Vacation is Over... an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush

[Eggs]

Really. And you know all this because. . . ?

First off because its not even over yet. Secondly, provide all your sources if you can back up the statement that you have. Please also provide the private information that hasn't been seen yet regarding the full situation.

If you know each part of this whole mess in such detail that you can apply it for sure after reading (what, 30 or 40 articles?) articles for a week, I would love to read the unbiased articles that you have. As I said, I'm still forming an opinion on events.

Because the claim was made that supply drops might cause rioting.

And you can prove this wasn't true? I would like to see information proving this to be false, Outside of that, how bad would the rioting be? Would gangs with guns go crazy at centers with large amounts of people and kill the relatively healthy people that were left? Was Bush given inaccurate information in this which caused him to think the rioting would be larger/smalle scale than it would have been in reality?

Just because you haven't sought out more of those answers doesn't mean they aren't out there.

I'd like to know just how you know this for sure.

He was on vacation until Wednesday. The Vice President was on vacation until Friday/Saturday. The Secretary of State went on vacation AFTER the levee broke and 85% of the city was flooded. There was an additional two days delay so the President could gather these wandering vacationers from their adventures to help decide how to drop a bottle of water.

One of the questions I have is the President incapable of performing any duties from his Ranch that he can at the White House? Mission critical things that is. If so, what duties is he unable to perform there? Are there phone records/transcripts that show he wasn't doing anything? Did the President really have to gather anybody to decide how to drop water? Did they have computers with them so they could pass information? Is there Broadband there? Did they have access to maps, satellite images, etc? Could they video/teleconference? Is it possible that he thought it best o remain stationary for a given time so that he could be reachable? Would he have been wrong? and thats just a few of the questions. Not all of them are vital, but they build a picture that is necessary so events can be viewed systematically and logically to come to an accurate decision in my viewpoint.

Sure. . .and we can have an earthquake or a little terrorist attack or some other hurricane and tell the public that the government is still waiting for their "report" on why smaller government means not rescuing or dropping supplies for our own people.

Do you really believe that statement? Is there any other rational way to create a report other to have all the facts? Has there been ample time to correctly establish all of facts? How long does it take to write new practices into place for all the envolved parties? Does there need to be simulation time, etc to test these recommendations before enacting them? Don't we have a 9/11 report now? Wasn't it done quite well? If there was a report for 9/11, why would anybody think there wont be a similar report for the Katrina disaster? Would the 9/11 report have been more accurate if the writers were limited in their time to write it to one week and bring forth all possible evidence and truths in that time?

Let's investigate why the Administration was on vacation, and bury it in a report two or three years from now.

Was 9/11 buried? What leads you to think that the American people would stand for that? Is it wrong to be on vacation? Did they mistakenly assume that the threat was less than it was? Were they given poor information about the threat? Did Bush think that people would collectively flee once he declared it a disaster area? Did anybody really truly think this would happen?

You need to get over projecting your own personality on others. I present my own informaton and perspective based on my own experience and knowledge.

Thats the actual statement that I was after from the outset. I've mentioned before that what you have said is biased from your own thoughts and information (which does not infer that it is wrong, just that it is viewed through the lens of your own life). Anything I think is biased as well in a manner consistant with what my life has shaped me into.

I can respect a person that I believe is wrong when they are stating their own opinions... but I cannot respect somebody that is wrong whome I believe is claiming to be infallible. Which perhaps you were not, but that is of course my own opinions leading me to that conclusion. Thanks for being honest with that.

Anyways, all those questions weren't meant to make you pissy. Those are all questions that I have. Some are important, some are trivial... but for me to believe that this guy is actually worthy of impeachment or something I need hard evidence, and one week of news just doesnt give me that.

 

[Eggs]

Its one of those random things good to know if your kids ask you.
It creats the illusion that you know it all......untill they turn 15 and then you dont know shit at that point in their opinion.

I'm impressed as well. I read it a long time ago, but that was well written and informative. Plus I'd pretty much forgotten all about it

Silly question, but did you write it or was it copy/paste? I'm not doubting your ability, it just seemed well thought out to be a spur of the moment posting.

 

[min0 lee]

I have a question. Why should we help people who refuse to help themselves?

They all not refusing it.

 

[kbm8795]

The phenomenon you are describing sounds like Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering is the dispersion of electromagnetic radiation by particles that have a radius less than approximately 1/10 the wavelength of the radiation. It is named in honor of Lord Rayleigh, who published a paper in 1871 describing this phenomenon.

Sunlight spans a wide range of electromagnetic wavelengths. When they are all added up, sunlite looks more or less white. The Earth's atmosphere contains mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen which scatters short wavelengths. Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms are small enough to allow some of the wavelengths which fall in the visible spectrum to pass through with little scattering. What this means is that light that is more red (longer wavelengths) will follow a straight path to the Earth's surface, whereas more blue light (shorter wavelengths) will be scattered. This scattering makes blue light bounce around in the atmosphere, some of it eventually does make it to the Earth's surface.

That's essentially why the sky is blue in the daytime, but why does it change colors? As a consequence of Rayleigh scattering, more atmosphere means more scattering of blue light. In the morning and evening, the sun is closer to the horizon so sunlite must travel through more of the atmosphere before it gets to our eyes. What happens is that most of the blue light is scattered, leaving mostly red light. The end result is that the color of the sky changes depending on the angle of the Sun.

The angle of the sun changes throughout the course of a single day, so we get different colors from morning to evening. The angle of the sun also changes during the course of a year, that's what causes change of seasons. Depending on the latitude of where you live, you will see more or less of a change in the color of the sky for different seasons. I was born South India about 12.5 degrees North latitude. In the wintertime, the sun was still fairly high in the sky. The temperature didn't get much below 70 degrees in the winter and there wasn't much of a change in color of the sky. Now I live near Washington, DC which is about 39 degrees North latitude. The sun is much closer to the horizon in the wintertime, so it is colder and the sky color change is more pronounced. Of course, you will notice a faster change during Spring and Fall because the sun appears to move faster North or South.

There are other atmospheric effects that affect the color of the sky. Humidity and other particles in the air cause the sky to look more gray because the air is not as clear. Warm air is capable of holding more water (more humidity), so hot, humid days result in a grayer skies. Humidity is lower in the winter, so the sky is clearer.

 

[kbm8795]

First off because its not even over yet. Secondly, provide all your sources if you can back up the statement that you have. Please also provide the private information that hasn't been seen yet regarding the full situation.

oh...I get it. Other people have to PROVE their statements to make them credible to you - but you have no such expectation or requirement for yourself. Have you always worn a crown? Or haven't you been interested enough in this catastrophe to follow any of the information as the story has been unfolding and are just waiting for the government to give it to you?

If you know each part of this whole mess in such detail that you can apply it for sure after reading (what, 30 or 40 articles?) articles for a week, I would love to read the unbiased articles that you have. As I said, I'm still forming an opinion on events.

We've already established that you have no understanding of journalism bias beyond the most obvious forms of editorializing. That's like asking me to define each source so that you can decide if it is "biased" or "unbiased" without your having much basis for that determination except your own political orientation.

You've already decided that the responsibility for the lives of Americans does not fall on the federal government, particularly in a national disaster. That responsibility must be "shared," in this case meaning, the local and state governments who actually responded to the crisis must share some fault because the federal government didn't do anything. Obviously, these are two different issues. A major destructive storm that destroys a major American city does not equal an event only for a mayor and/or governor to handle. Making mistakes within the context of their duties may be one way to look at errors after the event; an absent and/or tardy response to a critical situation is something that needs to be corrected immediately. Only one branch of government appeared to be absent.

And you can prove this wasn't true?

They started making air drops two days later.

I would like to see information proving this to be false, Outside of that, how bad would the rioting be? Would gangs with guns go crazy at centers with large amounts of people and kill the relatively healthy people that were left?

Were there reports of looters fighting each other over the merchandise, including the food and water taken from stores? The first looting report was Monday, when staff writers with the Times-Picayune relayed that people were exchanging pleasantries as they walked down the street by the clothing store they were robbing. The staffers had returned to their flooding office for supplies. Subsequent witness accounts of looting stories, particularly in food stores, said that in general, people distributed food with neighbors.

Was Bush given inaccurate information in this which caused him to think the rioting would be larger/smalle scale than it would have been in reality?

Frankly, that initial decision to not conduct air drops may have come from the Louisiana office, though as the week wore on, appeals for food and supplied by officials seemed to multiply. The Mayor of New Orleans is making statements today claiming his belief that messages from the governor and the mayor were somehow not accurately reaching the President. Earlier in the week, he said in a press conference that he had been trying to call the President but could not get him. That either means someone in the Administration didn't forward the appeals or DHS and/or FEMA did not forward requests for federal assistance. It is obvious that FEMA was having difficulty with local/state officials and they were trying to go over Michael Brown's head. . .at least early in the week. Note that even Louisiana Senator Vitter, a Republican, sharply criticized FEMA's response as a grade of "F."



I'd like to know just how you know this for sure.

That he was on vacation? Maybe his press office was lying all month.



One of the questions I have is the President incapable of performing any duties from his Ranch that he can at the White House? Mission critical things that is. If so, what duties is he unable to perform there? Are there phone records/transcripts that show he wasn't doing anything?

Ahh..nice one. Why don't you write a letter to someone in the White House press corps and perhaps they'll explain everything to you.

Did the President really have to gather anybody to decide how to drop water?

Apparently so. He returned to Washington on Wednesday night and needed a couple of days to meet with advisers before heading to Mississippi and Louisiana. There wasn't any water dropped or distributed until the President appeared on Friday. And there seems to have been a couple of good photo ops.

Did they have computers with them so they could pass information? Is there Broadband there? Did they have access to maps, satellite images, etc? Could they video/teleconference? Is it possible that he thought it best o remain stationary for a given time so that he could be reachable? Would he have been wrong? and thats just a few of the questions. Not all of them are vital, but they build a picture that is necessary so events can be viewed systematically and logically to come to an accurate decision in my viewpoint.

You can't be serious.

Do you really believe that statement? Is there any other rational way to create a report other to have all the facts? Has there been ample time to correctly establish all of facts?

Are you assuming here that facts don't exist even though the gap between the beginning of the crisis and the time the federal government acted on it is completed?

How long does it take to write new practices into place for all the envolved parties? Does there need to be simulation time, etc to test these recommendations before enacting them? Don't we have a 9/11 report now? Wasn't it done quite well? If there was a report for 9/11, why would anybody think there wont be a similar report for the Katrina disaster? Would the 9/11 report have been more accurate if the writers were limited in their time to write it to one week and bring forth all possible evidence and truths in that time?

Sometimes information is more accurate when it is fresh, just as often an interview is best before the subject has time to try to edit their responses. This isn't a unique situation - no first time major terrorist attack on the nation. It's a hurricane. It seems like the old practices worked pretty well until the organization was restructured.

Was 9/11 buried? What leads you to think that the American people would stand for that? Is it wrong to be on vacation? Did they mistakenly assume that the threat was less than it was? Were they given poor information about the threat? Did Bush think that people would collectively flee once he declared it a disaster area? Did anybody really truly think this would happen?

I can see why you've never interviewed anyone.

Thats the actual statement that I was after from the outset. I've mentioned before that what you have said is biased from your own thoughts and information (which does not infer that it is wrong, just that it is viewed through the lens of your own life). Anything I think is biased as well in a manner consistant with what my life has shaped me into.

Bias or propaganda? Make up your mind. If you respected others, you wouldn't need to issue such statements about their opinions.

I can respect a person that I believe is wrong when they are stating their own opinions... but I cannot respect somebody that is wrong whome I believe is claiming to be infallible. Which perhaps you were not, but that is of course my own opinions leading me to that conclusion. Thanks for being honest with that.

Yeah. I wasn't. That was your issue again.

Anyways, all those questions weren't meant to make you pissy. Those are all questions that I have. Some are important, some are trivial... but for me to believe that this guy is actually worthy of impeachment or something I need hard evidence, and one week of news just doesnt give me that.

The evidence is the indication that the President of the United States failed to respond to a major natural disaster that has effectively made a major American city and port uninhabitable for at least the immediate future. The disaster involved loss of life in several stages, some which can be attributed directly to the storm. Others which can be attributed to the actions or inactions of our public officials. Some will be attributed to choices made by individuals who wanted to stay. This cuts to the very nature and purpose of having any kind of government in the first place. It is the public's responsibility to hold officials accountable for conduct that results in the loss of human life - particularly if that loss is caused by inaction.

Scott McClellan, in his first White House press briefing in some time, is now squirming trying to explain whether this President is capable of protecting this nation from a terrorist attack, especially after creating this Cabinet-level department with a huge budget that pretty much flops the first time it has a really important test. So much for homeland security.



Jefferson County Parish President Broussard:

I'm not surprised at what the feds say, they're covering their butts. They're keeping the body counts down because they don't want to horrify the nation. It's worse than Iraq, worse than 9-11. They just don't want to know how many were murdered by bureaucracy.

 

[kbm8795]

You must be an excellent journalist. Do you tell the people you interview that as well? I'm impressed by how well you maintain your composure

Such a compliment coming from someone who can't tell the difference between an opinion column and an article. Are people always supposed to be interested in impressing you?

Its funny, you want to call someone a name, but they shouldn't have the power to do so. Thats what generalizing is when its unfair isn't it? Little more than name calling. Which is exactly how you use it.

You are looking in the mirror again.

Oh no, I really can. I know full well I am name calling. You however hold up your journalistic shield as if you can use it to impress people, but then on the other hand you don't really act in a manner which should be consistent with journalistic integrity. If you wouldn't try to play a "I'm a journalist so I know this stuff so much more than anybody else" card, maybe people wouldnt expect you to behave as if you actually were one.

Who told you that you represent any people beyond yourself?

You act like a brain washed zombie who believes everything the press throws at him.

Uh-huh.

Well, as long as its not "conservative press" because that'd be biased, damnit! You handle a discussion by avoiding the points and making accusations as it suits you... then neglect to provide sources for them.

You shouldn't expect others to produce more than you are willing to contribute.

I thought thats what real journalists do?

But we both know that you have very little knowledge about journalists or journalism.

Speaking of which, I dont believe for one second that you come on here to try and learn anything.

It must be disappointing when others don't seek your approval.

I've given my reasons before, but along with this you fail to every after a posting ask anybody their thoughts on the matter, etc. This is generally indicative of questioning something. Or in your school of journalism do they not ask questions?

Why would you ask a question about something you already know everything about?

See, and thats the funny thing... that is exactly what you are doing with Bush. You arent interested in hearing any claims he has or any further information.

He made his public statements.

How do I know this you're going to ask. Obviously because you've already made judgement of him here on the forum. Or do you not claim that you are making a judgement concerning his actions?

He made his public statements.

In which case, if you've already judged him, how are you trying to learn anything? Unless its to prove your opinion to be the correct one.

You know, you are the one who is always concerned about having a "correct" opinion.

Actually, I appoint myself minister of truth and relevance.

No surprise there. . .especially the self-appointed part.

Is there anybody else that should decide for me what is true and releant? Who decides for you what is true and relevant? Lemme see... a dictionary: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

That's rather difficult when you are busy doing it for everyone else, isn't it?

Has anybody here seen Kbm be partial to anybody but his own group?

Ah...once again needing others to justify the validity of your own thoughts. Group hug?

Accepting of anything but his own thoughts? If I have different thoughts, you will argue it with me and try to change my opinion... or at least to try and make me seem like a fool (even a monkey can jump on that opening, be welcome).

Take some personal responsibility.

How is it that you are not partial to your own?

But I'll tell you what, I'll stop calling you a bigot. It has a sour taste to it.


Oh, I see... and you understand statements that aren't presented in your frame of reality. It must be because journalists have such a keen understanding of every given element.

Such an extremist.

The funny part is that I was defending you and you still couldn't just let it be, you had to take offense at it. You're a real piece of work I'll fully take your calling me a bigot with a grain of salt, theres really no other way to take it.


I'm an adult, I dont need you to tell me to grow up. Why don't you think about doing the same before you recommend it of anybody else.

Wow. What a comeback.

 

[ALBOB]

Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?

insult him all you want but can you point out what is inaccurate in his "letter"?

How about the fact that the President doesn't control the National Guard? The governors of the individual states control that state's National Guard. If you look closely at how FEMA and other Federal relief organizations operate you'll notice that they aren't even allowed into a state unless the governor of that state calls for them. FEMA wasn't called to LA until two days after Katrina hit. Just more proof that the Governor of LA and the Mayor of New Orleans are almost completely responsible for the failed relief efforts, NOT Bush. When the federal agencies arrived things instantly started geting better, even though the majority of their work involved cleaning up a mess that was created by the local authorities.

 

[Eggs]

Wow. What a comeback.

I thought so. It was the same one you used. Of course then it wasn't so amazing either.

But nothing is with you. You're an argumentative little fucking child. I mean seriously... lets think about this. You sit around talking shit with all these little replies, wow you must have alot going on in your life.

I'm not impressed by you or your "journalistic" skill and integrity. All I've seen out of you the whole time you have been on here is presenting your own biases to others. Do I do the same? Sure thing. But stop trying to act like you're better for it somehow.

This argument has digressed beyond the hurricanes into a little tit for tat where you can sit around and try and needle me. As stated before, grow the fuck up and get a life ass hole.

You've already stated that you had biases against Bush, which degrades any argument you try to make.

As for me having to prove that, go fuck yourself. Another whiny ass little newsie, I'm surprised.

 

[kbm8795]

I thought so. It was the same one you used. Of course then it wasn't so amazing either.

But nothing is with you. You're an argumentative little fucking child.

You are still attempting to project yourself.

I mean seriously... lets think about this. You sit around talking shit with all these little replies, wow you must have alot going on in your life.

I'm waiting. Start thinking.

I'm not impressed by you or your "journalistic" skill and integrity. All I've seen out of you the whole time you have been on here is presenting your own biases to others. Do I do the same? Sure thing. But stop trying to act like you're better for it somehow.

Are you still trying to grasp the idea that people don't post to impress you.

This argument has digressed beyond the hurricanes into a little tit for tat where you can sit around and try and needle me. As stated before, grow the fuck up and get a life ass hole.

Gee - I wonder how that all happened?

You've already stated that you had biases against Bush, which degrades any argument you try to make.

Only in your mind.

As for me having to prove that, go fuck yourself. Another whiny ass little newsie, I'm surprised.

Hey, my bad. I thought you were in college, not middle school.

 

[Eggs]

Hey, my bad. I thought you were in college, not middle school.

Wow, did that have anything at all to do what I posted? It wasnt even a response to the insult. Like everything you post... just sliding around the whats said.

I can see why you are back in college now. Somebody get tired of you not performing?

 

[Eggs]

Oh, and I just thought I'd bring this statement up:

You've already stated that you had biases against Bush, which degrades any argument you try to make.

Only in your mind.

Wow, they must give those degrees out like they are candy. I mean, professions that actually have to go to school for a bit longer admit to the inherent biases in man and have ways to counter it. Apparently a twinky little degree in journalism doesn't think the field of psychology is relevant. Who would have thought?

 

[ZECH]

How about the fact that the President doesn't control the National Guard? The governors of the individual states control that state's National Guard. If you look closely at how FEMA and other Federal relief organizations operate you'll notice that they aren't even allowed into a state unless the governor of that state calls for them. FEMA wasn't called to LA until two days after Katrina hit. Just more proof that the Governor of LA and the Mayor of New Orleans are almost completely responsible for the failed relief efforts, NOT Bush. When the federal agencies arrived things instantly started geting better, even though the majority of their work involved cleaning up a mess that was created by the local authorities.

Problem is, you will never hear that truth on the TV or in the media. The mayor of NO is especially an idiot. The govenor did somewhat control her mouth. It just shows how incompetent they were.

 

[kbm8795]

Wow, did that have anything at all to do what I posted? It wasnt even a response to the insult. Like everything you post... just sliding around the whats said.

I can see why you are back in college now. Somebody get tired of you not performing?

You didn't post anything.

 

[kbm8795]

Problem is, you will never hear that truth on the TV or in the media. The mayor of NO is especially an idiot. The govenor did somewhat control her mouth. It just shows how incompetent they were.

Actually, the National Guard CAN be called up by the President, though it is generally only used in the case of civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act. Otherwise, the Guard remains under the command of the state. The Guard doesn't have to be under the command of the President for the President to enact use of civilian aircraft to assist in transporting supplies or evacuees.

The idiot was a President who neglected his responsibilities to the American people and delayed acting for five days after the storm, despite repeated appeals from both state and local officials for assistance. So far, the Administration has spent more time attempting to deflect those events by dumping blame back on the first responders who, despite federal admission they would be overwhelmed, received little assistance from FEMA.

The first attempted lie was from the President himself - when he said on Good Morning America on September 1 that: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."

This tale was supported by Department of Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff and the FEMA director Michael Brown. Chertoff repeatedly tried to paint the disaster as two separate ones, almost as if they acted independently and couldn't be anticipated despite every massive storm disaster scenario run by the department for the city of New Orleans.

And the mayor of New Orleans wasn't the only one frustrated by the non-assistance of FEMA - the President of Jefferson Parish, the Mayor of Slidell and the Mayor of Hattiesburg, Mississippi all expressed frustration at the slowness of the federal response.

No American needs to be reminded of the words of the President of the United States last Monday, while the storm continued to rage across Louisiana and Mississippi:

"I know my fellow citizens here in Arizona and across the country are saying our prayers for those affected by the -- Hurricane Katrina. Our Gulf Coast is getting hit and hit hard. I want the folks there on the Gulf Coast to know that the federal government is prepared to help you when the storm passes. I want to thank the governors of the affected regions for mobilizing assets prior to the arrival of the storm to help citizens avoid this devastating storm.

I urge the citizens there in the region to continue to listen to the local authorities. Don't abandon your shelters until you're given clearance by the local authorities. Take precautions because this is a dangerous storm. When the storm passes, the federal government has got assets and resources that we'll be deploying to help you. In the meantime, America will pray -- pray for the health and safety of all our citizens." -- Remarks by President Bush in a Conversation on Medicare, Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club
El Mirage, Arizona, August 29, 2005.


Well, at least they got the prayers.

 

[kbm8795]

Oh, and I just thought I'd bring this statement up:



Wow, they must give those degrees out like they are candy. I mean, professions that actually have to go to school for a bit longer admit to the inherent biases in man and have ways to counter it. Apparently a twinky little degree in journalism doesn't think the field of psychology is relevant. Who would have thought?

Oh...so now you are a psychology expert too?

I hope there is room on your bachelor's degree to print the title of every discipline at the university on your diploma. I wouldn't want you to feel like the world shortchanged you.

 

[Eggs]

Oh...so now you are a psychology expert too?

I hope there is room on your bachelor's degree to print the title of every discipline at the university on your diploma. I wouldn't want you to feel like the world shortchanged you.

Back so soon, did mommy get you a new set or crayons to write us a story?

 

[GFR]

Hey, my bad. I thought you were in college, not middle school.

be carefull that hatefull little man might beat you up when he gets out for recess.

 

[Eggs]

Oh...so now you are a psychology expert too?

No, but the masters in that field more than likely are:

General - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

Specific - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19980501-000029.html

http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/art15.html

"With the "anchoring" strategy, people pick some natural starting point for a first approximation and then adjust this figure based on the results of additional information or analysis. Typically, they do not adjust the initial judgment enough."

Regarding media -

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/extra/mullainathan.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Media-bias

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb04/taleb_indexx.html

"in replacement to the 'fooled by randomness' historian and the babbling journalistic public intellectual"

http://www.coursework.info/i/75798.html

"A journalist must acknowledge that they have personal biases, and that prejudice and subjectivity can easily sneak into articles in the form of racism, political bias and sexism."

http://human-nature.com/reason/01/herman.pdf

"Are reporters even aware of the deeper sources of bias they may internal-ize? Won't they tend to rationalize their behavior?"

And you know, its been looked at and studied to the ends of the earth. Its there, all the denial in the world doesn't change that.

 

[Eggs]

be carefull that hatefull little man might beat you up when he gets out for recess.

Does anybody find it funny that Foreman rules is such an idiot that he has to be dragged around on the coat tails of Kbm?

 

[Eggs]

btw Foreman, how does that make you feel... to be in a kiss ass relationship where you rely on him to make your ignorance look good?

How about you get off his cock already and do some of that thinking stuff on your own

 

[kbm8795]

 

[Eggs]

Hey, its not nice to laugh at Foreman. I know I was making fun of him... but he already runs around all day sucking your dick, treat your bitch gently!

 

[GFR]

Wow...............why are you so angery and hatefull????
It's just sad to see someone so lost, with nothing in their life but the desire to insult others in the foolish attempt to make themselfs look and feel better.

 

[Eggs]

Wow...............why are you so angery and hatefull????
It's just sad to see someone so lost, with nothing in their life but the desire to insult others in the foolish attempt to make themselfs look and feel better.

Suure thing Kbms bitch. Say, did he send you a memo with that or did you manage to write it all by your little ol' self?

 

[GFR]

What happened to you to make you so bitter ????

Poor Jenny, I hope she wakes up quick and runs for her life.

 

[kbm8795]

No, but the masters in that field more than likely are:

General - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

Specific - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19980501-000029.html

http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/art15.html

"With the "anchoring" strategy, people pick some natural starting point for a first approximation and then adjust this figure based on the results of additional information or analysis. Typically, they do not adjust the initial judgment enough."

Regarding media -

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/extra/mullainathan.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Media-bias

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb04/taleb_indexx.html

"in replacement to the 'fooled by randomness' historian and the babbling journalistic public intellectual"

http://www.coursework.info/i/75798.html

"A journalist must acknowledge that they have personal biases, and that prejudice and subjectivity can easily sneak into articles in the form of racism, political bias and sexism."

You must have been gleeful when you found this - except there's a difference between the word "can" and "does."

http://human-nature.com/reason/01/herman.pdf

"Are reporters even aware of the deeper sources of bias they may internal-ize? Won't they tend to rationalize their behavior?"

And you know, its been looked at and studied to the ends of the earth. Its there, all the denial in the world doesn't change that.

And to think, you spent the entire afternoon fearlessly discovering all of the decades of media...er...well, some sort of studies that unlock the secrets of a profession you had little real knowledge about. . .

You do need to be a little more careful about recognizing the disclaimer words, or exceptions that exist in the statements that frame your absolute view.

Well, at least you made an effort. I might bookmark these sites and offer your argument to my own students for their entertainment.

By the way, I write an occasional column for a conservative online journal. . .

 

[Eggs]

Right... then maybe I'd be the kinda guy that goes down to mexico to buy prostitutes and use illegal substances while acting as a nurse

 

[Eggs]

By the way, I write an occasional column for a conservative online journal. . .

Actually, there were a couple million more hits on Google... but I didnt want to spend too much time. Glad you're still above the bias though.. because those people with you know, real degrees, are obviously all wrong.

btw, there is a lesbian or something or other that I heard on CSPAN giving a lecture. She works with Fox news? So doing an article for a conservative journal doesn't clear up bias issues.

 

[GFR]

Right... then maybe I'd be the kinda guy that goes down to mexico to buy prostitutes and use illegal substances while acting as a nurse

I see you believe everything you read

1.I'm not a nurse....I'm a student.

2. I have never gone to a prostitute in my life......but when I'm 60 I just might.

3. This forum is filled with people like me who do not believe steroids should be "illegal" but we could spend a month debating the bull shit about those laws.....while drinking and smoking till we die.....because its ok and legal


Sad......all that hate and nothing intelligent to say.

 

[Eggs]

Actually, this one made me laugh:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/tal...leb_indexx.html

"in replacement to the 'fooled by randomness' historian and the babbling journalistic public intellectual"

The article really has very little to do with journalists, I just put that one in there for you to enjoy. Sounds like an interesting guy overall though.

btw... I do recognize the difference in "can" and "does". However, there wouldn't really need to be a mention of media bias if it didn't/doesn't exist. Further, if it didn't exist, we probably wouldn't even have a term for it