journalistic ethics (Hussein is an alias, and this violates AP's ethical standards, to quote a person under a pseudonym), the RWBoS keeps trying to make this out to be some sort of attempt by AP, et al, to help the insurgency, by making the Occupation look so bad.

So, actually, I am ADVOCATING further investigation, and a toughening-up of AP standards. But then you go on and attempt to put words in my mouth...

Nah, you won't though. You'll go on blaming MM or the RWGoS to uphold the AP and MSM. You'll call it bringing it into perspective just to hide the lies of the MSM.

Wrong. I want MM and the RWBoS to KEEP hounding the AP: but STOP mislabelling it as some sort of "Lib'ral media bias."

But, a considered reading of a post has to take a backseat to shrill bombast and mislabels, right Mark? Oh, that's right...you're "done..." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
02-16-2007, 09:36 PM
You lost me, Croft (unless, you are trying to be sardonic).

However, there's an old axiom among progressives..."The mainstream media is the propaganda of the status quo." This observation fits in well...and somewhat explains...the corporate, profit-driven motives of the MSM. It's NOT an "old axiom", it's a trendy excuse of "why the MSM just can't be liberal". Problem is that every survey and analysis in the last five years has said definitively that the MSM is certainly liberally biased. Oh... and gee, anyony who has been to a college with a School of Journalism knows it's obvious that almost all journalists and journalist schools are decidedly Left-wing. As one commentator pointed out.... "notice how the results of those surveys and analyses are not even mentioned by the MSM?" Just one more datum that the MSM doesn't want to report.

It's sort of like someone we know who only posts articles that will support his own extreme biases. Sort of an innate dishonesty.


Mike

Neil Mick
02-17-2007, 02:08 AM
Problem is that every survey and analysis in the last five years has said definitively that the MSM is certainly liberally biased.



Nonsense. I won't even bother to ask you for sources.

Oh... and gee, anyony who has been to a college with a School of Journalism knows it's obvious that almost all journalists and journalist schools are decidedly Left-wing.

Ah, yes...the Mike Sigman "scientific method," revealed!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



It's sort of like someone we know who only posts articles that will support his own extreme biases. Sort of an innate dishonesty.


Mike

Funny, Mike: but you seem to end a lot of posts as if you're talking about yourself. Is this why you post self-contradictory sources? Gad, what two sides war within the one known as mike sigman?? :freaky:

Oh never mind...I really don't want to know... :p

Amir Krause
02-18-2007, 04:52 AM
News flesh - the MSM is not liberal
Second news flesh - the MSM is not conservative either

You can not generalize over so many self-interested people and groups into a single category.

Each organization works based on it's own economic interest and/or the interests of those involved.

Retraction diminishes the credibility of a news agency, it is therefore bound to be given way less publicity then the sensation being retracted. This has always been true, regardless of the facts of the particular case.

Do not be Naive and think everyone is ideologist. A few people in positions of import might actually have some political biased view, but others have other biases. The readers opinions often matter just as strongly as the reporters ...


Amir

Mike Sigman
02-18-2007, 09:59 AM
News flesh - the MSM is not liberal
Second news flesh - the MSM is not conservative either

You can not generalize over so many self-interested people and groups into a single category.Well, my opinion of your judgement just declined, Amir. Of course the MSM is liberally oriented. Journalism is liberally oriented. Many journalists, even liberals, openly concede that the MSM is liberally biased... they're at least honest.

Notice, for instance, how crimes against Americans by foreigners, illegal aliens, etc., are seldom reported. The term "illegal alien" is avoided because it's not politically correct. Most people in our prison systems would vote or would prefer to vote Democrat. Minority crime rates, etc., are not reported fairly. Ethical lapses, misstatements, etc., by Democrats make very little news in the MSM, while a Republican who says something barely questionable will get weeks of coverage. A study of the top 3 *broadcast* (not cable) networks during the last election showed that ABC, NBC, and CBS coverage of the election heavily slanted in favor toward the Democrats.

The BBC.... I recently posted an article URL where members of the BBC admitted that the BBC is liberally biased.

It's very simple to judge bias, Amir. Most of us learned how in about the 7th grade. You read an article and separate out the adjectives and who they apply to; you look at what current news items are not reported, and so on.

I watched an interview with a prominent journalism teacher from Columbia University who, when read a list of things that the New York Times had published, simply said, "The Constitution calls for a free press, not an honest one". That's the cynicism of liberals. Their beliefs are as much a religion as the beliefs of fundamentalist religious zealots. Notice the instant cries of "racism" recently... anything that goes against the socialist belief that "everyone is equal and we shouldn't be judgemental except against the US and the Jews" is heretical.

In other words, the "socialism" that was so trendy in the 20's and 30's (of the last century) carried forward all the way to the present.... college-educated journalists force that view on the world with the same zeal the self-righteousness that the Religious Right would have if they were in power. It's about forcing others to accept your views, Amir... even if you have to lie to make people believe in how morally correct you are. ;) A great example was Walter Durante of the New York Times who refused to report that 6 million people in the Ukraine died of starvation while he was there... he felt that socialism was so correct that those 6 million people shouldn't be mentioned in case it smeared the good name of socialism.

Mike

Neil Mick
02-18-2007, 12:30 PM
News flesh - the MSM is not liberal
Second news flesh - the MSM is not conservative either

Exactly. It's a corporate enterprise: which means that money comes first...ideology (even for outfits like FoxNews) second.


The readers opinions often matter just as strongly as the reporters ...


Amir

Possibly, even moreso.

Mike Sigman
02-18-2007, 01:10 PM
A good example is this "report" that just came out from UNICEF that the US and UK rank lowest in taking care and bringing up their children, among the industrialized nations. Sounds astounding. In fact, it's just as astounding that one-fourth of all UN resolutions are against Israel and the just as astounding that the UN is notably anti-US.

Take infant mortality. The US reports all infant mortality figures, including deaths of premature infants, infants we try to save that other countries pronounce dead and don't even try to save, etc. So actually infant care in the US is far higher than in all the other industrialized countries that have "diverse" populations (remember some 'cultures' within the US are not great child-rearers... that's not the US's fault).

OK, so the point is..... do a Google search right now and see how many MSM outlets have done an expose on the infant-mortality figures, etc., and how many have simply reported the UNICEF (that our "Oil for Food" guys and the panel includes North Korea and other America haters) report as is. If it had been a report by Bush, it would have been analysed and shown to yield proof that Bush is a criminal. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
02-18-2007, 02:18 PM
Journalism is liberally oriented.

Still waiting for all of those huge reams of

survey and analysis in the last five years has said definitively that the MSM is certainly liberally biased.

I suppose that we'll just have to consider these specious claims in the same light as calling me an anti-Semite, "prooving" that Joe Wilson lied, etc, ad nauseum.

Many journalists, even liberals, openly concede that the MSM is liberally biased... they're at least honest.

The BBC.... I recently posted an article URL where members of the BBC admitted that the BBC is liberally biased.

What ppl think of themselves (or what they SAY of themselves) is a very different animal from what they actually are.


Notice, for instance, how crimes against Americans by foreigners, illegal aliens, etc., are seldom reported. The term "illegal alien" is avoided because it's not politically correct.

A study of the top 3 *broadcast* (not cable) networks during the last election showed that ABC, NBC, and CBS coverage of the election heavily slanted in favor toward the Democrats.

Notice, for instance, how Mike just happens to omit any link to any such study, so that we cannot judge its criteria for measurement. Who needs sources, when you can jaw on, infinitum, about moons made of green cheese and the prosaic biases of journalism?

Most people in our prison systems would vote or would prefer to vote Democrat.

Another example of speculative nonsense. You cannot possibly know this, for sure. Besides, what's the relevance? Perhaps you're suggesting that journalists underreport crimes by "illegals" so that they might get lighter sentences and be out on the streets, voting Democrat with abandon and mayhem?? :crazy: :freaky:

Ethical lapses, misstatements, etc., by Democrats make very little news in the MSM,

This is silly, on its face. Remember the "slip" of a joke Kerry made about the troops? Or the Dean "victory-yell?"

Have you got ANYTHING to confirm this little piece of fiction?

It's very simple to judge bias, Amir. Most of us learned how in about the 7th grade. You read an article and separate out the adjectives and who they apply to; you look at what current news items are not reported, and so on.

Yes, and its a shame you don't try it.

I watched an

unidentified

interview with

an anonymous

journalism teacher from Columbia University who, when read a list of things that the New York Times had published, simply said, "The Constitution calls for a free press, not an honest one".

Their beliefs are as much a religion as the beliefs of fundamentalist religious zealots.

Number of journalists that Mike has probably actually talked to, personally, about media bias: 0

Notice the instant cries of "racism" recently...

in response, to your recent spate of racist postings.

anything that goes against the socialist belief that "everyone is equal and we shouldn't be judgemental except against the US and the Jews" is heretical.

In other words, the "socialism" that was so trendy in the 20's and 30's (of the last century) carried forward all the way to the present.... college-educated journalists force that view on the world with the same zeal the self-righteousness that the Religious Right would have if they were in power.

You haven't visited many Schools of Journalism of late, have you? If you had, you'd have noticed an increasing (and disturbing) pattern of the meshing of Journalism and Public Relations departments, together. The NYT, et al, is increasingly becoming inseparable from Madison Avenue...NOT the Communist Manifesto. :rolleyes:

It's about forcing others to accept your views, Amir... even if you have to lie to make people believe in how morally correct you are. ;)

A technique of which you are intimately familiar, no doubt.

A great example was Walter Durante of the New York Times who refused to report that 6 million people in the Ukraine died of starvation while he was there... he felt that socialism was so correct that those 6 million people shouldn't be mentioned in case it smeared the good name of socialism.

Mike

Ah yes, when the grandiose statements about "piles and reams" of (unlinked and undocumented) studies fall away: we're left with the usual anecdotes, of course proving nothing.

And here's where your thesis falls dead, and the flaw exposed.

See Mike...you assume here that Durante "felt that socialism was correct." But, from what I can tell, NO ONE HAS REALLY DOCUMENTED, WHY DURANTE failed to report the famine.

Certainly, he didn't...but it could well have been sloppy journalism (which he'd been guilty of, before '32 and since); it could also have been an attempt to curry favor with the Soviet regime.

NPR did a pretty good segment on it, back in '03:

Talk of the Nation: 1932 Pulitzer Prize (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295644)

Yes...it could EVEN have been an attempt to bury the story, because he "felt that socialism was correct." But, you have no proof of this.

All you really have, is an example of a journalist, not doing his job. But of course, you try to spin incompetence, into bias.

I can easily point to similar case that blows your contention out of the water. In 1945, Walter Laurence, ANOTHER NYT journalist who won a pulitzer, extolled the "wonders" of the atomic bomb, having never even seen the aftermath of Hiroshima, and all while in the pay of the US gov't.

Hiroshima Cover-Up (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/1548241&mode=thread&tid=25)

In the spring of 1945, a remarkable meeting took place secretly at the headquarters of The New York Times in Times Square in New York City. General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project, which was the name of the program that was developing atomic bombs for the U.S. military, came to Times Square to The New York Times and met secretly with Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, the Editor-in-Chief of The New York Times, and William Laurence. At that meeting, he asked Laurence if he would become a paid publicist, essentially, for the Manhattan Project. So, while simultaneously working as a newspaper reporter for The New York Times, he would also be writing essentially propaganda for the War Department.

(No doubt, he only took the position because he thought he could slip in some pro-Soviet coded manifesto's, in between the lines of his propaganda, for the US gov't :rolleyes: )

Officially he was asked to put in layman's terms the benefits of atomic weapons and the development of atomic power. Other New York Times reporters were unaware of this arrangement, this dual arrangement where he was being paid by both the government and the newspaper and, in fact, were somewhat mystified when Laurence began taking long leaves of absence.

Well, the government's investment in Laurence paid off in spades because he was rewarded for his loyalty. He was also writing -- ended up writing statements for Secretary of War Stimson and for President Truman himself. He was rewarded by being given a seat in the squadron of planes that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. I'll read to you a little excerpt of Laurence's dispatch. In general, his writing -- well, these days journalists would call it purple prose, but it was often imbued with these messianic themes about the potential and power of atomic weapons.

Now, Laurence went on to write a series of ten articles about the development of the atomic bomb. This is -- this and his reporting about the Nagasaki bombing won him the 1946 Pulitzer Prize in reporting. He seems to have been completely unashamed and unrepentant of what was clearly an egregious conflict of interest by any of the most basic canons of journalism ethics. Laurence later wrote in his memoirs about his experience as a paid publicist for the War Department. He wrote, quote, "Mine has been the honor, unique in the history of journalism, of preparing the War Department's official press release for worldwide distribution. No greater honor could have come to any newspaperman, or anyone else for that matter."

So, Mike: where's the "leftwing media bias" evident, in Laurence's actions? Notice? I am not attempting to force some questionable idealist motivations upon Laurence (as you seem to do, for Durante). Laurence makes clear his motivations in his memoirs, anyway, and unless you have some secret memoir of Durante's tucked away, all you have is speculation, as to his motives and biases. You've presented a pretty poor case for MSM "lib'ral bias (no surprise)," indeed, filled as it is with anecdote, speculation and a telling lack of sources.

Mike Sigman
02-18-2007, 02:44 PM
Think about it a second, Neil. You have a reputation for taking the extreme "make America look bad, hurray for socialist liberals" position.... the very fact that you're in vehement denial about liberal bias in the MSM is enough to convince everyone that it's true. Er, for the few who don't already realize it.

Just as an example that really got my attention, I found an article regarding the press coverage by the MSM of the Swift Boat Veterans' coverage. Now the interesting thing with that coverage was that many in the MSM were embarrassed into making excuses about why they tried to kill that story by not covering it and it was the start of the current anger by the MSM against "bloggers" who spill the beans but who "don't have proper journalism credentials" (like the fact that they got caught gatekeeping the truth is not embarrassment enough for "proper journalists"):

All the while, traditional print and broadcast media tried hard to ignore the story--even as Kerry officially changed his position on his presence in Cambodia. Then on August 19, Kerry went public with his counter assault against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and suddenly the story was news. The numbers are fairly striking: Before August 19, the New York Times and Washington Post had each mentioned Swift Boat Veterans for Truth just 8 times; the Los Angeles Times 7 times; the Boston Globe 4 times. The broadcast networks did far less. According to the indefatigable Media Research Center, before Kerry went public, ABC, CBS, and NBC together had done a total of 9 stories on the Swifties. For comparison, as of August 19 these networks had done 75 stories on the accusation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.

After Kerry, the deluge. On August 24, the Washington Post ran three op-eds and an editorial on the Swifties; other papers expanded their coverage as well. But, curiously, they didn't try to play catch-up with the new media in ascertaining the veracity of the Swifties' claims. Instead, they pursued (or rather, repeated) the charge Kerry made: that Bush was behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was a touch surreal--as it would have been if Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe's criticism of Bush's National Guard record had prompted the media to investigate Terry McAuliffe.

But even here, it seemed their hearts weren't in it. In Time magazine, Joe Klein called the whole affair "incendiary nonsense." As the Los Angeles Times observed in an editorial, "Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question." As last week wore on, the coverage continued to ignore the specifics of the allegations against Kerry and began to concentrate on the dangers of the new media. In the New York Times, Alessandra Stanley warned that in the seedy world of cable news, "facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer--without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection." It is perhaps impolite to note that it took the Times nearly four months to catch up with the reporting Carl Cameron did in the beginning of May.

STILL, the baying of the Times and the rest of the old media is a sign of capitulation. Against their will, the best-funded and most prestigious journalists in America have been forced to cover a story they want no part of--or at the very least, they've been compelled to explain why they aren't covering it. How did this happen? Analyzing how the Swift boat veterans had injected their story into the mainstream media, Adam Nagourney blamed summer. The Swift boat ad buys, he wrote, had "become the subject of television news shows . . . because the advertisements and [Unfit for Command] were released in August, a slow month when news outlets are hungry for any kind of news."

But Nagourney has it exactly backwards: Even though it was August, network television and most cable news shows stayed away from the Swift boat story for as long as they possibly could.

Instead, James O'Shea is right. An informal network--the new media--has arisen that has the power to push stories into the old media. The combination of talk radio, a publishing house, blogs, and Fox News has given conservatives a voice independent of the old media.

It's unclear which of these was most critical for bringing the Swift boat story out into the open. Without Unfit for Command, the story would never have had a focal point with readily checkable facts. Talk radio kept the story alive on a daily basis. The blogs served as fact-checkers vetting the story, at least some aspects of it, for credibility and chewing it over enough so that producers and editors who read the blogs could approach it without worrying they were being snookered by black-helicopter nuts. Despite all that, however, no other medium has the reach of television, which is still the only way to move a story from a relatively small audience of news-obsessives to the general public.

Oh... and don't forget the extreme embarrassment and humiliation to Dan "Rathergate" Rather when they got caught submitting.... just before the election... a false story that was supposed to sway the voters.

Got any instances of MSM media bias to the Right, Neil? And of course, to you, you may think I mean "any media not liberal must be Rightist", but I don't. I don't like either extreme... I happen to like the truth.


Mike

Neil Mick
02-18-2007, 04:05 PM
Think about it a second, Neil. You have a reputation for taking the extreme "make America look bad, hurray for socialist liberals" position....

Correction: In your continual effort to censor this site, you attempt to paint me as some sort of anti-American.

And, socialism is a part of the fabric of this country. You can thank the socialists for the 40-hour work week, retirement benefits, and unions...none of which would exist, without the socialists pushing these reforms, in the early party of the 20th C.

the very fact that you're in vehement denial about liberal bias in the MSM is enough to convince everyone that it's true. Er, for the few who don't already realize it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Talk about recursive tautological fallacies!
"Neil argues against it: therefore, Liberal media bias MUST exist, by definition!" :D :D Too funny. You really should do a pseudo-political comedy-act, Mike...you're missing your calling.

Just as an example that really got my attention, I found an article regarding the press coverage by the MSM of the Swift Boat Veterans' coverage.

(notice how Mike conveniently skips over my last post, and all its implications).

Now the interesting thing with that coverage was that many in the MSM were embarrassed into making excuses about why they tried to kill that story by not covering it

Proof, that they "tried to kill" the story...?

Nah, didn't think so...

and it was the start of the current anger by the MSM against "bloggers" who spill the beans but who "don't have proper journalism credentials" (like the fact that they got caught gatekeeping the truth is not embarrassment enough for "proper journalists"):

All the while, traditional print and broadcast media tried hard to ignore the story--even as Kerry officially changed his position on his presence in Cambodia. Then on August 19, Kerry went public with his counter assault against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and suddenly the story was news.

Newsflash, Mike: this is what we in the journalist-watchdog biz, call "politics." Until Kerry answered the charge: it was all just sleezy namecalling. The whole "swiftboat" story was a Rove-inspired hit on Kerry. You can see the pattern in the piled corpses of political careers and lives destroyed by the Rove-Bush duo. Remember John McCain and the allegations that he had an AA child, out of wedlock?

The numbers are fairly striking: Before August 19, the New York Times and Washington Post had each mentioned Swift Boat Veterans for Truth just 8 times; the Los Angeles Times 7 times; the Boston Globe 4 times. The broadcast networks did far less. According to the indefatigable Media Research Center, before Kerry went public, ABC, CBS, and NBC together had done a total of 9 stories on the Swifties. For comparison, as of August 19 these networks had done 75 stories on the accusation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.

After Kerry, the deluge. On August 24, the Washington Post ran three op-eds and an editorial on the Swifties; other papers expanded their coverage as well. But, curiously, they didn't try to play catch-up with the new media in ascertaining the veracity of the Swifties' claims. Instead, they pursued (or rather, repeated) the charge Kerry made: that Bush was behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was a touch surreal--as it would have been if Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe's criticism of Bush's National Guard record had prompted the media to investigate Terry McAuliffe.

But even here, it seemed their hearts weren't in it. In Time magazine, Joe Klein called the whole affair "incendiary nonsense."

That's because it WAS incendiary nonsense.

As the Los Angeles Times observed in an editorial, "Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question." As last week wore on, the coverage continued to ignore the specifics of the allegations against Kerry and began to concentrate on the dangers of the new media.

Reality-check for Mr. Sigman!

Vietnam War: 1963-1975

Bush-Kerry race for Presidentcy: 2004

Yeah, that "new media..." all "dangerous" and everything, for bringing up a 40-year-old topic that America MUST know, in the midst of an election-year.

It didn't seem very important in 1970-2002...but NOW! the MSM is CLEARLY censoring the news, because they wish for Kerry to win.

I suppose that the MSM was being "Liberally biased," when they called the election early for Bush, in 2000. No doubt the MSM wanted Bush to be elected, so that they could laugh so hard at his policies, that Kerry would be a shoe-in, in 2004.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

The combination of talk radio, a publishing house, blogs, and Fox News has given conservatives a voice independent of the old media.

Nah...what these oufits want is control of the old media.

lear which of these was most critical for bringing the Swift boat story out into the open. Without Unfit for Command, the story would never have had a focal point with readily checkable facts. Talk radio kept the story alive on a daily basis. The blogs served as fact-checkers vetting the story, at least some aspects of it, for credibility and chewing it over enough so that producers and editors who read the blogs could approach it without worrying they were being snookered by black-helicopter nuts. Despite all that, however, no other medium has the reach of television, which is still the only way to move a story from a relatively small audience of news-obsessives to the general public.

Too funny, Mike. Really, consider comedy. All this diversion over a story that his gone on, largely unproven.

Swiftboating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboat#_note-0)

The name comes from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization's negative portrayal of 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry's military service in Vietnam and subsequent antiwar activities. Although many of the charges were unverifiable or subsequently disproven, they were disseminated widely[3] leading to swiftboating's reputation as a controversial but effective form of "smear campaign".[4]

So, once again, Mike tries to paint some fantastical conspiracy onto the MSM, based this time on their understandable reticence to give full and immediate coverage to a transparent smear campaign.

I mean, even a 9-year-old could figure out that the Swiftboat nonsense was political axe-grinding. Unless, of course: you're someone who ALREADY has their political hatchett well-honed (*looking significantly at Sigman...*)

oh... and don't forget the extreme embarrassment and humiliation to Dan "Rathergate" Rather when they got caught submitting.... just before the election... a false story that was supposed to sway the voters.

Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Sorry, but you try yet again to print a lie and pass it off as some sort of "proof."

The REAL story is that the documents that CBS presented for the story could not be authenticated. Nice attempt at spin, Mike.

The real story is right here:

The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved an unknown number of documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard. The documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS and were subsequently characterized as likely forgeries by a number of expert forensic document examiners (see: Killian documents authenticity issues).

The documents had been obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard (TexARNG). In the report, Dan Rather asserted the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian's personal files" and that they had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s.

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[1] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[1][2]

The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination.

Several months later, a CBS-appointed independent panel detailed criticism of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[3] The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

So, we really don't know if the documents are authentic, or not. But, it's certainly a misnomer to label the whole story false (as I'm sure you're well aware).

W's chronicles of how he dodged active-duty in Vietnam doesn't need fake documents to support it:

Dan Crashes--Bush Flies High (http://www.gregpalast.com/dan-crashes-bush-flies-high/)

Rather's "unsubstantiated story of Bush's military service" (says USA Today) got him canned. Yet, all the poor man did was repeat a story we put on BBC Television a year earlier — that Poppy Bush put in the fix to get his son out of ‘Nam and into the Texas Air Guard, spending his war years guarding Houston from Viet Cong attack.

But Dan never reported this: the documentation from inside the US Department of Justice detailing the fix. Why not? Because it opened up a far more serious charge: that those who kept Little George out of war's way ended up very well rewarded. We ran that full story — from the evidence of the fix to the evidence of the lucrative pay-backs — on the world's biggest network, BBC, and we've never retracted a comma of it. Nor, by the way, has the White House denied our accusations despite our repeated offers to respond.

We know George Bush was a Naval Aviator because it says so right on his toy box. Actually, he never was a Naval Aviator and never once landed a plane on the deck of an aircraft carrier. During the Vietnam War, our future President flew in the Texas Air National Guard protecting Houston from Viet Cong attack. Our President obtained that job the same way he got the current one: The fix was in.

Congressman Poppy Bush, said Rather, put in the fix for his son, despite Junior's too-dumb-to-fly test scores, by putting in a call to the head of the Texas Air Guard via Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes. That's what Dan Rather reported on 60 Minutes, that Bush Jr. got the Texas top gun post, and thereby dodged the draft and the bullets of Vietnam. It was a hell of a scoop and his network rewarded him and his producer, Mary Mapes, by firing their sorry asses. That wasn't enough.

The president of CBS, Leslie Moonves, bullwhipped his network's stars and, with his own spit, polished the soiled war record of our President, declaring that Rather's producer: …ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report — that President Bush had received special treatment thirty years ago, getting to the Guard ahead of many other applicants.

Really? Well, Mr. Moonves, look at this evidence: "His [George W. Bush's] dad called then - Lt. Gov. Barnes to ask for his help to get his son not just in the Guard, but to get one of the coveted pilot slots which were extremely hard to get. [Barnes, through a "cut-out," a third party,] contacted General Rose at the Guard and took care of it.
George Bush was placed ahead of thousands of young men, some of whom died in Vietnam."

The real story, for me, is that Little George was just one of a dozen privileged princelings saved from the dangers of their powerful daddies' wars. Barnes did not give help to Bushes only. The man who actually made the call to the Air Guard for Little George at Barnes' request also confirmed that at Barnes' request, he also put in the fix for sons of Democratic big-wigs, Governor John Connally and Congressman, later Senator, Lloyd Bentsen.

Got any instances of MSM media bias to the Right, Neil?

Sorry, Mike: I don't (unless you want to count VNR's, Armstrong, and his pseudo-journalism, shilling Bush-inspired dogma about No Child Left Behind, on the news, failing to identify himself as independent from the gov't. But really, that doesn't count, because it wasn't officially approved by the media outlets, and so it doesn't really count as bias...more like sleezy, underhanded tactics).

Unlike you: I don't try to imagine some farcical conspiracies about the media. I try to look to the facts, even when someone is desperately trying to obscure them, with disingenuous (and still not even a single documentation of) claims of political bias.

Again, the bias is economic, not political. I think it hysterical that you utterly ignore and fail to post anything about the FCC's attempts to broaden the monopolization of the media.

You saw on forever about the "new, internet media, going boldly where no MSM has gone before;" and yet you have nary a single word, about net neutrality...even tho such disparate groups as Moveon.org, the NRA, and some evangalist groups all stood up, shoulder to shoulder, to fight for net neutrality in Congress.

While on the other side, utilities apparently pulled out all the stops and hired every single lobbyist they could, to aid their cause.

I suppose you're too busy pouring over adjectives and vitriolic blogs to realize the wider implications of this struggle. Not too surprising...just a little sad.

I happen to like the truth.
Mike

Man, if that doesn't qualify for the "Great Lies of All Time, That We Tell Ourselves," I don't know what does. :crazy:

Mike Sigman
02-18-2007, 04:22 PM
[Right after the article saying the documents were never authenticated... i.e., never found to be true.... Nick says]
The REAL story is that the documents that CBS presented for the story could not be authenticated. Er, if you look at the full Thornburgh report, including the appendices, no testimony showed any of the proffered documents to be real and testimony leaned heavily to the fact that they were bogus. Since the originals were never found, etc., they are bogus until shown different. In case this is not something done in Santa Cruz, Nick... if you offer "proof" which can't be verified it's the same as no proof. It is not the same as "well, it's a question".

But this is why I don't dignify your comments as being credible... you constantly dodge and weave with the truth. We don't argue on the same basis. You're like the pettifogger who constantly tries to dodge and weave with "maybe's" instead of examining the truth. I.e., I don't take you seriously. Live with it, Spin-Boy.

Mike

Neil Mick
02-18-2007, 05:50 PM
But this is why I don't dignify your comments as being credible... you constantly dodge and weave with the truth.

Oh, yeah! But that's right...you're not arguing with me anymore. You announced you'd stop debating me, weeks' ago. :D :D :D

(I forgot.

And apparently: so did you).

We don't argue on the same basis.

Ain't that the truth. For one thing, I like to reference my claims.

For another, I don't pretend to have the abilities of a mindreader.

You're like the pettifogger who constantly tries to dodge and weave with "maybe's" instead of examining the truth.

I'm like the guy who keeps smashing down your virtual strawmen, while you go on pretending that you're "winning." (much like a certain CinC that you love to so vaunt. Funny, how he's not claiming a "win," anymore.

Eventually, even you'll follow his example.

Just, not publicly, I bet.

THAT, takes courage).

I.e., I don't take you seriously. Live with it, Spin-Boy.

Mike

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/traurig/sad-smiley-008.gif Oh, GOD!!! no, NO!! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/traurig/sad-smiley-008.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

Whoah. Big surprise. :p

But, Mike: "convincing" you is not at all the goal. You don't admit you're wrong. That's a given. And so, it would be pretty naive of me to expect some sort of retraction, wouldn't it?

I just present the facts, and let you fill in the unreferenced heresay, and allegation. It's up to the reader to decide, one way or another. :cool:

Mike Sigman
02-18-2007, 06:00 PM
I just present the facts, and let you fill in the unreferenced heresay, and allegation. It's up to the reader to decide, one way or another. :cool:No, you tried to trivialize the *facts* I presented that the MSM went very liberal in its SBV reporting and the *fact* that CBS tried to present questionable and unsupported documents as negative evidence about Bush, just before an election. Where I think you're going off the deep end, as you do repeatedly, is in thinking that "the reader" is dumb enough to believe your dishonest spin.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
02-18-2007, 06:11 PM
I suppose that part of self-denial involves carefully plugging up your audial sensors with your digital manipulation devices and yelling a continual refrain of "nah nah nah nah!"

No, you tried to trivialize the *facts* I presented that the MSM went very liberal in its SBV reporting

No, Mike, try as you might to recast it, MSM did not "go very liberal" in its reporting. As I pointed out, it was likely seen as a partisan smear, lacking substance (which, it has largely been proven to be). All you have shown is that SOME ppl thought the MSM acted a little sluggishly.

Oh, the horror, of slipping journalistic standards: that they won't pick up an obvious election-smear tactic and blast it all over the front-page, whenever Rove says boo. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

and the *fact* that CBS tried to present questionable and unsupported documents as negative evidence about Bush, just before an election.

I guess, in your rush to post, you forgot to read the bit about Greg Palast, presenting this material ONE YEAR BEFORE.

Questionable? Unsupported?

Sure. In Mikey's mind.

Where I think you're going off the deep end, as you do repeatedly, is in thinking that "the reader" is dumb enough to believe your dishonest spin.

Mike Sigman

Where I DON'T go off the "deep end," is in imagining or even suggesting for a minute that I can presume WHAT is the reader's beliefs, or perceptions.

Darn it! I want mindreading abilities, too!! How come all the cool, superhero powers all go to the "Cultural Warriors" of the web?? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-017.gif

Mike Sigman
02-18-2007, 09:52 PM
As I pointed out, it was likely seen as a partisan smear, lacking substance (which, it has largely been proven to be). Really? Can you give me one fact published in the SBV book that has been disproven, then? Just one. And bear in mind that Kerry has had to officially change his story a number of times. Not to mention that Kerry's book, by Douglas Brinkley, contains quite different accounts than "the official records", which it turns out Kerry probably wrote himself.

But regardless, note once again that you make an assertion that is provably false or at a minimum which you can't sustain....

The problem in your postings and assertions isn't just your sources, ... it's your personal lack of any ethos.

Mike Sigman

Lorien Lowe
02-19-2007, 02:22 AM
The US reports all infant mortality figures, including deaths of premature infants, infants we try to save that other countries pronounce dead and don't even try to save, etc.
Mike- as a health care worker, this sounds serious to me. Do you have any sources for the claim that the counting for various countries is different? Totally not-politics (as much as it can be) - I just want to know.

-Lorien

Lorien Lowe
02-19-2007, 02:58 AM
Really? Can you give me one fact published in the SBV book that has been disproven, then?

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

political, this time - but you can't claim that this is a 'liberally biased' site, because Cheney himself listed it as a site-to-go-to during the last presidential campaign.

Amir Krause
02-19-2007, 03:52 AM
Actually, I think the best proof that overall (taking all sources into account) the media is neither liberal nor conservative is the fact neither of you Mike, Neil is happy with the media.

This Friday I read a very similar argument in an opinion post, about the Israeli Govt. and various groups. Wish I had a English copy, it went something like this:
The Arab Muslims are angry: "Israel doesn't care for their objections about the works near El-Akza(Temple mount), while the Haredi Jews group can change the route of road 6 just because of a few bones".
The Right wing and settlers are angry because: " Israel is willing to do anything to avoid a confrontation with the Muslims over the works near Temple-Mount, but will drive over anyone to evacuate settlements."
The Left wing and poor are angery because: "Israel will pay anything to the settlers and invest infinite amounts of money their, but continuously drives over the poor and doesn't care for their protests".
...
The Haredi Jews are angry because: " Israel is willing to invests loads of money for the poor but will not put the minor additional money required to protect the cemetery road 6 is just about to cover".

I think you can get the idea.


The media is sometimes slightly slanted, but over longer periods of time - its all the same.

Amir

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 07:33 PM
Really? Can you give me one fact published in the SBV book that has been disproven, then?

When the going gets weak: the weak make some more strawmen. :rolleyes:

Now, why should I bother to "give you one (more) fact," when your whole tactic this thread (and in others) has been to pointedly IGNORE every fact that comes up that utterly shuts your argument down (cf, the fact that this is a 40+ year old red herring; that you have absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION that Durante was a poor journalist because he so loved the Soviet experiment; that you so-far have yet to present ONE SINGLE STUDY proving "lib'ral bias," that "Rathergate" in fact was NOT a "false story" as you claimed, and on and on and...). Why bother presenting facts at ALL, when all you'll do is not take me seriously, insult me...

I don't take you seriously. Live with it, Spin-Boy.

...and then round it off with an indirect insult to the reader?

think you're going off the deep end, as you do repeatedly, is in thinking that "the reader" is dumb enough to believe your dishonest spin.

Why bother responding to an off-topic remark, when there are 10 OTHER on-topic remarks that remain unanswered, by you?

But I see Lorien beat me to slaying another of your weak strawmen...nice work, Lorien! :cool:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

political, this time - but you can't claim that this is a 'liberally biased' site, because Cheney himself listed it as a site-to-go-to during the last presidential campaign.

But regardless, note once again that you make an assertion that is provably false or at a minimum which you can't sustain....

The problem in your postings and assertions isn't just your sources, ... it's your personal lack of any ethos.

Mike Sigman

Oh, you mean...ethos: like posting racist remarks, consciously attempting a thread-lock when you are in disagreement (and you & I both know you do this, Mike: you admitted as much, in our private emails); posting "facts" YOU might agree with, but when disproven--you attack the character (including mental health, martial abilities and EVEN...curiously...the place where we live) of the post'er, rather than the post itself.

Is THAT the "ethos" that you're referring? If so, we have polar-opposite definitions of "ethos."

P.S. Love the new look, Jun: but please! Bring back the old smiley's! ;)

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 07:55 PM
The media is sometimes slightly slanted, but over longer periods of time - its all the same.

Amir

Yes to everything but this last comment, Amir. The media is slanted to make the most money. I'm completely sure that if peace marches were big moneymakers for the networks: we'd see an endless barrage of peace marches on CNN.

But they're not: and gov't often uses its influence to push the media in a certain direction. There is an uncomfortable relationship btw the gov't, and the MSM (Tony Snow (former FoxNews correspondent, now WH spokesman), and Roger Ailes (also of FoxNews, before he was a Republican speechwriter). Newshour talkshow hosts and Capital beat reporters often find a certain advantage to getting "chummy" with the Powers That Be. As such, they lob soft questions or don't do the investigative work, when it comes down to it.

But unlike Mike: I am loathe to call this "bias." It's more like favoritism, and it's not predicated upon one party or the other (IMO, there really isn't much difference btw Dem's and Repub's, when all is said and done). It's more about cozying up to power, instead of speaking truth to it.

As the media becomes more monopolized and owned by fewer people, this trend will continue. Detail-oriented local and international news will be further subsumed by generic "McNews."
All the while, ppl like Mike will rail on about "Lib'ral media bias," as the McClatchies and the Murdochs of the US will eat the smaller outlets.

The end result, is you can expect much more of this, in the future:

Amount of programming time in the media, spent on Anna Nicole Smith, 2 days after her death: 37%

Amount spent on the debate over Iraq: 14%

Amount spent on the 2008 White House race: >10%

Mike Sigman
02-19-2007, 07:57 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

political, this time - but you can't claim that this is a 'liberally biased' site, because Cheney himself listed it as a site-to-go-to during the last presidential campaign.Good god... that website is so far outdated that it's funny to read. It turns out, for example, that Rassman actually is a Democrat, for instance. The "official records" that Kerry's people ran out at first, were apparently derived from Kerry's own "after-action reports"... and THAT is the main reason why Kerry will still not release his full Naval records, even though he has repeatedly promised to do so.

The problem with the SBV thing, Lorien, is that I actually considered voting for Kerry before I finally voted for Bush. I read his spiel about being a Vet and I was glad to hear it.... UNTIL by chance I saw that all those medals he won were done in a 3 month period. That's an impossibility. And I know, because I was there. The more I looked into it, the more it became clear that Kerry was simply gaming the system. War hero, my butt.

But back to your topic.... FactCheck.org has been accused many times of being gamed by whoever bothers to convince their "factchecker" first. Here's an example of someone saying the same thing:

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2005/08/factcheckorg_st.html

However, what bothers me more than anything is the non-sequitur that a blog/organization is validated by someone mentioning it. If Cheney mentions an article in the New York Times, that doesn't mean that the NYTimes is still not basically a liberal organization. Or if he mentions Rush Limbaugh as a source, that does not mean that Rush Limbaugh is not conservatively biased.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
02-19-2007, 07:59 PM
So Neil.... you make the assertion about the "disproved" SBV's and dodge when asked for one fact. Spin and dodge, Neil.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 08:03 PM
So Neil.... you make the assertion about the "disproved" SBV's and dodge when asked for one fact. Spin and dodge, Neil.

Mike Sigman

TRANSLATION: I am a very busy man: too busy to read anything but the last sentence of any given post. And, in your case (since you disagree), not even time for that.

I am not interested in responding to your comments. Better to accuse YOU of dodging and weaving...it makes it easier, for MY dodges, and weaves. :crazy: :crazy: :hypno:

Neil's response: NEXT! :cool:

(P.S. from Mike (as, I always love to get in the last word): Have I diverted the topic enough, yet? Is it time to go into "Operation Threadlock," or should I try to divert the topic some more?

Oh, decisions, decisions!)

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 08:44 PM
Mike- as a health care worker, this sounds serious to me. Do you have any sources for the claim that the counting for various countries is different? Totally not-politics (as much as it can be) - I just want to know.

-Lorien

Infant Mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality)

To a certain degree, Mike is right. But yet again, he distorts the facts to make the US sound as if it's being overcounted.

Comparing infant mortality rates
The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[1] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. But the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality. The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMR's can be problematic for comparisons.

A well documented example illustrates this problem. Historically, until the 1990's Russia and the Soviet Union did not count as a live birth or as an infant death extremely premature infants (less than 1,000 g., less than 28 weeks gestational age, or less than 35 cm in length) that were born alive (breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement) but failed to survive for at least 7 days.[2] Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about .005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22-25% lower reported IMR.[3] In some cases, too, perhaps because hospitals or regional health departments were held accountable for lowering the IMR in their catchment area, infant deaths that occurred in the 12th month were "transferred" statistically to the 13th month (i.e., the second year of life), and thus no longer classified as an infant death.[4]

Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths. [5]

Another seemingly paradoxical finding is that when countries with poor medical services introduce new medical centers and services, instead of declining the reported IMR's often increase for a time. The main cause of this is that improvement in access to medical care is often accompanied by improvement in the registration of births and deaths. Deaths that might have occurred in a remote or rural area and not been reported to the government might now be reported by the new medical personnel or facilities. Thus, even if the new health services reduce the actual IMR, the reported IMR may increase.

These problems of definition and measurement hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates.

Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries.

Mike Sigman
02-19-2007, 09:05 PM
Infant Mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality)

To a certain degree, Mike is right. But yet again, he distorts the facts to make the US sound as if it's being overcounted.What absolute BS, Neil. The counting varies and the US is far more rigorous in the actual counting AND is far more aggressive in attempting to save preemies and at-risk babies. For god's sake, why do you have to put the US down about everything, even when it's doing *better* than other countries? You absolutely HATE the US.... yet you don't have the courage to just leave.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 10:02 PM
What absolute BS, Neil. The counting varies and the US is far more rigorous in the actual counting AND is far more aggressive in attempting to save preemies and at-risk babies.

Have you got even the smallest shred of credible source to support your claim? Say, against England, France, or Sweden?

For god's sake, why do you have to put the US down about everything, even when it's doing *better* than other countries?

For godds' sake, why MUST you be so histrionic? :eek:

But I'm puzzled...HOW is a low-ranking in IMD, considered as "doing better?" Oh, never mind...this is so far offtopic that I think I see Antartica, in the distance. :confused:

You absolutely HATE the US....

You absolutely believe in your ability to read minds, don't you? Gotta say, Mike....your crystal ball needs repair.

You can try to slant my statement as anti-US...but the rest of us know better. The short piece I posted shows that other countries undercount, too, for various reasons. Yet again, here comes Mike, with his latest theory on how "good" the US is to the rest of the world...even on IMD, in the midst of a healthcare crisis in this country...and how "bad" everyone else must be, for even suggesting an alternate theory.

You see discrepancies in IMD across the world, and assume that the US is unfairly ranked.

I see discrepancies in IMD across the world, and assume that the system is inexact.

YOU call my beliefs anti-US, because I do not stand up and sing the national anthem, every time you post.

SOMEone here needs a reality-check.

yet you don't have the courage to just leave.

Mike Sigman

And here's where we diverge.

Your ilk...the "culture warriors" of the net...all come down to this directive. Submit, or leave. "If you hate the US so much: why don't you leave?" Funny, how often that is repeated.

I often wonder...what is it about what we say or think, that so scares people of "your ilk?"

People like me, tho, welcome your ilk...because we all know that we're all in this boat, together. I don't want you to move to anywhere, that you don't want.

I'm even happy that you're here, posting...altho I wish that you'd respect Jun's guidelines (stop trying to lock threads where you disagree), and stop posting things that would anger Arabs.

Your silly ideas need an outlet, so that we can all see how little water they truly hold, when held up to the light of day.

Plus, your strawmen make GREAT straightmen! :D

Have a nice day, Mike: and even tho your continual attempts to censor and lock threads are not welcome...YOU certainly are. :cool:

Mike Sigman
02-19-2007, 10:26 PM
Have you got even the smallest shred of credible source to support your claim? Say, against England, France, or Sweden? Actually, I do. But let me prep the conversation by using Israel as an example. Israel has a slightly higher infant death mortality rate than the US. Israel also has an Arab population with different cultural mores. What do you think tips the scale so that Israel has a slightly higher infant mortality rate than the US? Now don't say anything "racial", but see if you can tell me where the difference lies, Neil. Then ask yourself what can affect various infant mortality rates.

Bearing that in mind, usually one of the most accurate breakdowns on infant mortality is with the country statistics published by the CIA. When I have time, I'll go look.
Your ilk...the "culture warriors" of the net...all come down to this directive. Submit, or leave. "If you hate the US so much: why don't you leave?" Funny, how often that is repeated. Funny how often and repeatedly you only post anti-US posts, too. Coincidence? I think not. I'm even happy that you're here, posting...altho I wish that you'd respect Jun's guidelines (stop trying to lock threads where you disagree), and stop posting things that would anger Arabs. You were one of those kids everyone hated, aren't you? ;) How petty that statement was.

Mike

Lorien Lowe
02-19-2007, 10:57 PM
Wow, Mike, I thought Neil was agreeing with you.

Thanks to you both, anyway, for the info; I wasn't aware of the reporting differences.

Wrt the SBV's, the article I cited was old because the topic was old. I don't think the actual data cited has changed since then.

Mike wrote:
If Cheney mentions an article in the New York Times, that doesn't mean that the NYTimes is still not...[etc.]

Cheney didn't just 'mention it' in passing. He referred to it specifically by URL (though he said 'dot-com' instead of 'dot-org,' which ironically led people to an anti-Bush site) and asked viewers to 'please go look at this site for an unbiased analysis.' IIrc it was after the vice-presidential debates, but I may be wrong.

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 11:00 PM
Well, at least you read my whole post, Mike. That's GOTTA count for something, right? ;)

Actually, I do. But let me prep the conversation by using Israel as an example. Israel has a slightly higher infant death mortality rate than the US. Israel also has an Arab population with different cultural mores. What do you think tips the scale so that Israel has a slightly higher infant mortality rate than the US?

Since you only gave me two factiods, I can only give one answer...

I have no idea, since I have not enough information.

But, I certainly know what answer you'd LIKE me to say...

Now don't say anything "racial", but see if you can tell me where the difference lies, Neil.

The difference lay in two countries with two disparate death-rates. Now, let's see...what OTHER factors, could be involved in Israel's IMD, OTHER than

an Arab population with different cultural mores.

1. war on the home fronts
2. poverty, and income distribution
3. access to clean water
4. education (higher ed levels lower IMD and fertility rates, as you no doubt are aware)
5. medical infrastructure
6. Are you including Palestine/Gaza, in these statistics? If so, well then...I guess that you're right, Mike. The people of Gaza are dying in DROVES, because the Palestinian's have differing cultural mores.

Yep, the IDF bombing the only electrical plant last year, had NOTHIN' to do wit it....:crazy:

Then ask yourself what can affect various infant mortality rates.

check.

Bearing that in mind, usually one of the most accurate breakdowns on infant mortality is with the country statistics published by the CIA. When I have time, I'll go look.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Funny how often and repeatedly you only post anti-US posts, too. Coincidence? I think not.

Funny how little you see the hand of the US, in world affairs

(hint: it isn't called a "superpower," for nothing)

Not quite as funny, is how often people who rush to censorship, do so out of patriotic claims, and motives.

Coincidence? ahahahahaha.

You were one of those kids everyone hated, aren't you? ;)

And I bet you charmed all the ladies, in Jr High. :crazy:

But please...let's not go there.

How petty that statement was.

Mike

Not at all. You do all these things. Pls don't waste pixil-space denying something, easily reproduced.

AND, coming from someone who just suggested that I leave the country merely because I don't tow the party-line...now THAT'S rich. :p

Neil Mick
02-19-2007, 11:04 PM
Wow, Mike, I thought Neil was agreeing with you.

I bet Mike and I agree on a few things...he just likes to post on the stuff that we don't.


Wrt the SBV's, the article I cited was old because the topic was old. I don't think the actual data cited has changed since then.


Exactimundo. The whole carp about dating was just a canard...as usual.

Mike Sigman
02-20-2007, 07:53 AM
Wow, Mike, I thought Neil was agreeing with you. He was conceding I was right, but he had to toss a slam into it. [/QUOTE]Thanks to you both, anyway, for the info; I wasn't aware of the reporting differences.[/QUOTE] Actually, since the last major BS about IMD rates being poor in the US, a few of the news sources (but not the MSM) pointed out the difference, so that knowledge was out there. Like Neil, though, the MSM does not like to print anything positive about the US unless a Democrat is in office. Wrt the SBV's, the article I cited was old because the topic was old. I don't think the actual data cited has changed since then. The data has not changed a bit.... the way it is reported and the real data has come out a bit more. To date, nothing charged in the book by the SBV's has been disproved, although some facts are contested by different witnesses who remember seeing different things. Kerry, on the othe hand, has had to change a number of his official statements and actually refuses to discuss others. He has not released his full military records (something Bush did when things were questioned) and there are still a number of questions that indicate he may have been courtmartialed first but then pardoned by Jimmy Carter, quietly.

But back to the point.... why does the MSM gleefully print reports that the US is behind in childcare, etc. They love to hear it, as does Neil. Remember that during the counter-culture days, those erstwhile "anti-war" types delighted in hating the US.... now many of those people are old enough to be the editors at most MSM outlets.

Best.

Mike

Mike Sigman
02-20-2007, 08:05 AM
The difference lay in two countries with two disparate death-rates. Now, let's see...what OTHER factors, could be involved in Israel's IMD, OTHER than



1. war on the home fronts
2. poverty, and income distribution
3. access to clean water
4. education (higher ed levels lower IMD and fertility rates, as you no doubt are aware)
5. medical infrastructure

Gee.... it's funny, but these problems in Arab culture seem to be worldwide, so it's not just the Arabs living near Israel. It's their culture.

Your argument reminds me of the old saw about low IQ's in a population being related to poverty. The problem with that one-sided statement is that it carefully avoids saying the obverse: people with low IQ's tend to wind up in poverty, in a competitive world. And the reason no one wants to say that is because it's "racist".... so they don't say it and they don't consider that it might be true (no matter how much we want to pretend everyone is equal if you just throw enough money at them, everyone is not equal and, anthropologically, that difference will show up across various animal populations).

Ultimately what happens is that problems are often not addressed because it is not politically correct to point out that there can be differences across animal populations (human, in this case) and cultural populations. That very type of reasoning is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Native Americans in the southwest US until someone bit the bullet and started publicly pointing out and treating the innate diabetes and Oriental Flushing Syndrome in their population. It just burns me up how many people die or go into poverty because the real problems cannot be addressed in a PC-trendy US. It's better that people die, then admit there are differences along ethnic and cultural lines, eh?

Mike

Mark Freeman
02-20-2007, 02:13 PM
Slightly off the current topic I know, but how widely reported was the recent Unicef report on child wellbeing in 21 of the the top industrialised countries reported?

http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail.asp?news_id=890

The UK comes bottom of the list closely followed by the US, which is lamentable for two such rich nations.

We seemed to have 5 minute of hand wringing in the national media, and it seems now other more important issues ( the size of John Prescott's expense account ) have taken over.:rolleyes:

thoughts?

regards,

Mark
p.s the Dutch kids come out tops, and they are all smiling, and that is not just because they've been to the local 'coffee' shop;)

Mike Sigman
02-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Slightly off the current topic I know, but how widely reported was the recent Unicef report on child wellbeing in 21 of the the top industrialised countries reported?

http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail.asp?news_id=890

The UK comes bottom of the list closely followed by the US, which is lamentable for two such rich nations. Actually, that was the topic under discussion, Mark. Do you really find it "lamentable" that an anti-West, anti-Semitic organization like the UN finds a reason to point the finger at the two strongest western powers? You realize that fully one-fourth of all resolutions passed by the UN are anti-Israel.... do you find that "lamentable"? Do you find it "lamentable" that the "Oil For Food" program came under the auspices of UNICEF and they have an axe to grind? Do you find it "lamentable" that countries like North Korea, and other US haters sit on the UNICEF panel that produced that report? Or do you just assume that anything reported bad about the US and UK must be true?

Try this one:

http://euobserver.com/9/23532

Of course, just like in the liberal media, much is made about the number of people in the US who are "below the poverty line". The real question is where that line is drawn, not who is below it. When one looks at the actuall breakdown of "below the poverty line" in the US, it's stunning to see that 47% of them own their own homes, have air-conditioning, and many other startling factors.

Start reading anti-western reports critically, Mark. Usually they are compiled and interpretted by people like Neil Mick.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman
02-20-2007, 03:39 PM
Here's another example I've been watching. A muslim cab-driver got into an argument with white college students and tried to run them over. One of the students was seriously injured and is still in the hospital. The MSM is not covering the story at all. If it had been a white cab-driver running over 2 Muslim students it would be on the front page.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006515332

The coverage in the US by the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal. I remember when someone asked Andy Rooney on camera if the MSM was liberal and he looked at them like they were stupid. "Of course the media is liberal" he said. The only people I know who say the media is not liberal are liberals trying to pretend that the media, academia, and Hollywood are not overwhelmingly liberal.

Personally, I don't mind pointing out which media outlets (usually it's the "opinion journalists") are conservative. Or which ones are liberal. Someone who says he can't see any liberal media is either a liar or a dunce. ;)

Mike

Lorien Lowe
02-20-2007, 11:24 PM
To date, nothing charged in the book by the SBV's has been disproved...
Mike, this is what the website (wich data you have agreed is correct) has to say:

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account...
...And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."...

Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

Elliott [one of the SBV's who signed statements against Kerry] had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush: Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush

On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

...Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
...
None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.
...
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

Mike, we have official Navy records and plenty of eye-witnesses which agree with Kerry's version. That's not bad 'proof' for something that happened 35 years ago. On the SBV side, we have undoccumented accusations by major Republican donors.

Lorien Lowe
02-20-2007, 11:28 PM
To 'swift boat' someone is becoming a verb: it means to make baseless accusations about someone's distant past and throw a huge publicity campaign for your accusations.

Mike Sigman
02-20-2007, 11:33 PM
Mike, this is what the website (wich data you have agreed is correct) has to say:No, Lorien, I didn't agree it was correct. I said the stuff was outdated and wrong. For instance, the "official records" are apparently the bogus after-action reports which Kerry used to get himself medals. Thurlow was dumbfounded to have someone show him he also got a Bronze Star for the same bogus report (Kerry apparently tried to spread it around to bolster his own story). Most of Kerry's claims are about as realistic as his Christmas in Cambodia that he has now backed off of so he can "check the records". He's a BS artist. One of two that the discerning people of Massachusetts continue to re-elect.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
02-20-2007, 11:34 PM
To 'swift boat' someone is becoming a verb: it means to make baseless accusations about someone's distant past and throw a huge publicity campaign for your accusations.

It's cool, but like I said, nothing the SBV's claimed has been proven untrue. The liberal press first tried not to cover the story... then they began to attack the SBV's. That's patriotism of liberals for you. It's the Clinton tactic of smearing anyone who has the goods on you.

Mike

Neil Mick
02-21-2007, 12:46 AM
He was conceding I was right, but he had to toss a slam into it.

He was putting words into my mouth, and pretending that's he's right.

No, Mike...as you well know: I was doing no such thing. Thanks for playing, tho.

Help! help! The thread's been hijacked!

Gee.... it's funny, but these problems in Arab culture seem to be worldwide, so it's not just the Arabs living near Israel. It's their culture.

When you view the world through a one-dimensional prism...is it any wonder that you only see what you want to see?

Your argument reminds me of the old saw about low IQ's in a population being related to poverty. The problem with that one-sided statement is that it carefully avoids saying the obverse: people with low IQ's tend to wind up in poverty, in a competitive world. [/quote]

Oh please! Three words for you...

GEORGE W. BUSH.

The man has, AT BEST, a low average IQ. He's hardly lining up at the soup kitchen.

And the reason no one wants to say that is because it's "racist"....

Um...because it "is...?"

so they don't say it and they don't consider that it might be true (no matter how much we want to pretend everyone is equal if you just throw enough money at them, everyone is not equal and, anthropologically, that difference will show up across various animal populations).

No, Mike. It just ain't so.

There are a host of other factors contributing to IMR in Arab countries. The logical end of your argument mirrors those of eugenicists.

Actually, that was the topic under discussion, Mark.

Actually, it isn't. The topic is about media coverage, NOT IMD.

Do you really find it "lamentable" that an anti-West, anti-Semitic organization like the UN finds a reason to point the finger at the two strongest western powers?

"anti-West, anti-Semitic?" :confused:

How do you complete your own sentences, without laughing at your own nonsense, that you choose to spew here? Please.

You realize that fully one-fourth of all resolutions passed by the UN are anti-Israel.... do you find that "lamentable"?

Um...perhaps, because they're consistently breaking international law...?

No, that's right...it's impossible. AFAMC (as far as Mike's Concerned)--ICDNW (Israel can do no wrong) :D

When

Mike (as, he yet again, carefully chooses to make his claims, sans sources)

looks at the actuall breakdown of "below the poverty line" in the US, it's stunning to see that 47% of them own their own homes, have air-conditioning, and many other startling factors.

When Mike makes up his own figures, the world actually IS how he claims it to be.

Start reading anti-western reports critically, Mark. Usually they are compiled and interpretted by people like Neil Mick.

Regards,

Mike

Do you think this guy chants my name at night, in satanic curses, too?? I mean...talk about OBSESSION...:crazy: :crazy:

Neil Mick
02-21-2007, 12:57 AM
It's cool, but like I said, nothing the SBV's claimed has been proven untrue. The liberal press first tried not to cover the story... then they began to attack the SBV's. That's patriotism of liberals for you. It's the Clinton tactic of smearing anyone who has the goods on you.

Mike

Oh please. Again, what nonsense.

It is patently obvious that the SBV's were a hit squad with direct ties to the Bush election-effort. Funny, how once 2004 passed, the SBV's have sort of lost their steam. They don't seem so interested in hounding Kerry anymore. Perhaps, because they've served their purpose.

Admit it, Mike...you'll feel better: you just cannot admit when you're wrong. Anyone with an ounce of perspective can see that the SBV's were a Rov'ian setup.

What amazes me, is that you ascribe these near genius-level subtleties of deception and manipulation from the MSM, liberals, and (for all I know) PETA, but you have absolutely no trouble accepting as truth the words of a proven liar, like Cheney. No...Libby was clearly "set up" by the media (even tho, of course, 8 separate witnesses say otherwise)...the prospect of him spilling Plame's identity as a Cheney-ordered payback, and then lying to a grand jury about it, is just not possible in Mike's books.

No...it was all the MSM and the eevel Liberals working together. :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

Lorien Lowe
02-21-2007, 02:21 AM
Me, wrt the age of the article:
"I don't think the actual data cited has changed since then."
Mike, agreeing:
"The data has not changed a bit..."
So, yes, Mike, you did agree on the data.
and the 'bogus official records' include recommendations for awards which were written by a man who later joined the SBVs when Kerry ran vs. Bush.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims of the SBVs are not backed by any evidence other than their own hollow words; the claims of Kerry, being the null hypothesis backed by eyewitness accounts and documentation, must be allowed to stand in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary.

Mike Sigman
02-21-2007, 06:18 AM
Oh please! Three words for you...

GEORGE W. BUSH.

The man has, AT BEST, a low average IQ. He's hardly lining up at the soup kitchen. Ah.... tell me again about how you deplore "personal attacks", Neil. This is just so, well, "Aikido" of you. :rolleyes: There are a host of other factors contributing to IMR in Arab countries. The logical end of your argument mirrors those of eugenicists. Nature is a eugenicist, Neil. Natural selection and all that.

Ta Taa for a few days, Neil. I'll be out of town, so you'll just have to play with yourself. ;)

Cheers.

Mike

Hogan
02-21-2007, 09:41 AM
...

GEORGE W. BUSH.

The man has, AT BEST, a low average IQ. He's hardly lining up at the soup kitchen....

Yet he STILL got a higher GPA than Kerry in college...

Hmmmm....

Taliesin
02-21-2007, 10:20 AM
Interesting Post

Mike has clearly forgotten to take his medication. (again!)

We must believe SBV becasue they slagged of Kerry (it helped GWB therefore neither evidence nor common sense are needed)

However it was wrong to dispute the GBW avoided serving in Viet Nam - He wanted to fight - he just had to serve in the Air National Guard (and let his pilots license expire) instead

Conclusion the only impartial press is one that unquestioningly supports GWB

BTW - Bush's lack of intellegence or otherwise is not his problem - it's his complete lack of integrity and his fundamental dishonesty

BTW Mike - I know you think it's unfair and 'anti-American to call a proven liar dishonest when it's GWB but I'll just have to live with my decisons (as so many are unable to say the same about GWB's)

Neil Mick
02-21-2007, 12:23 PM
Ah.... tell me again about how you deplore "personal attacks", Neil. This is just so, well, "Aikido" of you. :rolleyes:

OK, I deplore personal attacks (besides, I'm wondering why a basic objective statement, can be construed as an attack...Bush IS rated as a low average IQ. Sorry, but an objective statement of fact, doth not personal attack, make).

And unless your name's been changed to GW, Mike: this is hardly a personal attack, in any case. Of course, you know this, very well.

Nature is a eugenicist, Neil. Natural selection and all that.



Really, Mike: go back to school. Clearly, you lack understanding of the basics of natural selection, and how "social darwinists" misuse science to justify their racism.

Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't be so quick to publish such racist posts, yourself.

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Neil Mick
02-21-2007, 12:25 PM
Yet he STILL got a higher GPA than Kerry in college...

Hmmmm....

Proving my point, exactly. Thanks.

IQ is not an indicator of poverty.

Hogan
02-21-2007, 04:00 PM
...

IQ is not an indicator of poverty.

That is certainly true - why, I am a suuuper genius, yet I was in poverty much of my childhood.

Hogan
02-21-2007, 04:02 PM
...Bush IS rated as a low average IQ....

By the way, where did you see / read this?

Neil Mick
02-21-2007, 07:35 PM
By the way, where did you see / read this?

From an unimpeachable (ahem!) source! :D

http://web.archive.org/web/20020630211835/http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index20010902.htm

Hogan
02-22-2007, 08:52 AM
From an unimpeachable (ahem!) source! :D

http://web.archive.org/web/20020630211835/http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index20010902.htm

Ahhhh, thought so - cartoon based on an urban legend. Niiiiice!

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm

OR

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

I prefer to confirm my news through the Bloom County Picayune...

Neil Mick
02-22-2007, 11:50 AM
Ahhhh, thought so - cartoon based on an urban legend. Niiiiice!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Yeah, it WAS an urban legend...my mistake. I thought that there really was a scientifiv study.

OTOH, the idea that IQ is a determining factor in poverty (or vice versa) has no basis in scientific research.

And W isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, so there you are.

Now that we've thoroughly mined THAT topic:can we pls return to the thread topic?

Neil Mick
02-24-2007, 05:41 PM
OK, now on to the subject of international...or perhaps national...ignorance.

Much has been made, in the past, of my signature. You know...the Iraqi dead count? People have, at times, accused me of knowingly printing false figures (no doubt, to "embolden" the enemy); that the figures "really don't matter;" or even that I am posting these figures as some form of continual protest against the invasion (this, from an Iraqi expatriate).

Well, of course they're all wrong. I post and occasionally update these numbers as a reminder. A benchmark.

In point of fact, no one knows, for sure, how many Iraqi's have died as a direct result of the invasion. It could be 50,000; or it could be 650,000, or higher.

But, Americans are woefully uninformed, about the cost of Iraqi lives in this war. Small wonder. Look at the shoddy reporting the MSM gave, in 2005:

Counting the Iraqi Dead (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2472)

On the weekend of the two-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, media outlets took stock of the war's death toll. But the national newscasts undercounted the most dramatic loss of life: the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

On the March 18 CBS Evening News, reporter Byron Pitts gave these figures: "Today, U.S. deaths number more than 1,500. There are no exact figures for Iraqi fatalities, but estimates are for every American killed, 11 Iraqis died." In other words, more than 16,500 Iraqi deaths.

NBC's Brian Williams (3/18/05) offered a slightly higher estimate: "So far, 1,513 American military personnel have been killed, 11,344 injured, and many of those are amputees. Estimates of the Iraqi death toll are hard to come by officially, but the civilian toll is thought to range from 17,000 to nearly 20,000 dead and beyond." ABC's World News Tonight did not appear to offer a similar count, but earlier this month (3/3/05) anchor Peter Jennings reported: "There are no official numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties, but Iraqi Body Count, an independent web-site that compiles media reports of the deaths there, says as many as 18,000 Iraqis may have been killed."

With his "and beyond" comment, NBC's Williams seemed to be referring to an estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties that none of the networks saw fit to mention: According to a study published in the respected British medical journal The Lancet (10/29/04), about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. The majority of deaths were due to violence, primarily as a result of U.S.-led military action. One of the researchers on the project said that the estimate is likely a conservative one (New York Times, 10/29/04). It's certainly a more scientific estimate than the Iraq Body Count figure cited by ABC, which is, as that project's website notes, a "compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources.... It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."

You can see the result.

Americans unaware of Iraqi death toll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17310383/)
Poll shows knowledge of U.S. dead, but huge underestimation of Iraqis

WASHINGTON - One person can tell you precisely how many Americans have been killed in Iraq. Another pays close attention to the names and hometowns of those who die each week. A third mourns for the families of fallen U.S. troops, but also figures it was their choice to enlist.

Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.

When the poll was conducted earlier this month, a little more than 3,100 U.S. troops had been killed. The midpoint estimate among those polled was right on target, at about 3,000.

Far from a vague statistic, the death toll is painfully real for many Americans. Seventeen percent in the poll know someone who has been killed or wounded in Iraq. And among adults under 35, those closest to the ages of those deployed, 27 percent know someone who has been killed or wounded.

For Daniel Herman, a lawyer in New Castle, Pa., a co-worker’s nephew is the human face of the dead.

“This is a fairly rural area,” he said. “When somebody dies, ... you hear about it. It makes it very concrete to you.”

Iraqi toll lowballed by tens of thousands
The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans’ tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.

Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.

The MSM hide the worst aspects of the war. And so, American's don't care; don't know...and sometimes, don't want to know.

Lorien Lowe
02-24-2007, 10:26 PM
The BBC generally plays after the national news on our local pbs station; it's really interesting to see a view of america from the outside, and of the rest of the world from somewhere else.

I'm always green with envy whenever Blair gives a news conference - even when he's clearly prevaricating, he's such a contrast with our own DL in speaking ability that I'm ashamed all over again.

Mike Sigman
02-25-2007, 05:17 AM
BTW Mike - I know you think it's unfair and 'anti-American to call a proven liar dishonest when it's GWB but I'll just have to live with my decisons (as so many are unable to say the same about GWB's)And Bush actually *lied* where? The last person to make the claim and *opinion* was David Orange.... yet he could not source any lie. So let's see with you... where did Bush deliberately lie to people? And if it's only your opinion, please state that rather than make a dishonest (lie) assertion.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
02-25-2007, 05:21 AM
Well, of course they're all wrong. I post and occasionally update these numbers as a reminder. A benchmark. Really? You post a non-caveated *fact* as a truthful assertion and then claim it's only a "reminder"? Since you are so loose with your semantics, please allow me to simply call it "dishonest". At least I am accurate.

Mike

Mike Sigman
02-25-2007, 05:24 AM
I'm always green with envy whenever Blair gives a news conference - even when he's clearly prevaricating, he's such a contrast with our own DL in speaking ability that I'm ashamed all over again.Clinton was a smoothe speaker as well. You like smoothe talkers, then, in the leadershop roles? And you're "ashamed" if someone is not glib and schmoozy? It's an interesting perspective about what Americans vote for... not the best guy, but the guy who can sell himself best to the superficial masses. ;)

Mike

DH
02-25-2007, 05:29 AM
BTW - Bush's lack of intellegence or otherwise is not his problem - it's his complete lack of integrity and his fundamental dishonesty.......

Incredible. This and others calling him an outright liar.
And just where is that?
Even with the war he was actually saying things that were supported by current research- Say the WMD issue- which was then being reported and agreed to by several sources and more than a few other countries military.
The fact they were not found still doesn't make -all of those sources liars anymore then it makes Bush a liar. And we did have video of weeks of truck convoys going to Siria.
Wrong intelligence by several countries makes our President a liar.
I am not happy with many things he's done and I voted for him. But you guys are off the charts. I stopped reading because this level of discourse is the worst type of tripe found on the internet.


As far as us not agreeing with "the world." May we forever run in oppostion to the United Nations. Nothing could make me happier. We have led "the world" on many occasions, and still do.
Self-hatred is always popular, usually among the young, and is always rather sad. And no I don't think its unpatriotic- it is part of the process. But I see so many going way overboard.

Dan

Neil Mick
02-25-2007, 03:48 PM
So let's see with you... where did Bush deliberately lie to people? And if it's only your opinion, please state that rather than make a dishonest (lie) assertion.

Mike Sigman

If I had to annotate every single time Bush could be documented as lying: I'd be here for hours, taking up several posts. Besides, I could post 3 verifiable sources all quoting Bush as saying, "I lied (with a short affidavit of Bush agreeing that he did)," and you still wouldn't believe it.

You never admit you're wrong, after all...why start something new, now?

So, I'm only going to throw out a few of the top ones in the lying hit-parade. Please, if you really wish to re-re-re-hash this old saw: how about pursuing it in another thread, tho...more ontopic?

I could cite the misstatements that Bush gave over Kerry's record, during the debates, and others. I could cite the lies Bush told about the fake uranium from Niger (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/iraq/768.html) (which he put into his SoTU (http://www.fair.org/extra/0308/bush-lies.html), against the wishes of some of his advisors).

No doubt you'll try to insert some Clinton'esque definition of what a "lie" really "is..."

Examining Bush's statements on Iraq and on tax cuts, Rosenbaum "found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied." Instead, he suggested that Bush was guilty of "selective emphasis"; any answer on whether he "stepped across the line" into unacceptable manipulation "can probably be answered conclusively only by historians when all the evidence and consequences are known."

Rosenbaum's explanation for clearing Bush on lying about tax cuts was instructive. Bush said in his State of the Union address that "this tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes." Rosenbaum conceded that this wasn't true; in fact, more than 8 million people who pay income taxes will get no cut. Why isn't that a lie? "There are more than 100 million income tax payers in the country," explained Rosenbaum. "So well over 90 percent will get some tax cut. If he had said 'almost all,' it would have been accurate." That's his complete line of reasoning on the subject.

I could talk about the report IAEA report that Bush and Blair swore, around Sept '02, that stated that Iraq was 6 months away from making a nuclear bomb...a report which did not exist, and was denied by the IAEA.

Spinning nonexistant projections (http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/msnbc-iaea-report.htm)

Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked to reporters before opening about three hours of talks at Camp David, Bush's presidential retreat in Maryland.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

Contrary to Bush's claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News' Robert Windrem reported Saturday.

Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.

A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. "What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report," the official told NBC News' Norah O'Donnell.

More squiggling of the definition of "is:" no, it's not "lying..." it's "forming our own conclusions."

Oh, brother!

I could talk about the time Bush lied about the "kicking out" of UN inspectors...a lie he continues to spout, when the mood hits:

During his recent Africa trip, he rewrote the history of the prewar conflict with Iraq over weapons inspections, telling reporters on July 14, "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Describing this remarkable statement, Milbank (along with Dana Priest) could only bring himself to write that Bush's assertion "appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring."

"Appeared to contradict the events..." From the place I was raised, we called that a polite way of saying "he lied." The inspectors weren't kicked out: they left, when they found out about the imminent bombing campaign.

Bush's record is full of similar untrue statements:

There are lies of omission...

His claim that Enron's Ken Lay supported Bush's opponent in his 1994 gubernatorial race, when Lay actually contributed three times as much to Bush (ABC World News Tonight, 1/10/02); his insistence that the White House was not responsible for the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the U.S.S. Lincoln (New York Times, 10/29/03); his statement that in 2002 the economy "was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office" (when it actually started in March 2001-- Slate, 12/30/02);

as well as lies of commission:

his assertion in a 2000 debate that in his tax cut plan, "by far the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder," when the bottom 50 percent really got roughly 10 percent of the benefits (Extra!, 1-2/01); his boast that "I've been to war" (Associated Press, 1/27/02)-- to list just a few.

I could also mention the 233X he mentioned Iraq, 911 and wmd's in the same breath: giving the impression that Iraq was involved in 911 (of course, you'll deny that this was a lie, even tho he had ample proof to the contrary and most American's who support the war still believe that Iraq was responsible for 911...but Bush had nothing to do with that assumption, right?)

White House Says it Has Evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties (http://english.people.com.cn/200209/27/eng20020927_103992.shtml)

In September '02, we had...

"In particular some high ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

...while just 4 months later, the story (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm) changes.

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Bush even lies about his intentions.

]“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.[/B] But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.”

- George W. Bush,
Mar. 8, 2003 Radio Address

“I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable.”

- George W. Bush,
Aug. 10, 2002 while golfing

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”
“No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”
“No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections

You can even plot the course of his lying, over time, to suit his political needs:


PHASE I - IRAQ HAS NOT ACQUIRED WMD
PHASE II - THERE IS NO DOUBT IRAQ HAS ACQUIRED WMD
PHASE III - WE'VE GOT DETAILED AND SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT IRAQ'S WMD
PHASE IV - IRAQ IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO ATTACK THE WORLD WITH WMD
PHASE V - WE WILL SOON REVEAL THE WMD
PHASE VI - WE WERE NEVER REALLY SURE WHERE THEY WERE, BUT WE HOPE SOON TO LOCATE WMD
PHASE VII - WE'VE FOUND WMD
PHASE VIII - WE CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR WHATEVER WE GOT WRONG ABOUT WMD
PHASE IX - OUR CRiTICS ARE BEING UNREASONABLE ABOUT WMD
PHASE X - WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHAT WE SAID ABOUT WMD?

I could talk about the Administration's mendacity in stating that any member of the White House found out to be complicit in "outing" Valerie Plame will be handed their walking papers...so far, no papers issued.

I could talk about the mendacity of labelling energy co-giveaway bills as "Clear Skies:" (http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp)

why is the Administration bragging about a plan that will actually result in more pollution than if we simply enforced the existing Clean Air Act?

Healthy Forests: (http://www.ems.org/wildfires/healthy_forests.html#reaction) a plan to increase tree removal, and "No Child Left Behind:" an act that made students and teachers jump through a very narrow hoop, to attain federal funding, and which was left woefully underfunded, thus making the legislation impossible to implement.

I could go on about all of these lies and more, and I wouldn't even be scratching the surface. Just take Bush's comments on AIDS, in his SoTU: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/01/1535228&mode=thread&tid=25)

GEORGE BUSH (tape): AIDS can be prevented. Antiretroviral drugs can extend life for many years and the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year, which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp.

STEPHEN LEWIS (the United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and former UNICEF official): I smiled to myself gently at the opening where he indicated the cost of drugs had come down to under $300 per person per year. It is only generic drug prices that have come down to under $300 per year. The brand name drugs are a minimum twice that and more. And obviously in the president's major plan the money which is used for the purchase of drugs is used for the purchase of brand name pharmaceuticals, not generics.


Even with the war he was actually saying things that were supported by current research- Say the WMD issue- which was then being reported and agreed to by several sources and more than a few other countries military.

SOMEONE is in deep need of a reality-check. Here, allow me to assist:

AP Staffer Fact-Checks Powell's UN Speech (http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1971092)

ALUMINUM TUBES: Powell said "most United States experts" believed aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs.
Energy Department experts and Powell's own State Department intelligence bureau had already dissented from this CIA view... No centrifuge program has been reported found.

REVIVED NUCLEAR PROGRAM: "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," Powell said.

On July 24, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain, a U.S. ally on Iraq, said there was "no evidence, no proof" of a nuclear bomb program before the war. No such evidence has been reported found since the invasion.

DECONTAMINATION VEHICLES: At two sites, Powell said trucks were "decontamination vehicles" associated with chemical weapons.

Nothing has been reported found since... Norwegian inspector Jorn Siljeholm told AP on March 19 that "decontamination vehicles" U.N. teams were led to by U.S. information invariably turned out to be water or fire trucks.

BIOWEAPONS TRAILERS: Powell said defectors had told of "biological weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. He displayed artists' conceptions of such vehicles.

After the invasion, U.S. authorities said they found two such truck trailers in Iraq, and the CIA said it concluded they were part of a bioweapons production line. But no trace of biological agents was found on them, Iraqis said the equipment made hydrogen for weather balloons, and State Department intelligence balked at the CIA's conclusion.

DESERT WEAPONS: According to Powell, unidentified sources said the Iraqis dispersed rocket launchers and warheads holding biological weapons to the western desert, hiding them in palm groves and moving them every one to four weeks.

Nothing has been reported found, after months of searching by U.S. and Australian troops in the nearly empty desert.

ANTHRAX: Powell noted Iraq had declared it produced 8,500 liters of the biological agent anthrax before 1991. None has been "verifiably accounted for," he said.

No anthrax has been reported found, post-invasion. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in a confidential report last September (five months before the Powell speech) said that although it believed Iraq had biological weapons it didn't know their nature, amounts, or condition.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT: Powell showed video of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet spraying "simulated anthrax." He said four such spray tanks were unaccounted for, and Iraq was building small unmanned aircraft "well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons."

According to U.N. inspectors' reports, the video predated the 1991 Gulf War, when the Mirage was said to have been destroyed, and three of the four spray tanks were destroyed in the 1990s. No small drones or other planes with chemical-biological capability have been reported found in Iraq since the invasion.

FOUR TONS OF VX: Powell said Iraq produced four tons of the nerve agent VX.

Powell didn't note that most of that was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision. No VX has been reported found since the invasion. Experts at Britain's Internatonal Institute of Strategic Studies said any pre-1991 VX most likely would have degraded anyway.

'EMBEDDED' CAPABILITY: "We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry," Powell said.

No "chemical weapons infrastructure" has been reported found. The recently-disclosed DIA report of last September said there was "no reliable information" on where Iraq might have established chem-warfare facilities.

CHEMICAL AGENTS: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent," Powell said.

Powell gave no basis for the assertion, and no such agents have been reported found. That same DIA report had reported "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons...And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them," Powell said.

No such weapons were used in the war and none was reported found.

CHEMICAL WARHEADS: Powell said 122-mm "chemical" warheads found by U.N. inspectors in January might be the "tip of an iceberg."

The warheads were empty, a fact Powell didn't note. No others have been reported found since the invasion.

SCUDS, NEW MISSILES: Powell said "intelligence sources" indicate Iraq had a secret force of up to a few dozen prohibited Scud-type missiles. He said it also had a program to build newer, 600-mile-range missiles.

No Scud-type missiles have been reported found. No program for long-range missiles has been reported.

Sorry, but you must be reporting the events from another planet. On OUR planet, there have been NO verified reports of wmds, or anything else presented as "Proof" by the now-embarassed Powell, to the UN.

I suggest you find alternatives to news besides Newsmax and Frontpagemagazine.

The fact they were not found still doesn't make -all of those sources liars anymore then it makes Bush a liar.

Uh huh. Newsflash, Dan: we're not talking about a few warheads. We were talking about TONS of supposed sarin gas, biological agents, and nuclear weapons stockpiles, supposedly hidden underground, in a supposed massive laboratory...remember that?

And we did have video of weeks of truck convoys going to Siria.

Proving, only that truck convoys move btw Syria, and Iraq.

Whoah. Call out the UN for THIS one! :rolleyes:

Wrong intelligence by several countries makes our President a liar.
I am not happy with many things he's done and I voted for him. But you guys are off the charts. I stopped reading because this level of discourse is the worst type of tripe found on the internet.

You stopped reading because you don't agree with what you see, and you cannot support what you believe, with creditable documentation.

As far as us not agreeing with "the world." May we forever run in oppostion to the United Nations. Nothing could make me happier.

Now, THERE's a sure recipe for peace, if ever I heard one! Oh, yeah! That worked SO well in '03 when W declared the UN irrelevant, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Turns out that W & Co came crawling back to the UN to help them out of the quagmire that they dug so well for themselves.

We have led "the world" on many occasions, and still do.

Sure do. We lead the world in small arms sales, heavy military bombs and planes, etc. Yep, we sure are the heralds of peace, right? Oh, wait...I forgot: we have a "war President," now.

War is on his mind, when he comes into work. He said so, himself.

Yeah, we sure are "leading the world" in SOMETHING, all right. :disgust:

Self-hatred is always popular, usually among the young, and is always rather sad. And no I don't think its unpatriotic- it is part of the process. But I see so many going way overboard.

Dan

Self-hatred is always the convenient label, for those name-callers who cannot seem to get their views in compliment with the events of the world. And so, they need to miscategorize honest critique with "self-hatred."

It's an old pattern. Just ask Mike or John H...they do it all the time: just as you.

Neil Mick
02-25-2007, 03:58 PM
At least I am accurate.

Mike

Uh huh. At least, in the World According to Mikey. :p

PREJECTIONS, do not = "absolute facts" (not to be confused, with Absolut Vodka). :crazy:

SOMEone needs a refresher on statistics! Look at the study again, Mike. The 650,000 is only a prejection.

Sheesh. The extents you'll go to bend the truth until it fits your worldview...it's like watching pretzels being made, or attending a saltwater taffy-pull. :rolleyes:

Mark Freeman
02-25-2007, 04:41 PM
The BBC generally plays after the national news on our local pbs station; it's really interesting to see a view of america from the outside, and of the rest of the world from somewhere else.

I'm always green with envy whenever Blair gives a news conference - even when he's clearly prevaricating, he's such a contrast with our own DL in speaking ability that I'm ashamed all over again.

Lorien, the envy is always greener on the other side;)

Blair may be more eloquent in his speech patterns than your man, and he is certainly supremely adept at avoiding answering pointed questions put to him. In a recent 30 minute interview on the Today programme he did an amazing job of avoiding admiting 'any' responsibility for the state Iraq is in today:(

We here have been promised a full enquiry into the lead up to the invasion,( this remains to be seen) but only after the UK troops are all safely withdrawn ( or in Afghanistan where some of them are being deployed to direct from Iraq ). By this time Tony Blair will be out of office, and enjoying a very lucrative retirement from front line politics. - I understand there are bundles of cash to be made in the US by ex British PM's on the speaking circuit. John Major has done extremely well. Blair will be far more successfull, as so many in the US admire him for his supportive stance to the current administration.

It is however the one point that most Brits admit has badly diminished his otherwise quite impressive record. He has been the most successfull Labour leader in UK political history. The Iraq invasion will be seen as the defining moment of his premiership. The eventual outcome of Iraq situation will decide by how much in one direction or the other, this too remains to be seen.

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
02-27-2007, 07:02 PM
Shifting to another topic that the MSM covers as a given... "Global Warming". The interesting thing is that it's almost completely reported as a "consensus" that the earth is warming (it is... no one really disputes that; happens after every Ice Age) and that Man, particularly Americans Whom We Love to Hate, is to blame. The coverage almost exclusively mirrors that view. Other positions are rarely, if ever and then only briefly, mentioned. Al Gore, the man who's carbon footprint is about as large as you can get (see today's news and watch who covers what), is making his name from this impending Doom.

This doom, like all the dooms since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" that liberals so fevently hoped for (followed by "Nuclear Winter" and many more) is another of the "We is sooo bad that we deserve to be spanked" dooms that liberals want, in a S-M sort of way..... and news media reporters publish/spew the party line. It's almost exclusively reported that Man is responsible for this doom and all scientists are in a "consensus" about this.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Neil Mick
02-28-2007, 01:36 AM
Sometimes, Mike: I really do wonder if we're living on the same planet. Last I checked, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human activity plays a role in global warming.

Shifting to another topic that the MSM covers as a given... "Global Warming". The interesting thing is that it's almost completely reported as a "consensus" that the earth is warming (it is... no one really disputes that; happens after every Ice Age) and that Man, particularly Americans Whom We Love to Hate, is to blame. The coverage almost exclusively mirrors that view.

Perhaps that's because there was a major report out, recently, attributing global warming as almost certainly caused by human activity.

Report links global warming to humans (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html)

The report by a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments contains the most authoritative science on the issue. It was due for official release later Friday morning in Paris. (Watch climate experts discuss the planet's future )

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man.

What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

It marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to up the ante to "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent chance.

And then, of course: there's the last 5 years, being the hottest years in the history of the planet...preceeded only by the previous 5 years, which held the record, previously.

Other positions are rarely, if ever and then only briefly, mentioned. Al Gore, the man who's carbon footprint is about as large as you can get (see today's news and watch who covers what), is making his name from this impending Doom.

Like what other positions...? All I've heard is Exxon-sponsored hacks who are quite willing to sell themselves to shill for the oil bosses. Funny, how your vituperation of the damned "liberals" ignores this tiny factoid.

Oil Lobby Offers $10,000 Payments To Global Warming Deniers To Push Back On Climate Study (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/)

The oil lobby is so desperate to push back on the new climate change report that they have been offering to pay global warming skeptics to speak out:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

[…]

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil. The well-heeled oil lobby is a primary reason why doubt still exists in the general public about the cause of global warming.

Of course: these oil-bought hacks are the real item...while those lefty loonies are just a bunch of anti-American wingnuts...right, Mike? :rolleyes:

This doom, like all the dooms since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" that liberals so fevently hoped for

Where do you get this stuff, Mike? Hello? Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" warned of the dangers of DDT to the environment. Sorry to burst your bubble that ppl and the gov't took her warnings seriously, and decided to outlaw DDT.

Or, perhaps you long for the days when ppl were sprayed for lice with DDT? Look, if you long for those heady, carefree days of no environmental controls or governmental oversight: I'm sure that we could arrange someone to come over to your house, spray all your food and build a nuclear power plant next door...none of that could hurt you, after all...that's just a lot of hot air (pun) spewed by Liberal doomsayers, right? :rolleyes:

followed by "Nuclear Winter" and many more)

Umm...Mike? Reality check: nuclear winter could only occur, with a massive nuclear attack. So, to suggest that nuclear-winter is "doomsaying," is implying that a nuclear war would otherwise be a picnic. :crazy:

is another of the "We is sooo bad that we deserve to be spanked" dooms that liberals want, in a S-M sort of way.....

How about "what comes up, must eventually come down?" We live in a closed ecosystem, Mike. Economic growth is not infinite, in a closed system. Garbage in: garbage out. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

and news media reporters publish/spew the party line. It's almost exclusively reported that Man is responsible for this doom and all scientists are in a "consensus" about this.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Well, almost all. But sorry, this is simply not the case. There is plenty of material out there disputing global warming. I just think you're peeved about it because the ppl who believe global warming is likely influenced by human activity within the scientific community are in the majority, and thus have the louder voice.

Never fear, tho: the oil companies carry a BIG megaphone, and $10,000 sounds awfully sweet, to an amoral scientist, eager to sell his soul.

Don't worry, Mike...the other side will present itself. We just have to wait for the ink to dry, on Exxon's checks. evileyes

Mike Sigman
02-28-2007, 08:17 AM
Sometimes, Mike: I really do wonder if we're living on the same planet. Last I checked, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human activity plays a role in global warming. OK..... but going back to 2001, even George Bush says that in his speeches. So why does the MSM continue to report that Bush even denies that there is global warming?

Secondly, and more importantly, tell us the PERCENTAGE of global warming caused by man. No one knows, right? In fact, the report you referenced is not the actual report... it is a summary of what participating countries agreed to say semantically. The actual report, which will be editted so that it agrees with the politically-driven interim report, does not come out for another 3 months. But reading the MSM, most people don't know that. Perhaps that's because there was a major report out, recently, attributing global warming as almost certainly caused by human activity. The UN report is a political report. Let's wait and read the full report. Notice that some scientists have withdrawn from the panel because they disagree with the political left-wing slant of the interim report, BTW. But Truth is never anything the leftists worry about, is it, Neil? As long as you can force your beliefs on others. And then, of course: there's the last 5 years, being the hottest years in the history of the planet...preceeded only by the previous 5 years, which held the record, previously. Ten-thousand bucks says you're wrong. Want to bet? The planet has been a LOT hotter than it is now. Like what other positions...? All I've heard is Exxon-sponsored hacks who are quite willing to sell themselves to shill for the oil bosses. Funny, how your vituperation of the damned "liberals" ignores this tiny factoid.

Oil Lobby Offers $10,000 Payments To Global Warming Deniers To Push Back On Climate Study (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/)OK, so this would be a classic example of the lies that the Liberal MSM publishes. Look for the follow-up to that story, which turned out to be false, Neil. And ask yourself why the MSM didn't publish retractions when it turned out the story was false. It's the same reason you never admit you're wrong.

Mike

James Davis
02-28-2007, 11:48 AM
Sometimes, Mike: I really do wonder if we're living on the same planet. Last I checked, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human activity plays a role in global warming.
Sure we do, but how big of a role? One volcanic eruption releases more crud into the atmosphere than humans have in our entire history.

And then, of course: there's the last 5 years, being the hottest years in the history of the planet...preceeded only by the previous 5 years, which held the record, previously.

LOL. :D It's pretty hot down here in the sunshine state, but the last time I looked out my window I didn't see magma!

LOL

This planet's been a heck of a lot warmer, and it's also been "colder than a well digger's ass in China". We didn't have a lot to do with causing either of these portions of the planet's history. More often than not, Earth didn't have polar ice caps.


Like what other positions...? All I've heard is Exxon-sponsored hacks who are quite willing to sell themselves to shill for the oil bosses. Funny, how your vituperation of the damned "liberals" ignores this tiny factoid.
Of course: these oil-bought hacks are the real item...while those lefty loonies are just a bunch of anti-American wingnuts...right, Mike? :rolleyes:
How about maybe the sun's getting hotter?

Exxon, you can make that check payable to James Davis.;)

Where do you get this stuff, Mike? Hello? Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" warned of the dangers of DDT to the environment. Sorry to burst your bubble that ppl and the gov't took her warnings seriously, and decided to outlaw DDT.


Umm...Mike? Reality check: nuclear winter could only occur, with a massive nuclear attack. So, to suggest that nuclear-winter is "doomsaying," is implying that a nuclear war would otherwise be a picnic. :crazy:
I think the corelation with these subjects is the argument that the environment is in danger, and that humans are the only ones responsible.


How about "what comes up, must eventually come down?" We live in a closed ecosystem, Mike. Economic growth is not infinite, in a closed system. Garbage in: garbage out. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

How about "stars eventually go supernova and burn out."? Nothing lasts forever, whether we cease use of the combustion engine or not.

Don't worry, Mike...the other side will present itself. We just have to wait for the ink to dry, on Exxon's checks. evileyes

Oh, the money's gonna come rolling in!!:)

Mike Sigman
02-28-2007, 11:58 AM
I just think you're peeved about it because the ppl who believe global warming is likely influenced by human activity within the scientific community are in the majority, and thus have the louder voice.No, this cuts to the heart of the thread-topic. "Global Warming caused by Bad Bad Man, particularly Americans" is a favorite theme of liberal-trained journalists. There is no "consensus" or "majority".

BTW.... have you noticed the sudden silence since the report came out that increased cosmic rays were a factor that hadn't been included in previous models and it appears to be a large one? Came out the day the interim report was released. Sudden silence.

Go look at the story the MSM didn't mention about the 60 Canadian scientists also writing a letter to the government saying it's a bunch of hooey.

The interesting point is that the "Man did it" idea has always been a "maybe", but the MSM and liberal scientists have played it as a certitude. Now the question is.... shouldn't this deliberate malfeasance be punished if it turns out they're wrong and presenting distorted science (like the last IPCC report did)?

Mike

Neil Mick
03-06-2007, 03:28 PM
Busy, busy, busy. Sorry not to have responded sooner: but I've been spearheading a fubdraising effort for Aikido dojo's in the ME. PM me for details.

Now then...

OK..... but going back to 2001, even George Bush says that in his speeches. So why does the MSM continue to report that Bush even denies that there is global warming?

Source?

Secondly, and more importantly, tell us the PERCENTAGE of global warming caused by man. No one knows, right? In fact, the report you referenced is not the actual report... it is a summary of what participating countries agreed to say semantically. The actual report, which will be editted so that it agrees with the politically-driven interim report, does not come out for another 3 months. But reading the MSM, most people don't know that. The UN report is a political report. Let's wait and read the full report. Notice that some scientists have withdrawn from the panel because they disagree with the political left-wing slant of the interim report, BTW.

Again...source? Have you any documentation of scientists signing off en-masse from the report, because of its "leftwing slant? No, I'm betting you don't.

Now, up to this point, your post has been unusual in its respect for the reader, and for whom you are addressing. Of course, Mike cannot keep up a good thing, for long...

But Truth is never anything the leftists worry about, is it, Neil? As long as you can force your beliefs on others.

And off the rails we go... :crazy: You know, I think it a real scream, that you blithely go on and on about the "leftwing bias" of the MSM (without a single shred of documentation to prove your point); yet when presented with a less quantifiable and measurable phenomena such as global warming...you're "positive" that man has little involvement, in it.

Funnier still, is your contention that I am trying to "force my beliefs" on others, or that I knowingly lie.

Ten-thousand bucks says you're wrong. Want to bet? The planet has been a LOT hotter than it is now.

If I had $10k: I'd lay in on the table, immediately. my dad always said, "Never bet, unless it's a sure thing."

But, you know already, no doubt, that the last ten years have been the hottest on record, and that the planet has DEFINITELY been hotter, in the past...except that the planet was lifeless, then: just a ball of molten rock, moving around the sun.

OK, so this would be a classic example of the lies that the Liberal MSM publishes.

OK, so this would be a classic example of empty facts, sans a RW basis, that Mike likes to post here, and elsewhere.

Look for the follow-up to that story, which turned out to be false, Neil.

How about you look for the follow-up story and post it here: instead of having me do your homework, for you?

It's the same reason you never admit you're wrong.

Mike

Wrong pronoun, Mike. I'm the one who admits my mistakes. To date, tho: I am hard-pressed to remember a post when you admitted an error.

Neil Mick
03-06-2007, 03:44 PM
Sure we do, but how big of a role? One volcanic eruption releases more crud into the atmosphere than humans have in our entire history.

Two things:

1) Even if man doesn't have much influence in global warming: what's the harm in discussing ways to limit manmade greenhouse gases? Automobile emissions cause a lot of other problems besides global warming...smog, respiratory problems, decay of buildings, and stone structures.

Reduction of carbon dioxide could only be a good thing, IMO.

2) Funny, how all of Mike's bluster about the coverup of the MSM, et al, ad nauseum, et undocumented, et untrue...that he ignores a much greater, much more easily documented coverup and censorship, of scientific data (brace yourselves...Mike Sigman "Rage Against Anti-American'ism" coming up).

And that's the dealings of the Bush Administration. They've hardly been upfront with their approach to the problem, now have they?

Has the White House interfered on global warming reports? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html?s=hns)

More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.

These findings, part of a new report compiled by two watchdog groups, shed new light on complaints by a scattering of scientists over the past year who have publicly complained that Bush administration appointees have tried to mute or muzzle what researchers have to say about global warming.

"We are beyond the anecdotal," says Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), one of the two groups, referring to press reports of a dozen instances of interference that have emerged over the past 12 months. "We now have evidence to support the view that this problem goes deeper than just these few high-profile cases."

Global-warming science must be accurately represented to enable lawmakers to craft adequate policies to control the problem and adapt to climate change, Dr. Grifo says. Scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies working on climate-related issues are doing excellent work. "But it's under threat, and they are struggling to get their results out" to the general public, she says.

I believe that the global warming debate deserves a fair hearing. But, the Bush Administration and the oil companies have taken extroadinary measures to prevent this issue from getting a fair hearing. Instead, we have double-talk, political wrangling, and science-for-sale.

But Mike likes to pretend that none of that matters.


The interesting point is that the "Man did it" idea has always been a "maybe", but the MSM and liberal scientists have played it as a certitude. Now the question is.... shouldn't this deliberate malfeasance be punished if it turns out they're wrong and presenting distorted science (like the last IPCC report did)?

Mike

"Liberal scientists," Mike?? That implies that there is a "liberal science," and that scientists present facts, based first upon their political beliefs.

In all my years of dealing with scientists (and I've met more than a few): I have yet to find a scientist that manufactures data to suit his politics. I'm sure that it's done: but you're hard put to prove that there's some pattern of it, within the scientific community.

What you CAN easily prove (if you had a shred of objectivity) is that science IS economically biased. A scientist working for an oil corporation WILL present slanted viewpoints, to suit his bank account.

But to suit his political beliefs? :crazy: Politics do not pay the bills, Mike.

James Davis
03-06-2007, 05:16 PM
Even if man doesn't have much influence in global warming: what's the harm in discussing ways to limit manmade greenhouse gases? Automobile emissions cause a lot of other problems besides global warming...smog, respiratory problems, decay of buildings, and stone structures.
The only harm I see in discussing the global warming phenomenon is demonizing soccer moms for driving a few kids to their practices, while giving a pass to people flying around in private jets. We've had cars for a little while, and the emissions standards only get better. How much sense does it make to burn so much jet fuel to cart a few people around?

Reduction of carbon dioxide could only be a good thing, IMO.
Agreed. Unless plants start suffocating.:p

I believe that the global warming debate deserves a fair hearing. But, the Bush Administration and the oil companies have taken extroadinary measures to prevent this issue from getting a fair hearing. Instead, we have double-talk, political wrangling, and science-for-sale.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think that technology exists that could wean us off of oil.

I know, I'm karayzy.:rolleyes:

If there exists a means of using water as fuel for transportation, an oil company probably holds the patent.

Politics do not pay the bills.


Maybe not, but oil sure as hell does. If we cease the use of oil, will that create peace in the middle east? I don't see it happenin'.

Mike Sigman
03-06-2007, 07:13 PM
"Liberal scientists," Mike?? That implies that there is a "liberal science," and that scientists present facts, based first upon their political beliefs. Bullshit. No one said anything about "presenting facts" except you. If the "facts" were all that mattered, in your perspective, all "scientists" (the IPCC has not many scientists, BTW) would have the same view. They don't. They *interpret* according to their beliefs and biases, Neil. Bring the conversation up out of the double-digit IQ range, please. In all my years of dealing with scientists (and I've met more than a few): I have yet to find a scientist that manufactures data to suit his politics. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!!

Mike

Mike Sigman
03-06-2007, 07:21 PM
Source? Look it up. It's been reported since at least 2001. Bush and nobody else has disputed that there has been a "warming"... the dispute is whether man is causing that warming. The next step is, "if Man is causing the warming, what percentage is he causing?". Even Bush has mentioned exactly those constraints in the argument (as did Clinton and members of the US Congress). The dispute is purely about how much Man is contributing to the warming and how much is the warming. You're so used to skewing facts that you just let your liberal watchwords make a moron out of you. Get with the program. But, you know already, no doubt, that the last ten years have been the hottest on record, and that the planet has DEFINITELY been hotter, in the past...except that the planet was lifeless, then: just a ball of molten rock, moving around the sun. I don't know just how ill-informed you are, Neil, but maybe you should realize that Vikings had farms in Greenland where now there is only permafrost. That's how warm the earth was. That's the time period that the "hockey-stick" people tried to leave out of their alarmist "global warming" stuff.

The earth is warming. Then again, that's what it's done after every Ice Age. In some inter-glacial periods it has been 5-6 degrees Celsius hotter than we are now. I personally hate pollution, but really it's a matter of the growing human population... all these blame-placing diatribes by emoti-morons does nothing to stop the population growth. Make a car get 100 mpg but don't stop the population growth and you still lose, Neil. Get with the program and quit being so stupidly and trendily political.

Mike

Neil Mick
03-07-2007, 12:57 AM
The only harm I see in discussing the global warming phenomenon is demonizing soccer moms for driving a few kids to their practices, while giving a pass to people flying around in private jets. We've had cars for a little while, and the emissions standards only get better. How much sense does it make to burn so much jet fuel to cart a few people around?

Not much, I guess. And, sure...it's unfair to place all blame on the SUV drivers, alone. But the point, I think, is that there IS a noticeable change in the climate, and that a part of it is due to man's interference.

AND, the debate over HOW to proceed, is tainted by corporate (i.e., economic) meddling, with partisan muzzling of Federal scientists, as a side.

Agreed. Unless plants start suffocating.:p

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think that technology exists that could wean us off of oil.

I know, I'm karayzy.:rolleyes:

If there exists a means of using water as fuel for transportation, an oil company probably holds the patent.

Can't argue with you, there.

Maybe not, but oil sure as hell does. If we cease the use of oil, will that create peace in the middle east? I don't see it happenin'.

I do. If oil were taken out of the picture...violence would not end in the ME, sure. At least, not completely.

But, I believe that it WOULD die down, a lot. Why fight so hard over control of Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon, if we had an alternative to oil?

Neil Mick
03-07-2007, 01:02 AM
Look it up.

No, Mike: YOU look it up. I really am not interested in a single claim you make, without some sort of documentation. In the past, you've made all sorts of fallacious and poorly-sourced claims, that I need serious backup to believe a thing you post.

And I'm positive that I'm not alone.

You're so used to skewing facts

you let your liberal watchwords make a moron out of you.

I don't know just how ill-informed you are,

Get with the program and quit being so stupidly and trendily political.

Mike

Here's where I stop reading, Mike. Say whatever you like, but my brain shuts down, when the insults fly.

Next!

Luc X Saroufim
03-07-2007, 12:03 PM
my contribution compares two Lebanese newspaper's coverage of a Lebanese child being "kidnapped" by the IDF.

Ya Libnan, a pro-government newspaper, claimed that the boy was 15 and was kidnapped on the border by the IDF. they also stated that the possible motive would be to lure Hezbollah into another border raid and justify another attack on Lebanon. i also read that the IDF later released him that day "unter intense pressure from Ban Ki Moon"

The Daily Star, another Lebanese newspaper, but more down the middle: the "child" could have been 15 or 26 years old, but no one could verify his age. they also stated that he was crossing the blue line repeatedly in his moped, which could have easily been seen as a threat. they later found out that he was collecting scrap metal. they also mentioned that the IDF returned him the same day, but did not mention any "intense international pressure"

James Davis
03-07-2007, 12:05 PM
If oil were taken out of the picture...violence would not end in the ME, sure. At least, not completely.

But, I believe that it WOULD die down, a lot. Why fight so hard over control of Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon, if we had an alternative to oil?

True, with an alternative to oil, violence in the ME would die down for us, but somebody's still gotta live there. I think that there would be something else to fight about. Some people are taught from childhood to hate another group of people for no earthly reason. If we take away the big money maker in the ME, somebody's gotta be blamed for the ensuing poverty...

Centuries old feuds would most likely continue, and possibly get worse.

Being the world's only superpower, for the moment, we would probably still need a foothold in the ME to help our allies regardless of whether oil was at stake or not.

Until we perfect and Ecsatsy Bomb, hatred will probably be a problem for some time to come.

Neil Mick
03-07-2007, 12:44 PM
True, with an alternative to oil, violence in the ME would die down for us, but somebody's still gotta live there. I think that there would be something else to fight about. Some people are taught from childhood to hate another group of people for no earthly reason. If we take away the big money maker in the ME, somebody's gotta be blamed for the ensuing poverty...

Centuries old feuds would most likely continue, and possibly get worse.

There's plenty of violence to go around, all over the world. The ME doesn't have a monopoly on violence: we have plenty to go around, right here. Also, we manufacture most of the world's small and large arms, and sell them around the world.

If US policy weren't so hardwired into propping up Israel (even, to the US's own detriment) and "securing" the ME, much of the weapons-trail would dry up. Sure, not all: but a lot. There would certainly still be violence, but a lot of the fuel driving the anger, as well as the weapons, would just not be there.

There's a very good reason, why the US is considered to have a negative impact (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6421597.stm) upon the world:

In January, the BBC World Service revealed polling results that suggested most people think the US has a mainly negative influence in the world - and that the numbers had increased significantly in the last couple of years.

This latest GlobeScan survey, mostly of the same people, confirms those findings.

But it also suggests that two countries are viewed even more negatively - first Israel, and then Iran.

North Korea is just behind the US.

I'm sure that our latest dalliance with Israel in Lebanon last July, didn't help our image, much. :uch:

Being the world's only superpower, for the moment, we would probably still need a foothold in the ME to help our allies regardless of whether oil was at stake or not.

Now, why would we need that?? Why establish "footholds," unless we're running an empire?

Until we perfect and Ecsatsy Bomb, hatred will probably be a problem for some time to come.

Until we stop making bombs, hatred will always find an outlet, with US weapons.

This reminds me of a recent interview with Robert Fisk: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/05/1515214)

AMY GOODMAN: In The Great War for Civilisation, you talk about the weapons manufacturers. What about the cluster bomb manufacturers?

ROBERT FISK: Well, you know, last night when I was speaking at Town Hall in New York, and I don't like to cheerlead these things, because I’m a journalist, but I ask in my book and I ask people in Lebanon, as a newspaper reporter, why don't the victims of these weapons, not just cluster bombs, but the Lockheed Martin, Boeing, AGM-114C air-to-ground missile -- it hits an ambulance, it kills people, it did in 1996 -- why don't the victims or survivors sue the arms companies? I actually took -- and I recall the story here -- I actually took parts of, in fact, literally the whole US missile in bits that hit an ambulance, was fired on an ambulance by an Israeli helicopter, Apache, American-made, in ’96, killed three children, two women. And with the UN, I got all the bits of the missile, including bits from the corpses. And we found the computer plate, and it was made in Duluth, Georgia. We found the date on it.

I went to Duluth. I managed to get the missile parts out of Beirut to Paris with the help of airport security. In Paris, we got Amnesty International to send it to Washington as a DHL package. I didn't want to turn up at JFK, you know, reporter found with explosive traces. Imagine Tom Friedman’s comment on that. And I got these parts of the missile down to Duluth in Georgia to confront the Boeing executives there, including the developer of the missile. They thought I was coming to write a piece about this wonderful missile that could be fired five miles away and go through a baseball loop, you know. And there was a sort of explosion in the boardroom as I laid out the pieces of the missile along with the photographs of the dead and wounded civilians hit by their missile, which was made there, the building next door to where we were talking.

AMY GOODMAN: And where did it kill people, that you had the example of?

ROBERT FISK: Southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon. It was on a road -- I was in front of the vehicle when it was hit. I was driving on the same road. That's why I knew exactly -- I saw the helicopter.

And the amazing thing was that when I got back to Beirut having run this story on the front page of the paper -- it’s called "Return to Sender" -- they didn’t want the pieces of the missile; actually, they kept them, but they didn’t put them in the Boeing museum -- I was rung up by a NATO arms expert in Paris. He was a Frenchman. And he said, “That missile was not sold to Israel, it was sold to the US Marine Corps.” And I said, how -- “come to Paris.” We met at the Lutetia Hotel -- great secrecy -- and he pulled out all the secret lists with NATO codes showing -- if you read the computer codes on the missile side, which I can do, you can tell who it was sold to. And he showed me the “O1,” US forces, and then “M” for Marines.

So I went back to Washington immediately, called up the Commandant of the Marine Corps, got taken by guys to a Marine base outside Washington, where men in civilian clothes, officers, sat around and went through it, said, “Well, look, we can tell you the story. These missiles were a batch of 360 sent with US Marines to Saudi Arabia in 1990, and we used half of them against the Iraqi army in the liberation of Kuwait in ’91. Those half that remained, we were instructed to drop off at the Haifa munitions pier in Israel as part of a quid pro quo weapons for the Israelis in return for their non-participation in the 1990 war against Iraq.” So this missile started off, was sold to the Marines, taken to Saudi Arabia for use against the Iraqis, dumped on the Israelis and fired into an ambulance in southern Lebanon, and then taken by me back to its base in --

Now, when I did that, I said, “Hang on, why don't these people sue Boeing? Is there no responsibility on behalf of the arms makers?” They say, “Oh, we’ve given it to the Marines. We’re selling it to Israel.” Don't they have a responsibility to follow through? We, in our jobs, have responsibilities. You know, if you misreport something, at some point you're going to go on the screen and say, “I got it wrong.” And so am I, if I make mistakes. But these guys are completely -- they're completely protected.

We produce a profligate excess of arms. Arms manufacturers make money: the arms get passed around to be used in the ME, or saved and used for some later conflict. Sure, if WE didn't manufacture that bomb, some other bomb might have hit that ambulance.

Maybe. Or maybe, if Israel realized that the weaopns-gusher was drying up, they'd be a little more charitable about firing indiscriminately, at fleeing ambulances.

Neil Mick
03-07-2007, 12:46 PM
my contribution compares two Lebanese newspaper's coverage of a Lebanese child being "kidnapped" by the IDF.

Ya Libnan, a pro-government newspaper, claimed that the boy was 15 and was kidnapped on the border by the IDF. they also stated that the possible motive would be to lure Hezbollah into another border raid and justify another attack on Lebanon. i also read that the IDF later released him that day "unter intense pressure from Ban Ki Moon"

Interesting. Did Ban ki Moon actually pressure the IDF, Luc?

Luc X Saroufim
03-07-2007, 12:57 PM
Interesting. Did Ban ki Moon actually pressure the IDF, Luc?

i don't know; i know he "condemned" Israel but who knows what happened on the ground level.

A 3rd person viewpoint would clear up that story anyway. Israel is watching out for HA's rearmament in the south. they see a guy that keeps crossing the border over and over again, so they detain him for questioning. they find out that he's an insignificant pawn and release him a few hours later.

Luc X Saroufim
03-07-2007, 03:07 PM
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/03/hezbollah_has_n.php

proof that Lebanese and Israeli goals can indeed be one and the same.

Mike Sigman
03-07-2007, 05:56 PM
More on the Joe Wilson lies, etc., in the Washington Post, a fairly liberal paper, but in this cases clinically laying out Wilson for what he is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

Neil Mick
03-09-2007, 01:58 PM
More on the Joe Wilson lies, etc., in the Washington Post, a fairly liberal paper, but in this cases clinically laying out Wilson for what he is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

That's one view...and only one. The same, tired old hacksaw that ignores certain facts, and spins others. This article tells a more complete story...

WPost's Editorial Fantasyland (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/030707a.html)

The real reality of the case is that in 2003, a hubristic administration sought to damage a critic, Wilson, who had offended Vice President Dick Cheney by accusing the White House of having "twisted" Iraq War intelligence. The anti-Wilson operation ended up exposing Wilson’s CIA wife. Then, recognizing the potential criminality – not to mention the political dangers – the White House launched a cover-up.

But that is not what the Post’s editorial page wants you to understand. It pins much of the blame for the scandal on Joe Wilson, whom the Post says “will be remembered as a blowhard.” The Post also distorts Wilson’s statements in a way that parrots long-discredited White House talking points.

Editorial Lies

Astonishingly, everything in this Post attack on Wilson is either a gross distortion or a lie.

Contrary to the Post’s account, Wilson did debunk suspicions that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. He was dispatched by the CIA because of questions asked by Cheney. (Wilson never said Cheney personally sent him.) His information did reach the highest levels of the administration, explaining why the CIA kept deleting references to the Niger claims from speeches.

The full Senate Intelligence Committee did not conclude that “all [Wilson’s] claims were false.” That assertion was pulled from “additional views” submitted by three right-wing Republicans – Sens. Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch and Christopher Bond – who carried the White House’s water in claiming that Wilson’s statements “had no basis in fact.”

As for the CIA selection of Wilson, the Post editorial-page editors know that Wilson was chosen by senior CIA officials in the office of counter-proliferation – not by Valerie Plame – and that Wilson was well qualified for the assignment since he had served in embassies in Iraq and Niger. He also took on this task pro bono, with the CIA only paying for his expenses.

The Post knows, too, that Valerie Plame indeed was a covert CIA officer, despite the endless lying on this topic by right-wing operatives. Plus, Wilson was right again when he alleged that the White House was punishing him for his Iraq War criticism.

Indeed, the Washington Post’s own reporters have described this reality in the news pages. For instance, on Sept. 28, 2003, a Post news article reported that a White House official disclosed that the administration had informed at least six reporters about Plame and did so “purely and simply out of revenge” against Wilson.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made the same point in a court filing in the Libby case, stating that the investigation had uncovered a “concerted” effort by the White House to “discredit, punish or seek revenge against” Wilson because of his criticism of the administration. Hiatt can look it up. It was on the Post's front page. [Washington Post, April 9, 2006]

As for the lack of evidence at trial about Plame’s covert status, the Post editorial leaves out the context: Libby’s defense attorneys argued against admission of that evidence on the grounds that it would prejudice jurors who might be enflamed by the idea of exposing a covert CIA officer and her spy network. In addition, Plame’s undercover work was not considered essential to a case narrowly constructed about Libby’s lying.

So, what can be said about a newspaper’s editorial board that willfully lies to its readers and slanders an American citizen, Joe Wilson, who took on a difficult assignment for his government at no pay and who later tried to blow the whistle on a White House misleading the public on an issue as important as war?

In a normal world, a newspaper would praise Wilson for his dedication and patriotism. But the Post editorial board can’t seem to get past its own gullibility in buying into the administration’s bogus WMD claims in 2002-03.

Rather than apologize for enabling Bush and Cheney to lead the nation into a disastrous war, Hiatt and Graham apparently have judged that they have the power to continue smearing Joe Wilson and other American citizens who had the foresight and courage to get the facts right.

So much for the W Post being a "fairly liberal paper..." :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
03-09-2007, 02:06 PM
That's one view...and only one. The same, tired old hacksaw that ignores certain facts, and spins others. This article tells a more complete story...

WPost's Editorial Fantasyland (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/030707a.html)

So much for the W Post being a "fairly liberal paper..." :rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, Neil, are you the slightest bit embarrassed by having to go to a blatant whack-job Far Left blogsite to find something ridiculous like that? No? I thought not.

Mike

Neil Mick
03-09-2007, 04:40 PM
Just out of curiosity, Neil, are you the slightest bit embarrassed by having to go to a blatant whack-job Far Left blogsite to find something ridiculous like that? No? I thought not.

Mike

The final defence of the disarmed strawman, when he runs out of half-truths to spew...ridicule (note how Mike employs the ancient "martial-art" technique of castigating the messenger, while utterly ignoring the content of the message. Typical).

Mike Sigman
03-11-2007, 03:55 PM
Mar. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

Taliesin
03-12-2007, 11:41 AM
Interesting Post fom Mike

leaving aside the fact that he is ignoring Neil's points and going onto another rant.

I particularly like the line

"far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet"

coming in a post from someone who so frequently comes out with complaints about a 'liberal (left of Gengis Khan) media bias".

Neil Mick
03-12-2007, 12:15 PM
Interesting Post fom Mike

leaving aside the fact that he is ignoring Neil's points and going onto another rant.

Yeah, he typically does that when his supply of strawmen runs out. It's his usual pattern...highly entertaining. ;)

Cady Goldfield
03-12-2007, 08:02 PM
Since this is the kind of topic that is open-ended and really doesn't have any actual resolution, it's just a matter of endurance. I'm envisioning two guys lying prostrate on the floor, panting and gasping, while still weakly lifting a hand to try and slap the other guy in the head. :D

Neil Mick
03-13-2007, 02:11 AM
I'm envisioning two guys lying prostrate on the floor, panting and gasping, while still weakly lifting a hand to try and slap the other guy in the head. :D

I'm envisioning one guy, driving a joke into the earth's core...:rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
03-14-2007, 11:27 AM
Back to the thread topic. Here's a pretty good video (I grabbed a feed that wasn't being dragged down by too much usage-- this is a very popular vid at the moment) that discusses a lot of the media involvement in "global warming". Go to the URL and scroll down to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and click the player. This show just came out in the UK and asks some pretty tough questions about the way the media has been pushing something that is scientifically shaky.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Taliesin
03-14-2007, 11:54 AM
Trouble is that programe has already been discredited

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

The real global warming swindle

A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.

Mike Sigman
03-14-2007, 12:11 PM
Trouble is that programe has already been discredited

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

The real global warming swindle

A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent. Oh, stoppit. You read an article in the liberal "The Independent" where they claim an investigation done by them proves something scientific? And "Steve Connor's" credentials in the scientific world are what?????? You worry about some simplifications in some graphs (for clarity, not substance) but don't dispute anything... while saying all has been "discredited"? You're exactly the sort of person the film talks about, Chalk. Down to a fine point. Dispute the science, not the filmmaking.

Mike Sigman

Taliesin
03-14-2007, 12:39 PM
Mike

I take you didn't like the article - maybe that's why you didn't read it properly. (although I concede that maybe there were too many big words)

After all a liberal Newspaper must be wrong it couldn't possibly a programme you agree with that was inaccurate.

After all if i was to dispute the science i might look at whether the evidence came from a reputable source like NASA or somewhere else.

"The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank".

Funny how you missed that

Still it's nice to see you try to argue a point. Even if you do still cling to the apparent belief that personal abuse actually counts as rational argument.

Mike Sigman
03-14-2007, 12:56 PM
Great.... they mislabelled a graph. Where is the "discreditted" that applies to the facts and figures on CO2, David? Where is the "discreditted" to atmospheric warming? To CO2 increases lagging global warming by 800 years (which essentially destroys Gore's whole argument)? Certainly you're smart enough to realize that "The Independent" is a well-known liberal rag and that they didn't "discredit" anything... they nitpicked in an effort to discredit. What I see over and over again is people make low, passive-aggressive attacks, and then moaning out loud that someone who responds to attacks is somehow the aggressor. The way to avoid even the appearance of attacks, David, is not to make oblique attacks under the guise of "not attacking". Let's play a more intelligent game.... you recognize when you're arguing the issues (not the petty side issues) and I'll respond in kind.

Remember you tried to do this same discreditting/trivialization about the BBC being biased.... you trivialized as a response. The same thing here. Try to respond to the facts, please.

The press has been heavily behind the CO2 idea and within the last 6 months, more and more people have begun to realize that the theory is crumbling. That film about the "great swindle" was actually OK, but appeared to me to simply be jumping too quickly on some of the recent solar research.... research that has nothing to do with the film other than being mentioned in it. The data is causing heart attacks in the "sky is falling" community. Argue that data. ((Reminds me... the "Independent" article got its facts mixed up about the solar/sunspot issues and misrepresented it).

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Taliesin
03-14-2007, 01:18 PM
Mike

Let's start - you read the ENTIRE ARTICLE and see if you can come up with something better that it must be wrong because you don't like it. (I appreciate you believe that to be an objective argument - i don't)

Stage two - Try to accept that being what you describe as liberal has no relevance to objective evidence (that's a posh way of saying liberal = wrong is not a valid argument) - Again I accept that this is something you will have a huge challenge with.

By the way your 'argument' that the BBC was biased from what I remember was that - there was a report that criticized them for what was in fact accurate reporting. Yes my response was simple enough for you to understand. (That's not the same as trivialising)

As far as attacks are concerned - the difference between us is that I do not pretend to be 'above' personal attacks and then perpetrate them whereas you do.

And finally the programme claimed to discredit global warming - but the basis for claiming it was inaccurate.

BTW - I take it you also believe that demonstrating that arguments and evidence fail to adequately support a position - it doesn't count as discrediting - something else I disagree with.

Anyway I'll be back either Sunday or Monday. Looking forward to your next post

Neil Mick
03-14-2007, 01:35 PM
And now we see the Mike Sigman SoP damage-control come into play.

First he tries to downplay the significance of the source...usually by ignoring significant critiques and findings...

Great.... they mislabelled a graph.

(Just going on what I read here, they seem to do a lot more, than simply "mislabel" a graph...)

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

So, to try to "prove" that Climate Change is a lie...the doc-makers lie, themselves.

Where is the "discreditted" that applies to the facts and figures on CO2, David? Where is the "discreditted" to atmospheric warming? To CO2 increases lagging global warming by 800 years (which essentially destroys Gore's whole argument)?

Where is the documentation for these terse, one-word assumptions? Where are the legions of scientists, to counterpoise the legions of scientists who stand up to verify that climate change is most likely affected by man?

And, why are you so intent on arguing such a nonissue? The way I see it: the people most virulent against climate change are the ones who are profiting the most by the status quo...i.e., Bush, corporations, and oil.

Clearly, you like to leave out issues like this, in your declarations:

Atmosphere of Pressure: Union of Concerned Scientists Finds Widescale Political Interference in Global Warming Research (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/28/150257&mode=thread&tid=25)

The issue of global warming has been in the news a lot recently. Just yesterday, an international team of scientists declared the global warming debate over and presented a detailed report to the United Nations to combat global climate change. The panel recommended pouring billions more dollars into research and development of cleaner energy resources and stated that failure to act would produce turbulent 21st century weather extremes as well as spread drought and disease, expand oceans and displace costal populations.
The report - the result of a two- year study- was compiled by an eighteen-member group of scientists representing eleven nations. It comes just weeks after the world’s leading body of climate scientists- the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Environmental Climate Change – concluded that global warming was most likely caused by human activity and may be impossible to stop.

Also yesterday, a group of developing nations known as the Group of 77 said wealthy countries must take responsibility for causing climate change instead of laying the blame on others. Munir Akram, Pakistan’s UN ambassador and chairman of the Group of 77 said that though emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants are increasing in booming Asian countries like China and India “most of the environmental degradation has historically been caused by the industrial world.”

(We can now expect a brief defamation of the Union of Concerned Scientists, how "liberal" they are, etc, ad nauseum...followed closely by a "reputable" source that will, no doubt, present more fake evidence).

Other countries and nations are starting to realize the danger of climate change, while the debate is muddied by corporate and political interests.

Meanwhile, you present discredited doc's to "discredit" climate change.

And who said that Conservatives don't understand irony? :) Certainly not me...:p

Certainly you're smart enough to realize that "The Independent" is a well-known liberal rag and that they didn't "discredit" anything... they nitpicked in an effort to discredit.

Yeah...the filmmaker himself, coming forward to admit his errors, with a solid distancing of Channel 4 (overall a pretty good TV network, BTW, from the bits and pieces I've seen of it) from the doc...yeah, sure: it was all the Independent, doing the nitpicking on the poor, poor doc that presents falsified data. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What I see over and over again is people make low, passive-aggressive attacks, and then moaning out loud that someone who responds to attacks is somehow the aggressor.

What I see over and over again are people who are making LOTS of money (Exxon is now regularly breaking its own records, in quarterly and annual reports), protecting their investments. Life is very good for oil right now...why stop the money train now?? :hypno: :hypno:

The way to avoid even the appearance of attacks, David, is not to make oblique attacks under the guise of "not attacking". Let's play a more intelligent game.... you recognize when you're arguing the issues (not the petty side issues) and I'll respond in kind.

You, respond directly to issues? :eek:

Try to respond to the facts, please.

I'm thinking about adages that involve preaching, and practicing the stuff that you admonish others to do.

The press has been heavily behind the CO2 idea and within the last 6 months, more and more people have begun to realize that the theory is crumbling.

From where I sit, the theory is gathering more steam. Just look at the recent items in the news. In Great Britain (Tony Blair's recent speech about being the first nation to deal with climate change); in the US, W. Governors (AZ, CA, NM, OR and WA) agreeing to work together to reduce greenhouse gases; the IPCC (the leading body of climate scientists) has concluded global warming is “very likely” caused by human activity and may be impossible to stop.

Funny, but to me, the opposite of what you're claiming, seems to be happening. Ppl are starting to wake up to the dangers of climate change, in spite of attempts of corporate damage-control, to muddy the waters (or should I say, muddy the oil?).

Mike Sigman
03-14-2007, 01:39 PM
Mike

Let's start - you read the ENTIRE ARTICLE and see if you can come up with something better that it must be wrong because you don't like it. (I appreciate you believe that to be an objective argument - i don't) Er.... excuse me, but you're trying to change the discussion from the accuracy of the facts claimed in the movie to disputing whether an article in "The Independent" is an accurate article, regardless of the fact that The Independent doesn't address the basic issues. Pass. You didn't study debate, did you? By the way your 'argument' that the BBC was biased from what I remember was that - there was a report that criticized them for what was in fact accurate reporting. Yes my response was simple enough for you to understand. (That's not the same as trivialising) Well, a report from within the BBC said it was indeed biased. Period. I posted the URL to it. And finally the programme claimed to discredit global warming - but the basis for claiming it was inaccurate. Which "basis" was inaccurate? The major point they hung their hat on was that solar radiation correlation synchs accurately with climate change; CO2 levels do not synch because of historical lags in correlation. What part of that have you or The Independent shown to be wrong... or even bothered to discuss? Show me any factual rebuttals? There are none, because at the moment the solar-radiation and cloud-formation data are in the vogue, embarrassingly for the IPCC and the pro-alarmists. But perhaps that will change.. who knows?

The original point was that the press have favored the pro-alarmist side of the argument and have been caught out because of it. All the attacks shy away from discussing the solar-radiation data or the cloud-formation data. So do your "factual arguments". Neil's arguments don't even come close to discussing it.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

James Davis
03-14-2007, 05:24 PM
Wooly mammoths and smilodons don't exist any more because the planet got too warm for them. The same might hold true for the polar bear...

...and us.

We should try to pollute less, much less, but I think that this change is inevitable. Plenty of species have died out without any help from our carbon emissions.

Megalodon's (big, prehistoric shark) main food source was whales. When the latest ice age started, whales moved north and adapted to cold climates. Megalodon couldn't follow, and died out. What's gonna happen if the seas keep gettin' warmer?

The sharks are gonna get bigger.:eek:

Everybody out of the water!

Neil Mick
03-15-2007, 01:13 AM
Show me any factual rebuttals?

Please. When presented with a point-by-point factual rebuttal to your posted source: you cut and run (see post #96).

Lorien Lowe
03-16-2007, 02:44 AM
Mike,
I read Science, Science News, and occasionally Nature; these are high-level, pure science publications. The scientists publishing in those periodicals agree that global warming is a problem and that man-made CO2 (and other man-made gasses) is contributing to the problem.

Lorien Lowe
03-16-2007, 02:46 AM
The sharks are gonna get bigger.:eek:
Everybody out of the water!

Oh, this won't make a difference. The sharks are already big enough to eat us.

James Davis
03-16-2007, 11:20 AM
Oh, this won't make a difference. The sharks are already big enough to eat us.

Yeah, but now they'll want the boat too.:p

Neil Mick
03-16-2007, 02:31 PM
Moving on with the topic of media coverage, vs. national ignorance...

There's the sad case of Kevin, aged 9, son of Majid and Masomeh, a family of Iranians stuck in substandard and prisonlike conditions in the Hutto Detention Facility, in Texas.

Family detained in U.S. granted permit to enter Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/13032007/3/canada-family-detained-u-s-granted-permit-enter-canada.html)

Kevin's parents, Majid and Masomeh, (they've asked that their last names be withheld) first arrived in Canada 10 years ago seeking asylum, but were unsuccessful and were deported to Iran in December 2005. Kevin was born as they lived in Canada.

The parents said they faced torture in Iran and made another attempt to seek refuge in Canada with the use of stolen Greek passports.

But on a flight to Toronto from Guyana on Feb. 4, a passenger suffered a heart attack and died, causing the plane to be diverted to Puerto Rico.

U.S. officials discovered their false documents and detained the family for five days before sending them to the T. Don Hutto detention centre near Austin, Texas, a converted medium-security prison that has been condemned by human rights groups and is the subject of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Apparently, the conditions in Hutto are very bad. Kevin's not allowed to play with the other kids; he sleeps right next to an open toilet; and he has asthma.

But, the interesting thing, from a media perspective, is the coverage this story is getting. It's big news in Canada...even provoking this thoughtful editorial about the injustice of the current immigration policies:

Keeping The Bad, Throwing Out The Good (http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=5602)

The centre is run like a high-security prison for dangerous offenders, and little Kevin, now aged 9, sent a heart-breaking letter to prime minister Stephen Harper, begging him to bring his family back to Canada.

The problem is that the Canadian government can help Kevin, because he is a Canadian citizen, but his parents have no legal status and are therefore beyond the reach of Canada.

The fact that Majid was tortured upon his return to Iran should be sufficient proof for another refugee application. It also shows how wrong the Canadian authorities were to deport the family in the first place.

It boggles the mind. Just when you thought that Canada's immigration and refugee authorities cannot possibly be any more stupid, they deliver ready-made evidence to the contrary.

This Iranian family fled a terrible regime and sought a new home in Canada. Majid and Masomeh never broke the law and earned an honest living. When they first came to Canada in 1995, they played by the book, filed an application for political asylum, and did everything possible to be good Canadians.

They were deported in 2005 because the authorities did not believe their story about life in Iran. Those are the same authorities, however, that buy some of the most blatant lies from bogus refugee applicants, such as that Mexican who now claims to be gay and says he has to fear for his life in Mexico.

Then, of course, we have several people in Canada with known terrorist connections, who are allowed to stay in Canada. The infamous Khadr family even brags about its connections with Osama bin Laden, with the mother saying once how proud she would be if her sons could die as martyrs.

But decent and hardworking people like Majid and Masomeh are treated like garbage and sent back to Iran, where Majid was tortured.

You separate the wheat from the chaff, the old saying goes. You keep the wheat and discard the chaff. In Canada, however, it seems, we are more interested in the chaff than the wheat.

On our side of the border, a vigilant media would give this coverage its due: and I imagine that there would be a much-needed and healthy debate over the (in)effectiveness of private, corporate-run prisons, and the injustices apparent in OUR detainment procedures.

But of course, we're far away from that reality. Maher Arar's name is STILL on the "no fly" list: and the MSM has given his case little attention.

Taliesin
03-18-2007, 11:31 AM
Reply to Mike

No I didn't study debate - I did however study advocacy and mooting, so I never had the luxury of assuring that the criteria for relevance was my own personal convenience

Nor do I have the luxury of saying that the the 'basic issues' are what I want them to be. (I do appreciate that this is a difficult and frightening concept for you Mike - as pretty much all rational debate appears to be)

So let's go through it slowly

1. The TV programme allegedly put forward an argument that humanity was not responsible for the climate change the planet is now experiencing.

2. The newspaper article put forward information that the evidence that purported to show this was, out of date, inaccurate, and misrepresented.

3. I stated that the programmed had been discredited

4. The basic issues for this are did the newspaper article discredit the programme?

Your argument appears to be - all it showed was that the argument and evidence put forward by the programme was all unreliable. but that doesn't mean it was discredited.

You then, as usual, sidestepped the issue and claimed that it must be about the actuality of global warming.

So perhaps instead of resorting to your usual rant - that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong - you go and invest in the purchase of a dictionary - I am sure your chances of success in discussions will improve if you actually know the meaning of the words you are using.

Now moving onto more immediate Human concerns

If Canada is anything like the UK - it's a numbers game - you need to refuse as many as you can get away with to appease the right-wing media mob.

In the UK an IND (Immigration & Nationality Directorate) stated "if you can't find a reason to refuse them - you should allow".

Still at least Canada has independent review of such decisions.

It also appears to be a disgraceful fact of life that all Western countries appear to be doing all they can to avoid fulfilling their freely accepted responsibilities under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The shocking thing is unlike the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Australia - Canada has a relatively good reputation on asylum issues.

Neil Mick
03-18-2007, 11:43 AM
The shocking thing is unlike the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Australia - Canada has a relatively good reputation on asylum issues.

Part of that reason, I imagine: is that they have a healthy debate on immigration.

Here, we have a bunch of yahoo's call themselves "Minutemen," threaten minorities around the border and get cheered on, by the California Governor... :rolleyes:

Taliesin
03-18-2007, 11:47 AM
I think you are probably right - here in the UK the Minister in charge has set his priority as 'no bad headlines' - just keeping the right wing media happy.

Neil Mick
03-18-2007, 06:37 PM
here in the UK the Minister in charge has set his priority as 'no bad headlines' - just keeping the right wing media happy.

Now that brings on an interesting question...is there a "rightwing media?" Here in the US, the answer is no (with the exception of Fox...but Rupert Murdoch was deliberately copying the style of British tabloids when he created Fox).

In other countries (Venezuala, Haiti, to name a few), there is certainly a rightwing media, and it affects how the world views certain internal crises.

In the US, the MSM is all owned by big corporations, and subject to a mercantile slant to everything. If it sells, is good for big business and can be put into a trivializing soundbite...run that sucker at 6!

Any thoughts on the rightwing media in other countries (GB, Canada, etc)?

Taliesin
03-19-2007, 04:35 AM
Rupert Murdock actually wanted standards as low as the UK's Tabloid media?

Neil Mick
03-19-2007, 12:57 PM
Rupert Murdock actually wanted standards as low as the UK's Tabloid media?

I think that he was less interested in "standards," than in loyalties. Certainly, you can see that in watching exposee's like "Outfoxed." (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7798.htm)

From the film:

"We weren't so much a news gathering organization, we were told, we were more a purveyer of a point of view."

Amir Krause
03-20-2007, 03:00 AM
First a question:

On Sunday I heard several news reports on the radio about France urging Israel to attack Syria during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer. According to the reports, the France promised Israel full diplomatic backing for a long time, in return for Israel attacking Damascus (note it would not be a first, in 1956 Israel launched an attack on Egypt at the request of France and England, the request supported the Israeli interests at the time to attempt and stop terrorist attacks from the Egyptian border and to derail the Egyptian arming process at the time).

Did any of you hear anything about this in your international news?

Amir

Amir Krause
03-20-2007, 03:24 AM
Now that brings on an interesting question...is there a "rightwing media?" Here in the US, the answer is no (with the exception of Fox...but Rupert Murdoch was deliberately copying the style of British tabloids when he created Fox).

In the US, the MSM is all owned by big corporations, and subject to a mercantile slant to everything. If it sells, is good for big business and can be put into a trivializing soundbite...run that sucker at 6!



I have a question, or perhaps some point to think about, something that does trouble me at times:

In the last 20 years or so, we have all seen civilian economy, related to peoples consuming non-necessary products, has bloomed (just don’t stop buying those, I will be out of a job in no time). In fact, the incomes and profits the large corporations create from prospering peace are much larger then those they gained from war related economy.
Given the above agreement that the media is owned by the big corporations, and they have significant control over it. Is it not possible that they actually affect the public opinion to increase the peoples feeling of safety and prosperity, even regardless of actual needs.
Can you trust your media to support a necessary preventive military action before a crisis blooms way out of proportion?
Or would the media today automatically criticize any military action on account of it reducing the peoples feeling safe and secure?

I do not believe all military actions are required to improve the actual security, and I do believe some military actions actually reduce the security. I also believe that in some cases, a military\forceful action can improve security, even the latter type of action may be worthy of some criticism, regarding the manner of execution and preparation and the possible alternatives (example for application related criticism: regarding the possibility of using stronger forces for a smaller task or vise versa).

Unlike some M.A. situations, in wars perception and public opinions plays a major part, and if the media truly chooses their side based on the corporations economic interests, it could affect real wars too.

Amir

Neil Mick
03-20-2007, 03:30 AM
First a question:

On Sunday I heard several news reports on the radio about France urging Israel to attack Syria during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer. According to the reports, the France promised Israel full diplomatic backing for a long time, in return for Israel attacking Damascus (note it would not be a first, in 1956 Israel launched an attack on Egypt at the request of France and England, the request supported the Israeli interests at the time to attempt and stop terrorist attacks from the Egyptian border and to derail the Egyptian arming process at the time).

Did any of you hear anything about this in your international news?

Amir

Hi Amir,

Off the top of my head: I vaguely remember hearing about France cheerleading Israel on the sidelines. I heard little about the particulars, tho.

The thing that really sticks out is Bush's little sotto voce comment caught on-camera about "getting the message" to Syria, muttered to Blair as he devoured his lunch...

Tom Fish
03-20-2007, 06:26 AM
I don't know what outrages me more. That George Bush would want Syria to "Get The Message" or the idea that he devoured his lunch. Either one is just an outrage.
Tom

Amir Krause
03-20-2007, 08:49 AM
Hi Amir,

Off the top of my head: I vaguely remember hearing about France cheerleading Israel on the sidelines. I heard little about the particulars, tho.

The thing that really sticks out is Bush's little sotto voce comment caught on-camera about "getting the message" to Syria, muttered to Blair as he devoured his lunch...

There is a differnce between Bush supporting Israel and indicating he would be happy if Syria would get some too, and between the France Govt. secretlysuggesting a deal of support in return to military action, which is the way the news services portried it here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879109084&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A siilar article was delivered in AL-Jazira:
http://http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12931

Seems to me like this is much more then the Bosh statements. Particularly given the normal positions of those countries...

Amir

Neil Mick
03-20-2007, 11:06 PM
I don't know what outrages me more. That George Bush would want Syria to "Get The Message" or the idea that he devoured his lunch. Either one is just an outrage.
Tom

Ouch, Tom. Your wit is so dry...the paint is peeling off the wall behind me....:p

But in case you forgot...(yea, get ready to be outraged... :D )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFckE7GCrE

That little bon mot was a rare, scary look into the elemental mind of W, whilst consuming.

:eek: :eek: Scary :eek: :eek:

Neil Mick
03-20-2007, 11:13 PM
There is a differnce between Bush supporting Israel and indicating he would be happy if Syria would get some too, and between the France Govt. secretlysuggesting a deal of support in return to military action, which is the way the news services portried it here:

Well, yes: I'd say that it WAS certainly interesting that this little point was left out.

But, the idea of the French gov't supporting someone's actions for the almighty dollah is hardly news. In fact, their history is riddled with making political choices, for mercantile gain.


A siilar article was delivered in AL-Jazira:
http://http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12931

I couldn't get this one to work...sorry. Still, from the first link...it IS interesting.

Seems to me like this is much more then the Bosh statements.

I didn't mean for them to be comparative.

If you want to get comparative, we can talk about Bush and Condi going on about the "birth pangs of a 'new' Middle East..." all the while approving rush orders for smart bombs and cluster-bombs from Israel.

That sort of political weasel-wording for political gain, seems more comparable to France egging Israel on, for monetary gain.

Lorien Lowe
03-21-2007, 01:07 AM
I didn't hear anything about france/Israel/syria. I have a friend living in Damascus teaching English, and all of her e-mails about unrest in that city have been about anti-American, not anti-French (given, however, that she's American, there might be a reporting bias) demonstrations.

Amir- about the media: What you say might be true if the media sold products, but what they sell is news and entertainment; I think that in their particular case they sell more when people are nervous and fearful.

Lorien Lowe
03-21-2007, 01:09 AM
The Spanish-American war (iirc) was blamed largely on newspaper companies whipping up public outrage over relatively minor incidents, casting blame where it didn't belong, and inventing heros in order to sell more papers.

Luc X Saroufim
03-21-2007, 01:43 PM
First a question:

On Sunday I heard several news reports on the radio about France urging Israel to attack Syria during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer..........Did any of you hear anything about this in your international news?

Amir

yes Amir, it was all over the Lebanese press last week. this makes sense for two reasons:

1) France, since Lebanon's inception, always supported a Christian/Westernized Lebanon, and are extremely against Syria/Iran/HA influence in Lebanon. Notice when Lebanon received $7B in grants and soft loans last year, the conference was held in Paris. this was to prop up the Pro-west government that is currently in "power".

2) Maybe you can confirm/deny this: the big picture in Israel's plan was to defeat HA in 2-3 days, then move into Syria. this would get rid of the threat in southern Lebanon, and ensure no more weapons would be smuggled through Syria. this is why there was no cease fire: the IDF kept spinning its wheels but figured it would gain traction at some point. when they realized they would fail at their objective, and the war would come to an end, they threw all the cluster bombs in the south to protect against HA people who would return there.

in an interview with Olmert last week, Haaretz and Ya Libnan both confirmed that this war was planned up to 4 months in advance. there was nothing in the American press about this because if it was made public, then Bush would have failed two wars and destroyed two countries, as opposed to "only" one.

all this is basically proof that there is going to be another conflict. i am going to be more civil about it this time around, but i just don't know how much more Lebanon can sustain..right now you can say the economy is dead and its basic structure is on life support. if there's similar damage than last year's war, it will never recover and never be the same.

Neil Mick
03-22-2007, 01:15 AM
Whoops...missed this one.

I have a question, or perhaps some point to think about, something that does trouble me at times:

In the last 20 years or so, we have all seen civilian economy, related to peoples consuming non-necessary products, has bloomed (just don't stop buying those, I will be out of a job in no time). In fact, the incomes and profits the large corporations create from prospering peace are much larger then those they gained from war related economy.
Given the above agreement that the media is owned by the big corporations, and they have significant control over it. Is it not possible that they actually affect the public opinion to increase the peoples feeling of safety and prosperity, even regardless of actual needs.

Absolutely. War is good business: and the MSM did a fine job in pimping this last war.

The media create a need, and then mass-produce the junk that they tell us will "fill" this need.

Last year...the "need" was for bombs.

Can you trust your media to support a necessary preventive military action before a crisis blooms way out of proportion?

Is this a trick question?

The MSM helped manufacture the crisis.

Or would the media today automatically criticize any military action on account of it reducing the peoples feeling safe and secure?

It's not an either/or issue. A healthy media would act as a watchdog of the halls of power...constantly reporting and questioning the implications of what goes on, and who benefits from what policies.

I do not believe all military actions are required to improve the actual security, and I do believe some military actions actually reduce the security. I also believe that in some cases, a military\forceful action can improve security, even the latter type of action may be worthy of some criticism, regarding the manner of execution and preparation and the possible alternatives (example for application related criticism: regarding the possibility of using stronger forces for a smaller task or vise versa).

This is too broad a statement for me to comment.

Unlike some M.A. situations, in wars perception and public opinions plays a major part, and if the media truly chooses their side based on the corporations economic interests, it could affect real wars too.

Amir

Well, yes. Amongst many Conservatives, it is commonly thought that the media played a role in losing the Vietnam War for the US (I don't agree with this theory). But certainly: the media play a major role in not only causing war, but in allowing a conflict to indefinitely extend.

Look at Darfur, for instance. Better, more comprehensive coverage might well bring the conflict to a swifter conclusion. And, don't even get me started in the US media blackout of the Occupied Territories...

Amir Krause
03-22-2007, 03:55 AM
, otherwise my response would become illogical:



2) Maybe you can confirm/deny this: ....

in an interview with Olmert last week, Haaretz and Ya Libnan both confirmed that this war was planned up to 4 months in advance. there was nothing in the American press about this because if it was made public, then Bush would have failed two wars and destroyed two countries, as opposed to "only" one.


Sorry, but this is a classic example of taking things out of context, and creating a conspiracy theory out of shreds.

According to the Israeli press (I was not there but this report does seem credible): Olmert did have a meeting with the army in which the responses to various possible FUTURE scenarios were discussed. One of those scenarios was HA abducting soldiers in the Lebanese-Israeli border. Olmert did state he considered this a reason for a much larger activity up to war. Which has indeed been the Israeli policy last summer.
Olmert made this revelation in the press to shift the burden form him to the Israeli army and make people think he was not at fault for any problems. On the other side, the military claims once this decision was taken, Olmert was supposed to conduct multiple additional discussions to the point of approving several specific action plans.

As you can infer from the above paragraphs, nobody actually intended for an unprovoked attack on Lebanon, as can be implied from your message. The topic of all those discussion was preparing "drawer plans" for Reponses to HA attacks on Israel. From my own experience in the Israeli army, such plans are done\updated on a periodic basis and this has nothing to do with a specific pre-planning of war.

If you understood from Haaretz and Ya Libnan the war was preplanned 4 month in advance, then they got you confused and misinformed.
According to the reports here, Olmert had told the army that in the case of a soldier kidnap he would like significant retaliation, possibly crushing HA to deter/prevent any recurring attempt (he may have also added the idea of rescue but I think this was wishful thinking from day one). Olmert HAD NOT told the army to prepare to initiate a war at Lebanon or against Syria. There is huge difference between the two.


2) Maybe you can confirm/deny this:
the big picture in Israel's plan was to defeat HA in 2-3 days, then move into Syria. this would get rid of the threat in southern Lebanon, and ensure no more weapons would be smuggled through Syria. this is why there was no cease fire: the IDF kept spinning its wheels but figured it would gain traction at some point. when they realized they would fail at their objective, and the war would come to an end, they threw all the cluster bombs in the south to protect against HA people who would return there.

I strongly doubt this was the military plan, the army did not recruit half the necessary reserves for such a plan.
In fact, based on my understanding of the process of this war, I would say you are attributing too much logic and coherence to the Israeli actions. One of the things people here are furious about is the exact lack of such coherence in most decisions above a certain rather low level (regimental or so) - there were multiple cases of soldiers preparing to enter Lebanon and start an activity and then were sent back at the last moment or later. The entire army operational march commands changed on a daily basis (this means the commands change before anyone can implement them).

You are not acquainted with the way the army works, and for obvious reasons I am not permitted to explain too much about it. But if there was one thing apparent this last summer, it was not some malicious mind working on a grand scheme but rather incoherence, contradictive decisions often delayed or not given at all, etc.

Amir

Luc X Saroufim
03-22-2007, 08:50 AM
According to the Israeli press (I was not there but this report does seem credible): Olmert did have a meeting with the army in which the responses to various possible FUTURE scenarios were discussed. One of those scenarios was HA abducting soldiers in the Lebanese-Israeli border. Olmert did state he considered this a reason for a much larger activity up to war. Which has indeed been the Israeli policy last summer.

yes, i remember reading this on Haaretz or Daily Star, i forget which one. the Daily Star is a MUCH more neutral Lebanese newspaper than Ya Libnan. Ya Libnan is basically a newspaper intended to prop up the existing government. they never say anything good about HA or Israel.


You are not acquainted with the way the army works, and for obvious reasons I am not permitted to explain too much about it. But if there was one thing apparent this last summer, it was not some malicious mind working on a grand scheme but rather incoherence, contradictive decisions often delayed or not given at all, etc.


for the obvious reasons, i could not see this point of view before, but in 20/20 hindsight it makes sense.

i like reading Haaretz because Palestinians, Israeli's, and Lebanese all respond in public forums. you can see how difficult it is to get a peace process going, on a street level.

the Daily Star cuts out all the fat, and gives you the facts. if you want to see the Lebanese POV i would highly recommend this newspaper.

Ya Libnan is entertaining, they turn politics into a game of propaganda but they don't even try to hide it.

Amir Krause
03-22-2007, 10:52 AM
the Daily Star cuts out all the fat, and gives you the facts. if you want to see the Lebanese POV i would highly recommend this newspaper.


Can you put a link to the english edition?

Neil Mick
03-22-2007, 12:01 PM
, otherwise my response would become illogical:

How sad: if this is your only response to my post.

A personal attack.
Tsk. Not at all up to your usual standards. You can do better.

Luc X Saroufim
03-22-2007, 01:15 PM
What's up Amir,

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/

here it is

Amir Krause
03-25-2007, 03:27 PM
How sad: if this is your only response to my post.

A personal attack.
Tsk. Not at all up to your usual standards. You can do better.

Neil
Don't be paranoid. I have not responded to your post, not sure I agree since it seems to me all our thoughts are some type of over simplification of complex realities.

If you are so intersted, the missing part was supposed to be:

Luc, I inverted the order of paragraphs in my response, otherwise my response would become illogical:
The Italic part went to the ascii blackhole and I did not notice.

Amir

Mike Sigman
04-08-2007, 12:57 PM
Here's a pretty good example of how the AP consistently works (although they're often a lot more blatant). From Powerline, one of the prominent blogs run by a group of lawyers:

April 07, 2007
Media Bias: How It Works

Sometimes media bias is blatant and grotesque; it can extend to flat misrepresentations, use of fake documents, etc. Much more often, it is relatively subtle, as reporters push their version of a story in small ways, day after day. Here is a textbook example, via Power Line News.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Associated Press, one of the world's leading weather experts, Dr. William Gray, blasted Al Gore for perpetrating global warming hysteria. Since Dr. Gray is generally recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting hurricanes, this is news. But let's examine how the AP handled it in the article that resulted from their interview. The AP begins in a straightforward manner:

A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

But watch where the story goes from there. First the subtle demeaning of the distinguished Dr. Gray:

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
Gray is implicitly depicted as a crank; he "rails." Note that the hysterical and ill-informed Gore never "rails." Further, Gray "has long railed," which suggests that, rather than being a consistent critic of an unproven theory, he is a tiresome eccentric whose views have been heard and discounted. More on this later. The AP continues:

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.
As we have noted elsewhere, the U.N.'s IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and its findings have been subject to withering criticism. But the AP implies that the U.N's report represents a scientific consensus. Next:

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.
Now it's explicit. The elderly crank who "rails" and disagrees with the U.N. is not part of "mainstream thinking," notwithstanding the fact that, as the AP acknowledges, he is the world's foremost authority on hurricanes.

Now the conclusion: in evaluating media bias, it is always important to see who gets the last word. The AP signs off with a scientist who contradicts Gray's views:

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.
There you have it. Dr. Gray is a fuddy-duddy who "has long railed" and is outside the "mainstream." He has "dug his heels in" and is so out of date that he tries to dispute the obvious fact that the world is currently getting warmer! The AP is telling us that, however distinguished Gray may be, he can safely be disregarded on this issue.

But wait! Does Dr. Gray really deny the "ample evidence that the world is getting hotter"? Maybe the AP reporter just took Emanuel's word for it. Maybe he was too lazy to do any research. Maybe he deliberately misled his readers. Through the miracle of Google--do AP reporters know about Google?--it took me approximately 30 seconds to find this interview of Dr. Gray, in which he talked about whether the earth is "getting hotter":

Q: ... is global warming behind this increase in hurricanes?
Gray: I am very confident that it’s not. I mean we have had global warming. That’s not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular.

The AP is resorting here to the media's constant trick of misrepresenting the position of those who oppose the global warming theorists. The issue is not whether the earth has recently warmed; it has, by around 7/10 of a degree in the last century. The questions are, 1) to what extent, if any, is that warming (or the cooling that also occurs periodically) caused by human activity, 2) how much warming (or cooling) is there likely to be in the future, 3) what will the net effects, good and bad, of such warming or cooling be, and 4) are the benefits, if any, of reducing CO2 emissions by a given amount worth the costs?

The Associated Press, like nearly all mainstream media outlets, runs interference for the global warming hysterics by misrepresenting the nature of the debate, misrepresenting the positions of those who oppose the hysteria, and subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) suggesting that all who question the anthropogenic global warming theorists can safely be dismissed as cranks.

James Davis
04-09-2007, 11:27 AM
Brace yourself, Mike. Somebody's gonna dismiss you as a crank.;)

I heard a great idea for a bumper sticker today:

"I drive a hybrid. Al Gore just talks about it."

:D

Mike Sigman
04-09-2007, 11:36 AM
One of the interesting things I saw recently about Gore was that he acknowledged that there are gross exaggerations in his film, but he basically said that those exaggerations (read "lies") are justified because the subject is so important. Isn't that why everyone justifies their own lies? Because it was "the right thing to do" (the catch-phrase so many libs and so many Far-Righters use to justify everything under their sun)? What's wrong with simply telling the factual truth anymore?

;)

Mike

James Davis
04-10-2007, 12:34 PM
What's wrong with simply telling the factual truth anymore?

;)

Mike

Nobody can even agree on what the truth is! :rolleyes: That's what makes having a discussion so difficult sometimes.

Well, most of the time.

Mark Freeman
04-10-2007, 01:09 PM
What's wrong with simply telling the factual truth anymore?

;)

Mike

Mike, you're a heretic!;)

finding 'the' factual truth in today's misinformation driven age is probably beyond us:(

It would be interesting to see if anyone has any examples of the big issues that face us all today, being dealt with by using only factual truth. I can't think of any right now, but then I don't have all the facts;)

regards

Mark

Mike Sigman
04-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Mike, you're a heretic!;)

finding 'the' factual truth in today's misinformation driven age is probably beyond us:(

It would be interesting to see if anyone has any examples of the big issues that face us all today, being dealt with by using only factual truth. I can't think of any right now, but then I don't have all the facts;)

regards

MarkSo the reason for not telling the truth is because no one does it? You've been watching too much BBC, m'lad. ;)

Mike

Mark Freeman
04-11-2007, 12:24 PM
So the reason for not telling the truth is because no one does it?

On the contrary, I'm all for people speaking the truth, let me know when someone does!;)

You've been watching too much BBC, m'lad. ;)



I've been watching too much telly, period:hypno:

regards

Mark

Mike Sigman
06-18-2007, 10:18 AM
Here's the latest on the BBC longterm and rather obvious (except to the similarly minded) bias to the Left. I.e., the BBC has not been reporting the truth, but has been trying to shape opinion. Whether it's someone from the Left (like the BBC, the NYTimes, etc.) or the Right (like a news outlet trying to convey a religious message, etc.), it's simply dishonest to work under the aegis of "the public's right to know" and then deliberately propagandize:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-details/BBC+accused+of+institutional+'trendy+left-wing+bias'/article.do

Mike

Taliesin
06-19-2007, 11:07 AM
Interesting Post from the champion of Fox News

Mike Sigman
06-20-2007, 01:44 PM
Where have I "championed" Fox News, or is that some sort of characterization designed to change the subject from the BBC's disgrace? Remember how you asserted the BBC wasn't biased in the past? What's the point in suddenly trying to insert "me" and "Fox News" as some sort of dishonest diversion?

I said it before and you denied it.... but the BBC has a bias that has resulted in it deliberately misleading the public in an attempt to shape the public's opinions. That's simple dishonesty. I'm surprised that you're not outraged at the BBC. Or maybe I'm not.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

jennifer paige smith
06-20-2007, 11:56 PM
Where have I "championed" Fox News, or is that some sort of characterization designed to change the subject from the BBC's disgrace? Remember how you asserted the BBC wasn't biased in the past? What's the point in suddenly trying to insert "me" and "Fox News" as some sort of dishonest diversion?

I said it before and you denied it.... but the BBC has a bias that has resulted in it deliberately misleading the public in an attempt to shape the public's opinions. That's simple dishonesty. I'm surprised that you're not outraged at the BBC. Or maybe I'm not.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Wow, you guys. The more you talk on this forum the more it seems like one of these media operations is going to cover your war.
Maybe this will help. Obviously you all care about the world and what is happening in it, and you care about getting substantiated information, and you care about integrity of information and you care enough to get involved.
I would love to hear more information. It is obvious to me that you both (mike and neil) have had a lot of exposure to the world and I would like to hear it.

For the benefit of us all please remember that you are brothers in aikido, if not in politics.

That's my thought. Thanks for listening.

gdandscompserv
06-21-2007, 06:08 AM
For the benefit of us all please remember that you are brothers in aikido, if not in politics.

That's my thought. Thanks for listening.
Jen,
Mike doesn't do aikido.;)

Hogan
06-21-2007, 08:09 AM
...I said it before and you denied it.... but the BBC has a bias that has resulted in it deliberately misleading the public in an attempt to shape the public's opinions. That's simple dishonesty. I'm surprised that you're not outraged at the BBC. Or maybe I'm not.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

More proof - just yesterday, it was reported that the BBC asked the Iraqi civilians for reports of troop movements so they can in turn report it.

It's OK, though, since the terrorists have no TV's, right?

MM
06-21-2007, 09:41 AM
Beyond the BBC, in America, journalists give Democrats money over Republicans 9 to 1. Nah, no bias there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

MM
06-21-2007, 09:46 AM
Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

As we have noted elsewhere, the U.N.'s IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and its findings have been subject to withering criticism. But the AP implies that the U.N's report represents a scientific consensus. Next:



Yeah, MSM is having a hard time hiding their agendas and lies (and some aren't even hiding it any more).

For more about the supposed "Global Warming", try reading these articles:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&k=29751

jennifer paige smith
06-23-2007, 12:05 AM
Jen,
Mike doesn't do aikido.;)

In that case, may I make a recommendation?::p

just kiddin'.:)

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 02:06 PM
More comments on the BBC and liberal press views

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010282

DH
07-01-2007, 04:23 PM
The only thing that makes the revelation "shocking" is that it is still shocking!! I mean ...Duh!
It's like being surprised that the majority (something like 98%) of college tenured prof.'s are all liberal. It's -no news- that's making news.

Cady Goldfield
07-08-2007, 11:04 AM
I wonder what the connection is between effete intellectualism and liberal bias? I'd guess that tenured faculty of community colleges, vocational/tech institutes and agricultural state universities are not as likely to have such as leaning as are pragmatically-disposed faculty of the aptly-named liberal arts/sciences universities and colleges -- long the home of the privileged intellectual or "artiste."

Mike Sigman
07-08-2007, 12:27 PM
I wonder what the connection is between effete intellectualism and liberal bias? I'd guess that tenured faculty of community colleges, vocational/tech institutes and agricultural state universities are not as likely to have such as leaning as are pragmatically-disposed faculty of the aptly-named liberal arts/sciences universities and colleges -- long the home of the privileged intellectual or "artiste."Conservatives have their own share of "effete intellectuals" a la William F. Buckley. And he admittedly had a conservative bias in the "National Review". The interesting part about the insistence of many liberals that there is no bias in the MSM is that you have to wonder whether they're too dumb to see it or if they're just being dishonest... either way, that disqualifies them from the position of feeding "the public's right to know the truth". Granted, not all liberals are silly about denying that the mainstream media is liberal, but a lot of them deny it instinctively, just as the BBC did until this embarrassing report.

Mike

Cady Goldfield
07-08-2007, 12:39 PM
Yes, I suppose that academe is the nurturing ground for effete intellectualism from both extremes. ;) Whether liberalism or conservatism prevails likely depends on the particular philosophy and value system of the host institution.

jennifer paige smith
07-08-2007, 02:06 PM
The mainstream media, from either side, feeds us a steady diet of Burger King "mind food". Filling.Sometimes yummy. Destructive to the welfare of the planet. Uninterested in you beyond your consumer value. That might be a fairly liberal dose of metaphor. But I was being conservative in my approach.
Thank You. Come again.

Mike Sigman
09-19-2007, 11:59 AM
Unknown Religion reported in News: ;)

"Islam Leaflet School Bust," by Larry Celona in the New York Post:

September 19, 2007 -- A Queens teen was arrested yesterday after placing
fliers in his teachers' mailboxes asking them to convert to Islam - then
made threats once he was caught, authorities said.
Yaseen Chowdhury, 17, of Woodside, wrote the fliers himself and put them
in the mailboxes at the Renaissance Charter School in Jackson Heights,
sources said.

When confronted there about the fliers, he made unspecified verbal
threats, according to the sources.

Chowdhury was charged with aggravated harassment as a hate crime.

A Department of Education spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

The student's religion was not immediately known.