Something I First Identified in College

[legion]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070523/cm_rcp/al_gores_insolent_assault_on_r

This is by no means a new theme on the left; Noam Chomsky has been peddling this stuff for years. We only think that we are free to write and to speak and to make our minds up for ourselves, the left tells us. But behind the scenes we're being manipulated by the big corporate media, so the votes we cast and the consent we give to those who govern us is artificially "manufactured." We need to be liberated--by having the left take control of the media and manage it in our best interests.

Much like the idea that "the debate on global warming is over" is used to suppress debate, we are told that we are only "open minded" if we agree with one side of a debate. Terms like "open minded" are never used to imply by those who spout them that they should be listening to you, rather that you should simply give in to the implied majority and be a good little sheep. The irony has never been lost on me.

[tabs]

That the green stuff on your dick was fungus?

[pwd72s]

Bravo...well said. There is precious little conservative thought in today's media. I just canceled a local paper. Why? It's editor decided to cancel "Mallard Fillmore", one of the few strips offering rebuttal to "Doonesbury". Even this little semblance of balance has been eliminated.

[M.D. Holloway]

It is always wise
to search for wisdom
with a mind open to fill it.

As time will tell,
and ***** will smell
and water will find its limit.

(dang, thats pretty good, I should write that one down!)

[Superman]

Interesting, this intepretation of yours. As another data point for you to remember......or forget......I can tell you that my definition of "open mind" is like yours. The lemming thing appears, according to my observation and that of quite a few people frankly, to be a right-wing phenomenon. Indeed, I just figured out why there is such a vigorous backlash here to the global warming thing. It is, in fact, a matter of propaganda.

I watched and listened to a lecture on TV last night. The speaker was a psychologist, fairly well respected nationally and internationally. She is also a professor. She's a liberal, of course. Obviously. Anybody with that much experience in education would never be a conservative. As you guys have mentioned before.

Her topic was AIDS. AIDS research and AIDS treatment and AIDS prevention. Apparently, the current "administration" has mandated that in order to receive federal funding, prevention programs are required to focus exclusively on abstinence. They are premitted to mention condoms only to announce their failure rates and their overall ineffectiveness. That's a pretty interesting requirement in light of the fact that prevention programs which discuss alternatives besides abstinence result in greater success on EVERY MEASURE than abstinence-only programs. Not just for the prevention of disease and pregnancy, but in the promotion of marriage. Interesting. It seems like the federal mandate flies right in the face of all the legitimate research.

Another interesting thing she discussed for perhaps twenty minutes including some fairly powerful observations by others including some fairly notorious conservatives, and using many many examples, is the very different approach being taken by the current "administration." Apparently, and in an unprecedented fashion, political appointees are showing up on boards that have historically been 100% filled with scientists. In other words, political appointees are substituting their judgement for that of professional scientists and researchers in the field.

Scientific data and conclusions are being suppressed and mis-stated deliberately. I guess I found out why there is such a vocal outcry about scientists' conclusions regarding global warming. That comes from two sources. First, the scientific community is being discredited in a wholesale fashion. We're dismissing them as "liberals." The other source is that this global warming thing has been impossible for the "administration" to summarily crush. Like it has done to many other important research findings that industry finds inconvenient.

The damage, as with many other forms of damage this "administration" had done to my country, will be long-lasting. Science, which has historically been regarded with respect and objectivity by political organizations, is being discredited wholesale. It will take us some time, if ever, to return to the use of this data with objectivity.

[pwd72s]

Super, I tried to read your post...I really did. But for some reason, the words translated into my mind as: "Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah..."

[arcsine]

The internet killed science.

[scottmandue]

Video killed the radio star...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Super, I tried to read your post...I really did. But for some reason, the words translated into my mind as: "Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah..."

Not the first time either...

[Superman]

It didn't flow as beautifully as most of my prose. I'll try harder next time.

This administration is really changing American politics. I suspect that history will remember this administration more for its taking politics into a new direction than for the Iraq thing. This administration thinks the country should wholly follow the President's principles. Scientific conclusions. Existing government functions. All that stuff is dictated by the President. No president in history has tried this hard to bend all government functions to his vision. That works for you guys who think Dubya is some kind of genius. I'll like it better if it works the same way when a Democrat takes office. But either way, politicians substituting their scientific conclusions for the ones made by the actual scientists.....well......I'm not sure that's a good new direction to be going in.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Not the first time either...

In your case, I already knew this.

[74-911]

Originally posted by pwd72s
I just canceled a local paper. Why? It's editor decided to cancel "Mallard Fillmore", one of the few strips offering rebuttal to "Doonesbury". Even this little semblance of balance has been eliminated.

and I've been considering cancelling our local paper because they do carry "Mallard Fillmore" as that strip is basically thoughtless one-liner cheap shots at the non-believers. Doonebury has speared every administration (Republican and democratic) since the strip started. To comare Mallard to Doonesbury is laughable.

[tabs]

Super U claim an open mind, then why don't you check out Michael Crichtons criticism of the Global Warming controversy. He doesn't deny Global Warming, perhaps the causes as espoused by the Bureaucrats who make policy. He basically states that the Scientists didn't write the report on Global warming but the Bureaucrats at the UN did. So before you decide to follow the other lemmings off the cliff, be sure of what your signing onto before U jump.

[nota]

the CORPs own the media
the CORPs are not liberal
so the liberal media is just an other BIG LIE
by the neo-conned
few remember who they parrot with the media is liberal LIE
ADOLF HITLER is the man who invented the BIG LIE
and the MEDIA IS LIBERAL LIE TOOO
so take care who's ideas you parrot
and who's LIES you RETELL

once there was a true liberal media
the underground press
but saddly the few that survived
quickly became owned by capitailist intrests
rolling stone is a good example

no capitalist is a true liberal
money allways comes befor ideas
they will sell anything to make a buck

funny how the rightwing nuts claim
the gray lady is a liberal paper
they mistake middle for left
but as they are so far far right
anything in the center is seen as left
and only their own unfair and unbalanced BS
is seen as nonliberal

[Moneyguy1]

The reason some could not finish Supe's post was attention deficit disorder. Simple as that. Anything that contains a new idea or a contrary viewpont is automatically filtered out.

Amazing how some otherwise intelligent folks have allowed themselves to be driven lockstep into a certain way of thinking. Didn't they once refer to this as "Brainwashing"?

Fear. Fear of something new. Imagine if our founding fathers had been ruled by this kind of irrational fear. We would still be singing "Hail Brittania".

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
The reason some could not finish Supe's post was attention deficit disorder. Simple as that. Anything that contains a new idea or a contrary viewpont is automatically filtered out.

Amazing how some otherwise intelligent folks have allowed themselves to be driven lockstep into a certain way of thinking. Didn't they once refer to this as "Brainwashing"?

Fear. Fear of something new. Imagine if our founding fathers had been ruled by this kind of irrational fear. We would still be singing "Hail Brittania".

I think you mean "Rule Brittania", and supe babbling incoherently, but hey, if you understood him please enlighten us.

[Superman]

The Bush "administration" is preventing the use of scientific data in the formation of public policy. Because it is inconvenient to business. The method of avoiding this is to either suppress.....or misrepresent, those findings. The temporary problem is that this gives industry the freedom to ignore ecological considerations. The bigger problem is that we may never get back to the objective use of scientific findings by government. Prior to this "administration," scientists drew conclusions and reported them to Congress, and Congress respectfully listened. There was no active interference. Today, politicians draw scientific conclusions and present them as if they had been made by the scientific community.

A great deal of damage is currently being done to my country.

[72doug2,2S]

I don't know supe, sounds like a trip down sentimental lane of yesteryear. I seriously doubt anything in Washington was ever free of politics.

Really, I'm not a skeptic.

[M.D. Holloway]

Supe - you can find as many scientists to agree with the findings as you can to disagree. I do agree that the country could be better yet I suppose you could say that about anyplace.

The politicians will do what they think the people or the money want them to do. I bet if enough folks put up a fuss things could change. We need a ground swell of concern. We need folks who have a direct connection with the industries that pollute.

Lets say that the world really is warming up due to all the junk we put into the air. The auto industry is certainly to blame as is the airline industry. What would be really helpful is some concern Joe (or Jim) that maybe works in that world to begin the work. Someone who is socially aware and politically savvy. Someone who has their ear to the ground of the unions say. Someone in the airline industry to start it off.

Hmmm, I wonder who will actually begin the journey?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Superman
But either way, politicians substituting their scientific conclusions for the ones made by the actual scientists.....well......I'm not sure that's a good new direction to be going in.

Agreed. Al Gore has positioned himself, with the help of a predominantly liberal American media, as an expert on global warming. He is, of course, anything but. His assertions have been roundly debunked by the most respected scientists in the field.