More information Than We Need...

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2010-05-10 09:05 PM

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/05/09/obama-in-247-media-world-information-becomes-a-distraction/

I'm wondering how much information you all have gotten out of your IPods, XBoxes and PlayStations lately. Obama is making a run at outdoing Bush's Bushisms and Gore's Goreisms.

So information is putting pressure on out country and democracy. Sounds like Obama would like to do something about that potential problem.

I'm not anxious ro find out what....

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

1 posted 2010-05-10 09:27 PM

quote:

I'm wondering how much information you all have gotten out of your IPods, XBoxes and PlayStations lately. Obama is making a run at outdoing Bush's Bushisms and Gore's Goreisms.

Or your youisms?

There is plenty of information to be obtained from those sources Mike. People actually podcast news and opinion, Xboxes and Playstations hook right up to the web -- you can surf and play -- and play together and chat -- it's the age of infotainment -- something you should be familiar with -- it's FOX's specialty.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

2 posted 2010-05-10 10:11 PM

LOL...may indeed be an -ism of mine. So information can come out of a Playstsation? Or are you saying you can play with a playstation attached to a computer while using the computer for other things at the same time? In that case wouldn't the info be coming from the computer and not the Playstation or Xbox? Is that how you think Obama referred to it? Does actual information come from the Xbox? Can you just turn on your XBox and have info come from it or through it?

Do you think too much information, even when some of it is bad, is bad for democracy and the country? Should it perhaps be controlled?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

3 posted 2010-05-10 10:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7d6g-TpaGw

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

4 posted 2010-05-10 10:39 PM

Yiu can't be serious! LOL! I can't even read that video, especially with it's speed. I was hoping to get info from a person, not a youtube video....Forget it. I'll research it myself.

and the other question?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

5 posted 2010-05-10 10:52 PM

http://us.playstation.com/index.htm

I've checked the PS3 and XBox home pages and could find no information on their being able to access the internet except for Playstation purposes, such as downloading new games or such. If you can find anywhere where it dictates you can access anything else, or receive news or information from anywhere else, let me know.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

6 posted 2010-05-10 11:01 PM

Still looking. Can I get CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, blogs, opinion sites ot any other areas where this "misinformation" Obama refers to, on a PlayStation or XBox?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

7 posted 2010-05-10 11:26 PM

I seem to have lost my PS3 mentor. Anyone else have any info on that? Also, anyone have an opinion on my question...

Do you think too much information, even when some of it is bad, is bad for democracy and the country? Should it perhaps be controlled?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

8 posted 2010-05-10 11:39 PM

Tech-savvy Obama tells grads Apple iPads hurt democracy

President Obama, who ran the most tech-savvy presidential campaign in history, took a surprisingly hard line against Apple products Sunday in a graduation speech that touched on the importance of education in a world being revolutionized by technology.

Obama is certainly the most tech-savvy president we've had. His presidential campaign used YouTube, mass texting, Facebook and blogs to energize grass-roots support in an unprecedented way. During the campaign, Obama was photographed using an iPhone (he now uses a BlackBerry), and his wife, Michelle, said she bought the family MacBooks so they could stay in touch while he was on the road, an Apple fan site gleefully noted.

All of which makes it surprising that Obama not only suggested he didn't know how to use iPods and iPads in his speech, but also criticized them for turning users into a powerless audience that consumes instead of creates.

By blaming gadgets for turning information into entertainment, Obama expands his ongoing criticism of the 24-hour news industry, which he says spreads misinformation and polarizes the public in its quest for higher ratings.

"With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult at times to sift through it all; to know what to believe; to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not," he said in the speech, encouraging graduates to use their education to arm themselves against misinformation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100510/pl_ynews/ynews_pl1976

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

9 posted 2010-05-11 08:07 AM

hmmmm...I seem to have found a topic that resembles the curious incident of the dog barking at midnight....

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (05-11-2010 08:44 AM).]

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

10 posted 2010-05-11 08:38 AM

I was dismayed to hear Obama say such things, but it certainly didn't come as a surprise. He has a need, I believe, to have control over the media, to have people only hear what he wants them to hear, and only with the spin that he wants on it. All else is disinformation and smears, according to him. I don't know if he actually believes that or not or if that is just his own smear tactic that he is using.

While most of the media are his willing lapdogs, the internet, talk radio and Fox News are at the moment, out of his reach.

Sunshine

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-25

Posts 63354
Listening to every heart

11 posted 2010-05-11 01:43 PM

My spouse mentioned this "information" to me this morning.

I told him that the next thing will be cell-tapping...

and don't think that it can't be done.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

12 posted 2010-05-11 02:40 PM

quote:
I seem to have lost my PS3 mentor. Anyone else have any info on that?

You can surf the interweb on a PS3, and a Wii straight out of the box – they both have built in browsers – the last time I checked the xbox 360 was the odd one out, you could load a browser and surf the web but it didn’t come with one.

That last bit might have changed, there were rumours a browser was in the pipeline.

Can you have too much information?

No, but you can definitely have too much misinformation masquerading as information and there’s a good argument that can be made that it damages or perverts democracy – which is what Obama was talking about.

Is he likely to try to control access to misinformation?

No. Trying to insulate people from misinformation would be an impossible task and ironically attempting to do so would damage democracy far more than having free access to it. The best course of action would be to counter misinformation with actual facts.

Personally I’d go for a voluntary rating system for sites – similar to the star rating for hotels – any sites would put themselves forward for rating by an independent body, like Snopes or Factchecker. They’d get a star rating they could display on every page on their site dependant on their accuracy over a given period, if their standards dropped they’d be downgraded. Any site with a 5 star Fact rating would become a ‘go to’ and trusted favourite among surfers – any site that didn’t sign up to the system would be easily recognisable as suspect.

I say hoist them with their own petard.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

13 posted 2010-05-11 08:42 PM

This questioned has been asked to me more than a few times. You be the judge of the “authoritative source.”

“For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the ‘tell-all, final word’ on any comment, claim and e-mail. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it -kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago – and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions – or skepticism’s is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.
When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama’s Birth Certificate had been properly validated, I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.
Then a few months ago, when my State Farm agent, Bud Gregg, in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, supposedly the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this, and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers. Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things.

Not!

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts: Proceed with caution. Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.”

Check it out and in the future when someone wants to “snopes.com” you, send them a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes
http://www.metroedit.com/2009/05/how-accurate-is-snopescom/

So a husband and wife team could set ratings for internet sites? Interesting..

Actually I think Obama appointing a "Ratings Czar" would be more likely. That's his style.

After all, the ratings system worked out great for the movie industry......not.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2010-05-11 10:42 PM

BTW...."You can surf the interweb on a PS3". Is the interweb different than the internet or is that just another way of saying it? I ask because, from what I read, the PS3 could only access sites dealing with the PS3, like downloading games or playing interactively with others. My interpretation could very well be wrong?

I wonder, with Obama claiming to know nothing about these things, how would he know that these items came with browsers? Of course we do know that he misrepresented that, being in love with his Blackberry, which he obviously knows how to work.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

15 posted 2010-05-12 08:25 AM

And he is obviously quite familiar with the IPod, having given one to the Queen with his speeches on it.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2010-05-12 12:44 PM

Well, I want my money back because my Ipod does NOT have a browser!

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

17 posted 2010-05-12 01:39 PM

Bahama's,....er...Obama's demonizing list knows no bounds.
What's next for him to hate on:
upside down ketchup bottles?

The last time I saw someone with skin so thin was Richard Nixon.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

18 posted 2010-05-12 01:48 PM

quote:
So a husband and wife team could set ratings for internet sites? Interesting..

Not necessarily Mike, I said something like Snopes or factcheck, but if a husband and wife team can supply an unbiased judgement based on factual evidence or attributes an "undetermined" or "unverifiable" judgment where applicable, as Snopes does – then yes, they could do it.

quote:
Is the interweb different than the internet or is that just another way of saying it?

It’s an amalgamation of two terms – The Internet and the World Wide Web - normally used by people who know what they’re talking about but who want to pretend that they don’t.

quote:
Well, I want my money back because my Ipod does NOT have a browser!

You should have bought an iphone Mike, it’s a phone, an ipod and has the ability to surf the Interweb.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

19 posted 2010-05-12 02:09 PM

quote:
from what I read, the PS3 could only access sites dealing with the PS3, like downloading games or playing interactively with others. My interpretation could very well be wrong?

I considered using number2 son's PS3 to post this reply – but I’d have to go into his room to do that, which normally involves visa applications and numerous shots along with lengthy negotiations regarding future cleaning schedules.

I thought I’d give it a miss, here’s a link explaining how to get to the browser on the PS3 Mike.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/12/31/ps3-how-to-surfing-the-world-wide-web/

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

20 posted 2010-05-12 02:12 PM

True enough, grinch, but Obama didn't mention IPhones...he said IPods.

Let's face it...them man lied through his teeth...again - nothing new there. The disturbing question is.....what is he laying the groundwork for in the future?

if a husband and wife team can supply an unbiased judgement based on factual evidence or attributes an "undetermined" or "unverifiable" judgment where applicable, as Snopes does – then yes, they could do it.

Well, if all it takes is unbiased judgement, I'm sure many people could do it. SInce the Scopes family has no lawyers, no investigative teams, and logically derives their results from what they can find on other areas of the internet, any of us could do it, I suppose. That would qualify them for setting internet standards? That's one of your weaker arguments, mr. grinch.

I CAN imagine Obama setting up a government agency to do it...of course, that knocks your "unbiased judgement" requirement out of the ballpark. Rockefeller has already tried to pass a bill giving the government complete internet control in case of national emergency - the government being the determinators of what constitutes a national emergency. Obama could easily say the the tremendous amount of bad or misinformation on the web could count as a national emergency, since he has just said it could damage or undermine our democracy.

There will be something coming down the road...stay tuned.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

21 posted 2010-05-12 02:15 PM

OK, thanks for the info, grinch. Now explain how I can get it on the IPod Obama mentioned and I'll be fully informed

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

22 posted 2010-05-12 02:46 PM

oh, Mike, you know where He is going with all this:
this is laying the PR foundation for saying information is potentially bad, so it needs to be controlled.  By whom?  The government of course.
In steps the  Net Neutrality Law
which is a thinly disguised Fairness Doctrine.  In the name of equal time for liberal and conservative ideas, of course.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

23 posted 2010-05-12 02:58 PM

Yes, I know, Jeff. I was just curious as to see whether any of our more ardent Obama supporters here had anything to say about it.

The results are not surprising....but very telling.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

24 posted 2010-05-12 03:17 PM

quote:
OK, thanks for the info, grinch. Now explain how I can get it on the IPod Obama mentioned and I'll be fully informed

All that Interweb, FaceTube and YouBook stuff just confuses me Mike, but if I wanted to load some of that misinformation onto an ipod I’d connect it to my laptop or netbook using a usb connection and dump the files onto the onboard hard drive or utilise the flash memory depending on the model. I could download audio files of misinformation in MP3, AIFF, or WAV format, along with videos in MPEG-4 format. Then I could listen and watch Fox news clips to my hearts content while on the move.

But unfortunately I don’t understand how any of that stuff works. I’m like Obama in that respect.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

25 posted 2010-05-12 03:25 PM

LOL...you're beginning to be like Obama in many respects....doubletalking comes to mind after your last statement.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

26 posted 2010-05-12 03:52 PM

I don’t know Mike, maybe I am like Obama.

I certainly agree that technology and the rise of portable media devices allows the easy transfer and access to misinformation, to the detriment of real information. Does that threaten democracy? I think it does. Is it worth talking about? Well it sure beats discussing the technical capabilities of individual devices that can (or can’t) be used to access misinformation.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

27 posted 2010-05-12 03:57 PM

I think the thing that threatens democracy is government censorship.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

28 posted 2010-05-12 04:23 PM

Grinch, he spoke of access to information, not transfer. You are trying to make the case that your IPod can carry misinformation...as long as you load it in there first! Please....

Obama stood in front of students and flat-out lied about (1) where misinformation is coming from and (2) that he didn't know how to use them. By all means continue to twist away. It doesn't change his actions a whit.

Nor does it change that it is a precursor to future actions...

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

29 posted 2010-05-12 05:07 PM

quote:
Grinch, he spoke of access to information, not transfer. You are trying to make the case that your IPod can carry misinformation...as long as you load it in there first! Please....

I think you’re a little confused Mike, technology can do that.

The interweb is a means of transferring and accessing information, an ipod is a device to access information and also a means to transfer it.

You can access misinformation using either of them. What you‘re doing Mike is conflating the means of transfer with the method of access and defining access as interweb connectivity. It might sound good but it’s technically incorrect.

I read the bit you posted:

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy

Replace ‘iPads’ with ‘newspapers’ Mike and the point he’s making is exactly the same. Can you access the interweb through a newspaper? Heck no, but you can access misinformation.

quote:
I think the thing that threatens democracy is government censorship

How would that work Denise, how could your government censor the information you have access to?

.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

30 posted 2010-05-12 05:10 PM

Ya know of another nation
who says unfettered access to the internet is dangerous?
China of course.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

31 posted 2010-05-12 05:16 PM

Grinch, you asked Denise how could the government restrict information?
By applying the concept of 'fair'
toward access.
The Net Neutrality act would actually limit the providers on what they could, if their broadcasts aren't  ahem...balanced, or fair.
This control can be done inthe form of a tax, like Cap and Tax, where usage is penalized.  They could limit specific content by making the product too expensive for the cable companies to carry as an option.

in Radio, the Fairness Doctrine's reintroduction would do the trick since AM radio is dominated with conservative talk shows.  The term fair and social justice comes to mind, as a target for Obama to strive for, and that means the free exchange of information.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

32 posted 2010-05-12 05:19 PM

quote:

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/05/09/obama-in-247-media-world-information-becomes-a-distraction/

     This is a statement about information and information overload.

     From this statement about information and information overload, which, by the way, is true, you have made a series of conjectures and assumptions which have ended you up in your familiar and comfortable place, saying the same familiar and comfortable things over again.  Where have you seen The President make any statements in favor of restrictions on the flow of information or in favor of censorship?

     President Bush, on the other hand, classified or restricted access to how much previously open source data?

     Bush restricted how much data?

     Obama restricted how much data?

     Your objections to Bush's actual restriction were?

     And your fantasies about the potential for President Obama's possible future restrictions that are supported by exactly what actions on his part are?

     And you account for the differences between these two situations in which way, exactly?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

33 posted 2010-05-12 05:24 PM

Replace ‘iPads’ with ‘newspapers’ Mike and the point he’s making is exactly the same.

h, but that's the rub, isn't it? You have to go out and buy a paper or have it delivered to you. Add that to the fact that you would need millions of newspapers to match even a fraction of the information available at your computer fingertips and you can see why he goes after IPods (erroneously) and the others. He doesn't want all that information out there, available to everyone, especially what may go against him, personally or politically. He calls it dangerous to the country. Actually, it's dangerous to him. That's the bottom line.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

34 posted 2010-05-12 05:27 PM

Nice of you to appear, Bob.

I;ll ask you the same question I asked LR and didn't get an answer for.

Do you think too much information, even when some of it is bad, is bad for democracy and the country? Should it perhaps be controlled?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

35 posted 2010-05-12 05:29 PM

quote:
The Net Neutrality act would actually limit the providers on what they could, if their broadcasts aren't ahem...balanced, or fair.

Net neutrality?

You’re kidding right? The concept of net neutrality is the exact opposite of censorship:

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that unreasonably degrades other traffic.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

36 posted 2010-05-12 05:41 PM

quote:
You have to go out and buy a paper or have it delivered to you.

The interweb is free Mike? And the guy reading this in an internet café, library or at work hasn’t gone out?

OK so you think Obama was talking about accessing electronic media - like podcasts Mike? Those, sometimes pernicious, electronic snippets you can access on your ipod?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

37 posted 2010-05-12 05:56 PM

Playing dumb is not your forte, grinch. You know exactly Obama was talking about. Yes, he could have mentioned newspapers, tv shows, tape recorders or a myriad of other means. Instead he chose items that all had one great similarity...they accessed the internet. That's his problem, the internet, not the daily paper. That's where this discontent, this misinformation, this contrasting info of his actions and that is where he thinks the "threat to democracy" lies.

And the guy reading this in an internet café, library or at work hasn’t gone out?

You continue to surprise with comments like that coming from an intelligent man.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

38 posted 2010-05-12 05:56 PM

never never quote wikipedia
on an explanation of a political concept in current debate.

They leave off anything that raise issues of fairness.
But I'm too tired to debate Net Neutrality today. Let it play out, you'll see the applications are far more dangerous than the plan itself. Enforcement of said policies, and the power reverting back to the government for enforcement, when the net isn't owned by anybody. Free market system.

What you listed was just one of many provisions within the plan.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

39 posted 2010-05-12 06:09 PM

quote:
never never quote wikipedia
on an explanation of a political concept in current debate.

It saved me the effort of explaining why I think you were wrong, I’d have quoted Fox news if they had an equally succinct and equally correct explanation of the concept.

Net neutrality is a subject I know quite a bit about Threadbear, I’d be more than happy to discuss your idea that it’s a tool for censorship. Where would you like to start? It’s late here but I’ll look forward to reading your thoughts and discussing it tomorrow.

.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

40 posted 2010-05-12 06:13 PM

Hey Grinch, that's cool: start a new topic thread and I'll read up on it in the meantime. I am reacting to the pros/cons from Politico on the subject.

I agree with your FOX assessment: they'v failed to discuss this topic with any clarity.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

41 posted 2010-05-12 06:16 PM

quote:

Ya know of another nation
who says unfettered access to the internet is dangerous?
China of course.

     This is begging the question.

     What do you mean "another" nation?

     What do you mean when you suggest that this nation has suggested such a policy?  Where do you get this stuff?

     I certainly agree that bad information drives out good information in the same way that counterfeit money drives out good money.  That doesn't mean that it's okay to set up censorship for information, though frankly I'm not entirely thrilled that it's as easy as it is to find plans for building your own A-Bombs as easily available as they are, or that people can find out how to weaponize anthrax or make sarin gas as easily as it's apparently possible to do so.  Nor am I thrilled that there's as easy an access to certain kinds of pornography — say child pornography, for example — as there is.  That's apparently part of the price we pay for our ambivalence about the open market and freedom from censorship in general.  I accept that.

     Even more easily do I accept that when it comes to political speech, which the previous material might possibly be considered in some distant way a sub-set of, the canary in the mine of free and uncensored speech as it were.

     That's my thought, at any rate.

     And I don't see any particular evidence that's been supplied by anybody here that suggests that the President is in some sort of basic disagreement with those thoughts.  Certainly, I haven't seen him express any thoughts about censorship in the ways that any of my Radical Right Wing friends have been suggesting.

     If he says that we suffer from information overload, so what?  Do you disagree?  It's certainly a likely theory, and near as I can tell, the brain is set up like a filtering system, so that it presents less and less material to awareness the more conscious the material becomes.  It screens out lots of basic information from conscious awareness most of the time, and presents the conscious mind only with the barest minimum that it needs for what the earlier pre-conscious stages consider necessary for survival.  Most of the time, folks aren't even aware of the blood pressure or digestive processes that happen within the body, and sometimes not even of disease processes that can be life-threatening, let alone be aware of material like sounds the brain is processing in the distant environment, and many images unless they happen to be swiftly moving ones from the top of the visual field, most of the time.

     Because of some of the cultural assumptions the brain is content to make, it is mostly unwilling to revisit assumptions already made, most of the time, and will tend to throw out current evidence if it is conflict with previously made decisions.  The brain already filters out most information well before it arrives at consciousness anyway.

     What The President is saying here is not anything radical or new, folks.  Nor do I hear The President offering these comments  as a trial balloon for the government to whittle access to information down further.  The Republicans, in case you weren't looking, already did that during the last administration.

     The horse is gone, folks.  The Freedom of Information act has been all but gutted already.  The government has been encouraged to classify heavy breathing and the direction in which we believe gravity tends to function.

     That would be down.

      Since the Bush Administration, you may well have a difficult time getting information that sensitive out of the government ever again.  It's classified.  I don't remember that any of you Radical Right Wing folks did much except cheer about that.  I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, with appropriate citations, of course, that might indicate that you were upset at the roll-back of our freedoms at that time; these would give your upset at the recent statements by our Democratic President quoted by Mike at the beginning of this thread a certain authority that they seem otherwise to lack.

     That would suggest that you were upset at the issue of censorship — which is worth the upset, no matter which party does the censoring — and not simply because the guy who made the statements was a Democrat, and not because the statements were clearly about restriction of free speech.

     That I did not see.  Perhaps you might point out those words.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

42 posted 2010-05-12 06:31 PM

Last post before bedtime.

quote:
instead he chose items that all had one great similarity...they accessed the internet.

No he didn’t Mike, not in the quote you posted, two of the devices don’t even connect directly to the internet, a fact you’ve been trying to highlight throughout this thread – remember? So where’s the similarity with regard to the internet? The only connection that the devices have is that they can all access electronic media and misinformation.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

43 posted 2010-05-12 06:33 PM

"Information is putting new pressure on our country and our democracy"

What The President is saying here is not anything radical or new, folks.

Oh, really???

Would you care to answer my question, Bob? It's not a difficult one and doesn't require War and Peace to answer it.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

44 posted 2010-05-12 06:38 PM

No he didn’t Mike, not in the quote you posted, two of the devices don’t even connect directly to the internet

Well, hallelujah!!!! You finally acknowledge they don't instead of making excuses for his illegitimate use of them. Get some rest. You need it

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

45 posted 2010-05-12 07:04 PM

If you mean

quote:

Do you think too much information, even when some of it is bad, is bad for democracy and the country? Should it perhaps be controlled?

     No.  It should not be controlled.

     How do you account for the Restrictions that the Republicans put on previously open information when they cracked down on the Freedom of information act and classified greatly increased the amount of censorship on data available to the public from the government?

     Given your stance on this here, why does it seem to break down when the censorship is Republican, even when the material was previously freely available?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

46 posted 2010-05-13 10:24 AM

quote:
Well, hallelujah!!!! You finally acknowledge they don't instead of making excuses for his illegitimate use of them.

Odd use of the word finally Mike, I acknowledged the fact in my first post in reply to this:

quote:
Can I get CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, blogs, opinion sites ot any other areas where this "misinformation" Obama refers to, on a PlayStation or XBox?

My reply:

quote:
You can surf the interweb on a PS3, and a Wii straight out of the box – they both have built in browsers – the last time I checked the xbox 360 was the odd one out, you could load a browser and surf the web but it didn’t come with one.

Perhaps the word you were looking for was “initially”, but even then you’re on rocky ground - you can access electronic media on them all and that’s the only claim Obama made.

.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

47 posted 2010-05-13 11:13 AM

Bob, if Obama was more
transparent
we wouldn't have to SPECULATE on his motives for controlling dissenting opinion.
But he's attacked everyone who's attacked him and many who haven't.
He's an idealogue who wants to apparently stiffle opposition in any way possible: thru Gibbs, thru fear mongering, thru demonization, thru passage of laws his administration has suggested.
It would be nice to be able to hold him to his word of Pre Election promises.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

48 posted 2010-05-13 05:48 PM

quote:

if Obama was more
transparent
we wouldn't have to SPECULATE on his motives for controlling dissenting opinion.
But he's attacked everyone who's attacked him and many who haven't.
He's an idealogue who wants to apparently stiffle opposition in any way possible: thru Gibbs, thru fear mongering, thru demonization, thru passage of laws his administration has suggested.
It would be nice to be able to hold him to his word of Pre Election promises.

     More transparent than he is, more transparent than President Bush, more transparent than what, Mike?:  You use a comparative without offering a benchmark.  Anybody can be more transparent than they are.  A reading of the gospels will give you a quick understanding of that.  The ten commandments cause quarrels — is that Though shalt not Kill or Thou Shalt not Murder?

     As far as comparison to Bush, I leave that one to you and I wait with bated breath to see what you have to say there.

     Mr. Gibbs is the White House Press secretary.  It's his job to talk back.  Why you would think he is either more or less than a press secretary is beyond me.  Why you believe that he would allow lies and distortions to go by is beyond me as well, especially considering the amount of time Republican Administrations going back at least as far as Nixon have spent attacking "the media" when "the media" didn't back the Republican party line.  Especially when the last Administration made its preference for Fox known, and Fox made a point of skewing its coverage.

     It is the job of the administration to get laws through that it feels will help the country, and indeed, one might well argue, this is the reason that the country elected not only a Democratic Administration, but a Democratic Congress as well.  To suggest that this is some sort of rotten thing the Administration is doing to spite the people seems to me to be slightly disingenuous.  This is what they were elected for.  That and the fact that the electorate seemed deeply upset with the way that the Republicans had been managing things.

     Now it's understood that the Republicans would wish to steer things in another direction.  The Republicans are for the present the loyal opposition, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, and you, as a member of that opposition, would certainly see things differently.  But to suggest that the party in power is off base because they are exercising power does seem to me to be a bit silly.  Why else would they be in politics, for the free beer?

     Fear Mongering?

     I'm sorry, but I simply don't see that.  I see two constituencies with two distinct sets of fears, and I see each party attempting to address the fears of their own constituency.  Being a Liberal myself, I certainly see my own fears as more important because it seems clear to me that the stakes are higher — population collapse, famine, massive water shortages and wars.

     I understand that those on the right see things differently, and that my concerns seem to be fear mongering from where they, and you, Mike, are sitting.

     I wish there might be some way we could find that would enable us to actually measure the reality of these worries that we have, left and right, and set out a useful and objectively agreed upon list in order of their importance so we could go about tackling them.  As an occasional asthmatic, for example, you might imagine that breathing is pretty much at the top of my own personal list.  Where it might be for the CEO of BP is anybody's guess.

     I will confide that I'm very attached to breathing, though, and I'm frankly rather resistant to folks who try to make me compromise on the issue so they can have more profits.  And I really do like money, too.  Really.

     On the whole, while I too have issues with The President, and certainly with his policy about Gitmo and his failure to address The PATRIOT ACT, I understand that the country is not obligated to agree with me, and they are by and large happier with the man than I am.  And he seems to be doing a pretty good job for Republican Lite.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

49 posted 2010-05-13 08:21 PM

More transparent than he is, more transparent than President Bush, more transparent than what, Mike?: You use a comparative without offering a benchmark.

Actually, Bob, if you'll check, I didn't make that comment. Threadbare did. Perhaps you would care to address that comment to him? I can understand tossing an accusation at me is fun stuff for you, but at least be sure it's something I said, ok?

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

50 posted 2010-05-13 08:38 PM

I sit corrected, Mike.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

51 posted 2010-05-13 09:56 PM

Everybody's getting mixed up today on who I am!  I'm starting to get a huuuge inferiority complex guyz!
What I wrote was a 'perception' statement, Bob.  In my opin, he obscures the true meaning of every situation:  like for instance, the URGENCY to pass Health care.  have to, right now!  Hunnh??  HIS urgency perhaps but not ours, and NOBODY called him on this blatant lie that it had to be done quickly, without reading the bills, you're gonna love it when you see, etc.

The first three attacks by Extremist Muslims weren't called a terrorist act.

The Fort Hood Captain Hassan was NEVER called a terrorist by the Administration.  Cap and trade is smoke and mirrors to shift big oil money to green technology and Obama knows it, but that's not how he is spinning this trillion dollar boondoogle.

He wanted education improvements, but his FIRST major act as Pres was to close the Washington DC voucher 98% success rate charter school.

Let's Mirandize terrorists EVERY time...er...on second thought...SFX of sandels flip flopping

I'll close Gitmo in the first year.  ERRR....still open, Prez.  New detainees actually have been sent there since election, too.  ooopps

His pre-election rhetoric, which was powerful, and altruistic, is a far cry from the issues he has championed since taking office.  The two don't match.

ergo
the word: transparency
in my opin

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

52 posted 2010-05-13 10:24 PM

Hey, don't forget the stimulus package and the shovel-ready jobs, not to mention booting out the lobbyists, who set a record attendance last year.....the list could go on for a while.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

53 posted 2010-05-13 10:54 PM

Sorry Mike.  I don't schedule my life around PIP or your questions. You should pretty much know by now that I'm here, then I'm not here, then I'm here again, then I'm not here.  I don't have much time right now -- so pretty soon ,  I'll not be here again.

Yes, you can surf the web directly from a PS3, Wii, or an Xbox -- with the Xbox you have to do a softmod -- like install Linux -- because Microsoft only wants you to use its' web networking feature to access the Xbox Live subscription service in which it has an extremely heavy investment.

And, what Grinch has told you is pretty much true, excepting that iPods DO in fact connect directly to the 'Internets' via WiFi starting with the touch series introduced in 2007.  This is a comprehensive list of the podcasters out there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_podcatchers  --so you don't have to use an iPod.

Heck, even my kids' Gameboy's are WiFi now.

(btw -- Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable source for unbiased information BECAUSE it is completely open -- anyone CAN edit it -- but because of the strict rules everything has to be sourced -- the alternative is an encyclopedia that isn't live -- but is edited by a BOARD -- who do you trust more?  The thing is -- you have to look at the source material -- look at the bottom -- if there's something you think is wrong, you can investigate it further and join in a discussion about it -- or even edit it yourself -- but if you can't back up your claim it will get pulled down very quickly -- and don't worry -- the Republicans and Dems alike have paid staffers who regularly scan Wiki for objectionable content.)

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

54 posted 2010-05-13 10:59 PM

quote:

Do you think too much information, even when some of it is bad, is bad for democracy and the country? Should it perhaps be controlled?

I think what's bad for democracy Mike is that the range of choices pretty much insures that a person can limit themselves to whatever brand of misinformation they like the best -- without ever trying to look at something from another perspective.

Everyone has a voice on the web -- that's good, that's bad. Sifting through all of it is the hard part.

Where I think controls need to be placed -- which aren't in effect currently -- is upon paid political advertisements -- the same truth in advertising standards need to be applied to them that are applied to selling toothpaste.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

55 posted 2010-05-14 12:06 PM

quote:

Everybody's getting mixed up today on who I am! I'm starting to get a huuuge inferiority complex guyz!
What I wrote was a 'perception' statement, Bob. In my opin, he obscures the true meaning of every situation: like for instance, the URGENCY to pass Health care. have to, right now! Hunnh?? HIS urgency perhaps but not ours, and NOBODY called him on this blatant lie that it had to be done quickly, without reading the bills, you're gonna love it when you see, etc.

Sorry, T-Bear. Sometimes, as the ad says, you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't, and today, for me, has had a high cashew content. I really like what you have to say, and I know you work hard at saying it, even when I don't agree with you. I'm sad that you feel that I've missed you and confused you with Mike, which, in fact, I did. I can't claim that the company's bad, though, since I enjoy Mike as well, especially when I'm not busy growling at him.

If you spend any time reading Alfred Adler, you'd feel better about inferiority complexes. Adler thinks that they push us to compensate and overcompensate, and often are the source of some of our best and strongest personality traits. My observations tend to agree with his on the matter. He gave a lot more thought to power than sex, and we ignore his thinking at our peril, considering how much of the heavy lifting he's done for us already.

quote:

The first three attacks by Extremist Muslims weren't called a terrorist act.

     That would probably depend on asking "by whom."  Odds are that you would not be included in that list, would you be?  And there would be a fair number of others who would certainly share and amplify that opinion.  I suspect that there are people you wanted to be vocal in sharing and disseminating that opinion that did not do so, however, and that you may be indirectly sharing your upset about this.

     I too get angry at people for things that they do not say as  often as I get angry at people for things that they do say.  I often feel silence can be a terrible betrayal.  "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent" is a phrase that has done the circuit in my brain more frequently than I would care to count.  In this, as with many other things, I am dismayed at how self-righteous I can be at my worst and, perhaps, even at my best.  I don't know there whether I am being honest there or rueful or self-punitive.  Sometimes it difficult to tell.

     But one of the things that it would seem to me to come with the freedom of speech would also be freedom of silence, right?  As in, "You have a Right to Remain Silent. . . ."  And sometimes it is better to avail yourself of that right, not only for legal reasons.

     Nobody has to call the first three of anything "Terrorist attacks by Muslim Extremists," whether they are or aren't, do they?  You certainly have the right to impute any motivations to that silence that you wish, and, as long as they are a public figure, you have a right to share that generally.  If they were a private figure, there might be some liability attached, if I understand the law correctly.  Being a journalist, you'd probably understand that better than I would.

quote:

The Fort Hood Captain Hassan was NEVER called a terrorist by the Administration. Cap and trade is smoke and mirrors to shift big oil money to green technology and Obama knows it, but that's not how he is spinning this trillion dollar boondoogle.

I don't have time top research this right now. My understanding is that Cap and Trade was originally a Republican proposal to allow free market elements into controls on emission standards. I have no particular opinion on the matter myself. It sounds sort of Republican Lite to me, though, a sort of funny sounding compromise.

quote:

He wanted education improvements, but his FIRST major act as Pres was to close the Washington DC voucher 98% success rate charter school.

I'd like to see some education improvements myself. I'm simply not certain what they would be. I have no idea what the history of this stuff is that you're speaking about here. I tend not to like the idea of taking apart public schools, though I'm certain that there are lots of things about them that need improvement, including the protections for teachers that even other teachers believe are bad teachers. How to address these things, I don't know, but I would like to begin some sort of discussion about this stuff if we could free it from the politics of left and right.

quote:

Let's Mirandize terrorists EVERY time...er...on second thought...SFX of sandels flip flopping

Let's Mirandize everybody when we arrest them. It may well help the occasional defendant, but it will certainly help every police department and prosecutor's office when it comes time to bring people to trial because it helps make sure that the protections are accorded and that convictions don't slip through because of careless or purposely deceptive beyond the pale police-work, as has occasionally happened in the past.

You act as though Mirandizing somebody is something that is helpful only to the defendant, when in fact it provides significant help to the state as well. Among other things, it reminds the police that it is not legal to beat or torture defendants, and that doing so, no matter how appealing previous administrations may have made it appear may actually be grounds for releasing the otherwise manifestly guilty defendant back into the population. And that laws in this country are supposed to apply to the police as well as everybody else.

quote:

I'll close Gitmo in the first year. ERRR....still open, Prez. New detainees actually have been sent there since election, too. ooopps

I'm infuriated at the man about this too.

Actually, I don't know that you're steamed about this, only that you find this inconsistent, which it is as well. As well as infuriating to me personally, is what I mean here.

quote:

His pre-election rhetoric, which was powerful, and altruistic, is a far cry from the issues he has championed since taking office. The two don't match.

     I have to agree with you.

     I don't know if the disjunction is as large as that between Bush's campaign promises and his praxis of governance, but it doesn't seem as bad to me.  He seems to have tried to allow the Republicans a voice in the legislation and the policy decision, and the Republicans seem to have made a point of defining themselves by being against everything he's been for, even when, as in the case of the health care bill, the bill is essentially the same bill that they proposed as a reaction to Hillary's plan 15 or 20 years back.  It's been an exercise in frustration.

     "Not just the 'Party of No,' but The Party of H-ll No!'" was the phrase I heard used.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

56 posted 2010-05-14 07:51 AM

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

57 posted 2010-05-14 06:44 PM

     You seem to suffer whiplash when people don't fit stereotype, Mike.  Sorry to make you feel dizzy.  I said what I thought to threadbear in the same way that I say what I think to you.  You have heard me say that there are things about the President that I don't like, and I've mentioned some of them to you.  These are the same things.

     If you actually wish to put the message you're trying to get across here into words, you should feel free to do so; as long as they are phrased tactfully and decently, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.  I depend on my friends for criticism as well as for their interesting ideas.

     Loved the dress.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

58 posted 2010-05-14 07:34 PM

Youse guys...

Bob, just wanted to say that I wasn't serious about an inferior complex. Just teasing y'all is all. I have rhino skin anymore: leathered by experience, tolerance, and indifference.

Be at peace, brother. We'll eventually elect somebody who knows how to wash dirty laundry.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

59 posted 2010-05-14 09:50 PM

quote:
in Radio, the Fairness Doctrine's reintroduction would do the trick since AM radio is dominated with conservative talk shows. The term fair and social justice comes to mind, as a target for Obama to strive for, and that means the free exchange of information.

If this has been adressed, I apologize for the repeat.

Many people will remember (and most blinding liberals will want you to forget) the Liberal radio media where ONLY liberals were allowed to spout off their hatred and abusive thoughts to their hearts' content (that was an intentional use of the words that have been used against the other side), yet they were unable to make it work for very long... it seems they couldn't muster too much of an audience... or sponsors to pay for the air time.
If this garbage about "fair and balanced" on the airwaves is required, then most of the talk radio stations are going to go off the air for the same reasons... of course, that would accomplish the goals that I feel the current administration is attempting.

No one to spout anything against the administration... ya know...

*thinks real hard*

Methinks I remember something about President Lincoln (#16) arresting people who disagreed with him, and suspending habeus corpus during his administration... Who would have ever thought that the current administration would want to pattern themselves after a Republican President...

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

60 posted 2010-05-15 02:47 AM

     Wut?

     I've heard a fair amount of Radical Right Wing talk about the dangers of the return of The Fairness Doctrine.  As a reasonably frequent listener to Left Wing radio, I haven't heard anybody advocate for it, and some talk against it.  Thom Hartman, for example, has been actively against it, not that anyone has asked for any examples.  It's a kind of large Republican red herring.  Left Wing talk radio remains alive and well, sorry to tell you.  If you believe it went away with Air America, you're wrong, and some of it is very funny.

     Odds are you wouldn't like it.

     I am unclear who you mean by the phrase "blinding liberal."  I have yet to meet a radical Right wing person who was able to find themselves illuminated by liberal ideas, let alone be struck blind by their brilliance.  And the flame cast by most conservative talk show hosts seems to come, near as I can tell, from what Milton once called "darkness palpable."  Many of the liberal talk show hosts actually seem to welcome conservative listeners who call in, and go out of their way to speak with them.  Some are more polite than others.  Thom Hartman seems very good about this, but Stephanie Miller will often listen with a fair amount of respect, depending on how she's addressed.  Treat her poorly, and that's how you'll get treated in return.

     Fox News advertises itself as "Fair and Balanced."

     Nobody suggested that there be legislation to enforce that.  It is simply a bizarre claim to make by a network that has made a point of being a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.  If Fox had called itself, The Right Network, at the Right Time and in The Right Place, everybody would have laughed and said, Yeah, sure, we get it, and muttered something about irony and truth in advertising and that would have been it.  The whole issue would have more or less vanished for being out front and clear.

     Nobody's going to try to take the right wing off the air.  If they tried, I'd campaign against the process myself.  There's no such thing as too many voices, even when they don't agree with me.  They may be wrong, which I regard as self evident, but I may be wrong too, which they regard as self evident, and I'm not about to say that everybody shouldn't have access.  There's not all that much freedom to go around that we can afford to abridge anybody's in a case like this, is there?  Abridge somebody's freedom, and the total amount of freedom available for everybody goes down.  That's the way I figure it in my mathematically challenged fashion.

     Now you, Ringo, may think the current administration is trying to do this.  I don't.  But if you can show me where, who and how, I'll be glad to write a letter about it to them, asking about it.  I'm no happier about this possibility of this sort of stuff than you are.

     You're right about Lincoln and habeas.  It was one of the things that made him greatly hated by many during his administration.  From this distance, we can love him safely now, and do, but I for one can understand the hate as well about an issue as powerful as this one.  The problems about habeas this time around started with The PATRIOT ACT, and seem to continue with it.  I know that many have found my continual harping on this bill to be upsetting, but it is a genuinely dangerous piece of legislation for the cause of freedom in this country, or so I believe, and it is one that seems to have a disturbingly high degree of support in both houses and on both sides of the aisle.  If it were simply a matter of this administration, I'd be relieved.  But the anti-democratic roots of this bill run deep.  Senator Lieberman was a sponsor and many Democrats voted for it.  The Republicans were for it overwhelmingly and the then President Bush was happy as a clam.

    President Obama, who should know better, hasn't tried to get it repealed.  If he tried, I think he might be lucky to get thrown out of office.  Or maybe it's my old paranoid 60's radical left wing bones acting up again, and now smoking has been proven to be bad for my health. Pfui!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

61 posted 2010-05-15 07:11 AM

Bob, you are simply showing your bias against Fox news again, with facts disregarded and insults substituted instead. Fox news IS fair and balanced, regardless of how much you dislike it. If you were to watch it for a day, you would find a plethora of Democratic congressmen on it to express their views. If it were the monster you claim it is, they would not go near it. Are the talk shows right wing? Absolutely...but they are not Fox news. Are the talk shows of Maddow and Obermann left wing? Of course they are yet you complain about one and praise the other. This simply points out the bias on your part.

Sorry

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

62 posted 2010-05-15 05:27 PM

     No, Mike, I'm talking about the news that Fox News reports and refuses to report.

     Fox News viewers should have been informed that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, at least somewhere along the line.  Were Fox unbiased, Fox viewers would have been informed.  Fox viewers should have been informed that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaida.  Were Fox unbiased, fair and objective, they would have been.  If Fox were unbiased, Fox viewers would have been informed about the fact that there we no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Fox viewers were not so informed.  This is not a matter of talk show idiocy, this is a matter of news policy and of not correcting factual errors but perpetuating them for the political gain of the Right wing at the expense of misleading and even lying to the public.

     These are not errors of slant in the Op Ed page.  These are lies in fact on the news pages and during the tv and radio broadcasts from the networks.

     Many news sources make errors like this due to errors in their sources, but over time, as their reporters get better informed and as their sources get better, the facts they report become more accurate.  I have not noted this with Fox, though I am certainly willing to see and acknowledge any major examples that you or any other folks would care to point out.  I have no desire to paint Fox or anybody else as being better or worse than they are.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

63 posted 2010-05-15 08:37 PM

Actually, Bob, the phrase "blinding liberal" applies to those who feel that anyone who has views other than their own are racist, evil, and have no place amongst common society.
I speak of those who feel that the freedom of (their) speech is absolute, and that if you are of the conservative bent, then it is perfectly OK to scream at you, interrupt you, not allow you to finish a thought, or to stand in the middle of a forum that people paid money to listen to the speaker and scream, call them names, and throw things at them... yet, heaven forbid you tell them they are wrong.
I describe those who are willing to stand in your face and scream so loudly and out of control- spraying you with as much spittle as possible- that you are a racist who does not deserve to live because you feel that anyone who is in this country without the benefit of availing themselves of the federal immigration process is illegally in this country, and has broken the laws, and as such should not be afforded the protections afforded all legal citizens of this country.
Bob, it is the ones that will argue the point that hunting and meat eating is cruel and should not be permitted, and will punctuate their position by threatening physical harm upon those who participate in the legal, ethical, and moral process of feeding their families with leagally caught wild game. Those who will prove that peace is the best way to live by throwing a rock through your window, or by hitting with with a sign are the ones that I call blinding liberals.

If the liberal radio media is still a strong, viable industry, then I apologize for my mis-statement, and sincerely wish it well. It is only through the free and open exchange of ideas, without the constraints of governmental control- regardless of what they are, whithin the long-held acceptable language restrictions.
(the seven words you can never say on... *thank you Master Carlin)

Placing any constraints on free enterprise, whether it be restaurants, selling 2-handed green screw drivers, or radio chatter, is completely and totally unacceptable. If you want liberal media to thrive, then allow it to thrive on its own merits. The government has absolutely no business telling small business owners (in the case of locally owned radio), or station owners in general what they are required to play. If Prseident Obama, et. al. wish to control what radio stations are required to play, then- by all means- allow them to purchase their own station and do whatever the hell it is they wish to do.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

64 posted 2010-05-15 10:20 PM

     Is chewing Alka Seltzer as refreshing as it sounds?

     Oooh Mama!  And find me one of them "neat eaters."  I know they're legal, but simply figuring how they manage that trick would be worth the price of admission.  Doggies!  Let me at them fools!  Never have I heard of such terrible people a-fore in my life! No, sir, I have not.  You just let me at them suckers.

     Sounds like I'll need to pack extra towels, though, because you make them sound extra moist and juicy.

     Course, the Constitution says that the Feds are supposed to regulate interstate commerce, doesn't it?  And that sounds a powerful lot like putting restraints on free enterprise, you know?  Like when your coal operated power plant sends acid rain onto my crops here in my state and makes them die, and ruins the drinking water that I depend on, that simply requires a remedy, doesn't it?  And the constitution says that Engulf and Devour that Owns Rape & Pillage Power — Oh The Horror of it! — has to take some responsibility for that.  And that Engulf And Devour's food subsidiary, Yum-Yum Puckey Inc simply can't keep using the filler material it's been using to bring it's hot dogs up to fighting weight because the rats are going on strike and are demanding a cut for the use of their byproducts, which they'd like to market on their own under the name "Rat Nibblies" in Alabama and as "Tiny Deer" in China.  The FDA say's the the bacteria count is unsafe, and is saying that the product must be reformulated or will be taken off the market late  next year.  There you go again, interstate commerce, just a small part of the U.S. Constitution.

    The conservative's nightmare.

     It seems to say all those things that get in the way of the kinds of state that you'd like to have.

     Not to say that the kind of guy you've been talking about can't be or isn't a total pain in the neck.  I particularly hate the fine spray and the self-righteousness, though in my experience this seems fairly evenly emitted by ideologues on either side of the aisle.  But surely —  sorry, I didn't mean top call you Shirley — there is a special place for rigid left wing ideologues who have a charm all their own.  You ain't seen nothing, though, till you've seen the collisions of enormous Trotskyites and Stalinists in their native smoke filled rooms and meeting halls, wielding huge prehistoric compound words and accusations that have since lost all discernible meaning.

     I shudder to think.

     "Revisionist Running Dog of the Capitalist Conspiracy."

     "Revanchist!"

     I confess, I never had the courage to ask exactly what a "revanchist" was, nor ever really cared all that much.  But the notion of being a "running dog' almost felt like something to aspire towards for a guy who'd been asthmatic all his life, and could get an asthma attack simply by walking into one of those silly smoke filled rooms.  Ah, to be able to run as athletically and as freely as some "running dog!"  Wow!

     Doesn't chewing Alka Seltzer make your tongue go all tingly?

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

65 posted 2010-05-15 10:35 PM

Freedom of speech should not be regulated through the interstate commerce clause or through federal mandates on local stations regarding ownership or content requirements. If someone believes that what is coming over the airwaves at them is harmful, all they need do is switch the station. Quite simple, really.

threadbear
Senior Member

since 2008-07-10

Posts 817
Indy

66 posted 2010-05-15 11:49 PM

Mister Bob,
Hey sorry for the delay in your reply on my transperancy claim against Obama.
I find if i don't make immediate notes in Word while reading your words, I forget them.
So these are kind of shotgun.  My rootbeer can is banging against this laptop as I type.
I said:  The first three attacks by Extremist Muslims weren't called a terrorist act.
And you questioned by Whom?
The Final report on the Fort Hood Massacre didn't mention one specific word,amazingly: Islam
or Muslim in the 80 page document.  That's pretty significant, as well as making the case
that political correctness killed 13 people, and post-event was still left uncorrected.

If an act is a Jihadist act, in its purest sense, the media MUST call it out.
You can't defend yourself against a thug by refusing to look at his face.
We've just been Sap-Slapped FOUR times in 1-1/2 years.
How many more will it take until liberals admit WHO is slapping them? (and the rest of us)

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

67 posted 2010-05-16 02:26 AM

     Indeed, The major does seem to fit right in, and the guy is responsible for his own actions.  I think he will probably be tried for them, as well.

     But of all those folks who afterwards came forward and said the guy was a bit on the odd side, I do wonder why there doesn't seem to have been any action taken from furtrher up the chain of command to get this guy some help.  It may have made no difference at all in the end; but on the other hand, it might have saved some lives, and if the major was as crazy as it seems he was, where were his superiors?

     You may have a hard time expecting a psychotic zealot to turn himself in by saying, Hey, by the way, I was just planning to mass murder some of my buddies.  Perhaps we might have some conversations about this rather interesting turn my musings have been taking op late?  Thoughts like this tend to be what the jargon characterizes as ego-syntonic, which means that they seem perfectly reasonable to the guy who's thinking them at the time, rather than ego-dystonic, which means disturbing and alien to the guy who's thinking them at the time.  He wouldn't feel they were strange enough to want to discuss them, or he'd feel that they were his and that they were good, but know that the army was really an enemy, so that they'd be the wrong folks to talk this sort of thing over with.

     The armed forces are supposed to be on top of this sort of thing.

     When they spot it, they aren't supposed to stick their heads in the sand and pretend iit isn't happening.  When it';s over, they aren't supposed to cover for each other so that nobody knows what the problem actually was or how far it went.

     That's simply my observation.

     Yeah, jihadi craziness was part of it.

     Not knowing how to deal with or talk about jihadi craziness or religious craziness in general is another part of it.

     The amount of damage done by extremist Muslims may be large, but I think the amount of damage we've inflicted on ourselves and our liberties by our over-reaction to muslim extremists may be far larger.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.