Redstate

because it was the popular thing to do at the time. If they'd have come out against it at the beginning they would've been seen as unAmerican. They just waited for it to become unpopular and jumped on that bandwagon. Same for the MSM. That's what they do.

They're followers, not leaders.

Always have been.

Always will be.

==== 13 ====

the left reconnect with reality.

Yes, I know the socialists in the MSM claim this is a sure sign they are unbiased and just doing their job, but the truth is, there are no meds that will help them reconnect with reality either.

That's the problem: what is reality?

Global warming does or doesn't exist; Iraq is going swimmingly, or maybe we're drowning; the economy is booming, or maybe we're headed into a recession the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression.

It's difficult to get agreement on events that happened in the past (Valerie Plame was or wasn't an undercover agent; Iraq had WMD or didn't), let alone reasonably discuss topics pertaining to the near future.

For that matter, plenty of Americans deny evolution, including some who read Redstate. I'm not getting into that, but as a scientist that particular "debate" definitely wins the insanity award. A few skeptics have helped push the science forward by pointing out weaknesses, but the majority of "nonbelievers" repeat the same tired talking points long after they've been proven false.

As Americans we have a hard time suspending partisan beliefs in order to rationally assess the evidence. When the Arctic ice disappears sometime around 2030 maybe one particular debate will be over, but even then there will be naysayers.

A major problem with modern America (in my reality) is the lack of objectivity and the rise of polar, partisan worldviews.

Of course, I suppose that's nothing new, we did have a civil war.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Exactly...I was going to say that it's interesting that he puts his "rational" view from one polar end of the spectrum of what's going on.

Oh well... now you know why you can't discuss nearly anything with a liberal; they believe they are standing in the middle on every subject and meeting them halfway is to completely cross the spectrum.

It's not meeting halfway if one side conceeds on EVERY point. If liberals would learn that they could probably stop the war that is politics today.

Your ignorance does not surprise me.

The IPCC report estimated the loss of the Arctic ice pack by mid-century, maybe 2100.

Events in the past two years have shown the loss of ice to be rapidly accelerating, driven by a positive feedback loop.

The story below says we may lose the ice completely come summer 2015. Don't let reality get in the way of what you believe, though...

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071130.wcoessayclim...)

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

come up with a prediction with a date attached that most of us will live to see and laugh at.

You guys have a really lousy track record on preditions. We've been running out of oil on a 20 year cycle for the last 80 or years. Remember when we were all going to starve and zero population was the only thing that would save us? Or global cooling in the '70's (let me guess, that was actually caused by global warming...), etc, etc, etc.

You've had your fun here, run along now and tell your friends that you set us straight. And have your mommy bake cookies for all of you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Peak Oil will obviously come to pass, the only question is when. It is entirely possible that we will continue to discover new sources of fossil fuels until long after they become obsolete, but it is also possible that we are entering a new phase and expensive oil is here to stay.

Personally I think that the drive to go to war with Iraq and more recently Iran stems from an analysis of the global energy situation over the next 50 years. Some powerful people feel that America needs direct control over a large chunk of oil so that we'll be energy solvent when we come into conflict with China over shrinking supplies, and a swathe of military bases in Iraq is just the ticket to maintaining said control. It's not necessarily a democratic or just policy, but these have always been symbolic tokens to mask self-interest.

At any rate Texas seems to be winning in the global warming department; we've had more rain and cooler summers while other parts of the country are experiencing extreme droughts; whoever is controlling the weather must have roots in the deep south.

you live in Texas, it's winning in the global idiot department too.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

We are near the bottom when it comes to education, but many would counter that it's caused by massive immigration.

Resorting to ad hominem speaks volumes.

Don't let reality get in the way

What reality? You are speaking of events that have not yet taken place. Science tells us that humans do not know the future in advance. We also know that weather forecasters cannot reliably tell us tomorrow's future; that the National Hurricane Center cannot, at the beginning of the season, reliably tell us how many significant storms will strike us; and that your appeal to authority ("The IPCC Report") was written by politicians, not scientists.

There is therefore no "reality" in your predictions, there is only the reality of your predictions. Oh good, another human being who says he knows the future in advance. If you really knew the future in advance you'd be richer than Bill Gates.

A bunch of busybodies who want to tell everybody else what to do have seized on a warming trend (which appears to have reversed recently) in order to scare the bejeezus out of children, the gullible, and their fellow busybodies. They apparently believe that if they scare enough people, they will be handed the authority to tell everybody what to do... which is really what this whole thing is about. If you doubt that, just watch Al Gore, who flies around in a private jet to tell other people to get rid of their SUVs.

It is at most plausible that the observed warming is caused by human-emitted gases. But there are other possible explanations. Since there are no SUVs on Mars — only two solar-powered rovers — and since the polar caps on Mars are also melting, the guys who say "it's the Sun, stupid" have a pretty good case. Especially now that we know that temperatures on other planets are rising as well.

What is implausible is that those who insist that we must "do something!" have the slightest idea of precisely what to do, or precisely how much of it to do. If they start messing with the atmospheric concentrations of various gases, and it turns out they really didn't know how to fine-tune a chaotic climate system on a Class M planet, they would make things a lot worse than they would have been otherwise. Those people are threatening us with "We're all gonna die!" But the truth is, we're a lot safer trusting in the feedback loops of a planet that's been harboring life for a billion years than we are in the hands of a bunch of well-meaning do-gooders who want to deliberately tinker with the atmosphere of that planet in the belief that they know how to make things "better."

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Cheap and tasty as long as it is freshly ground.

Major Dickason's Blend®

A coffee born of friendship, this full-bodied, complex blend was the combined effort of Key Dickason, a retired army officer and a regular at our original Berkeley store, and Alfred Peet, our founder. Together they sampled combinations of coffees until they arrived at what is now one of our most popular blends. Of course we named it after our friend - and promoted him to Major in the process.

This is the coffee that many of our customers identify with Peet's. Over the years it has gained a reputation among coffee lovers for its satisfying, rich and mellow (some say comforting) flavor qualities. The blend's components contribute their regional characteristics but are balanced to make a well-rounded cup that is complex yet smooth. We always use the best coffees from each origin for this premier blend, so the customers who order "a pound of Major" won't be disappointed. It produces a first-rate cup in a French press, not to mention an exquisite espresso.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Looking at the history of life on earth shows that we're certainly not safe trusting the feedback loops of a planet that has been experiencing mass extinction events since the inception of life.

The solar theory of global warming is certainly valid, but I said nothing about causes. It doesn't matter whether recently observed trends are anthropogenic in nature or not; what matters is if these trends are going to reverse, and what happens if they don't.

We're already tinkering with the atmosphere of our planet, and we don't know what's going to happen. As for the use of fear to motivate a populace, that's the nature of politics. The busybodies are absolutely right: if you scare enough people the right way you can gain a lot of power over them. Is this fear rational? Human reasoning is notoriously unreliable when considering low probability, high risk events (eg. terrorism).

Personally I'm hoping for global catastrophe, humanity is at its best with an enemy to confront. When we don't have one we create one.

And they are call "elected Democrats".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

mass extinction events

Oh, come on. If one of those happens, all bets are off. The only thing we can say for sure is that women and minorities will be hardest hit.

It doesn't matter whether recently observed trends are anthropogenic in nature or not

Sure it does. If this is some periodic, natural cycle involving the Sun, then there's no reason to think we should mess with it. Maybe in 500 years we'll know enough to be able to fine-tune the climate without hosing things up. Right now we don't, so we should be wary of those who think we should try. There's no telling what might happen.

already tinkering

Yeah, but not for a whole lot longer, and we know that. We also know the Earth knows how to cope with increased carbon dioxide. The algae will be happy for a while. Big deal. I don't know when we'll finally figure out how to do fusion, but once we do the whole Oil Thing will go away. A couple hundred years of it isn't going to make much of a dent in the grand scheme of things.

Have any of these SaveThePlanet™ do-gooders stopped to think about the impact on food production and distribution if we "cut emissions by 30%"? We don't know how to feed the current population of the Earth without using lots of energy. Just turning over vast acreage to biofuels production is going to lead to some serious strains on global food production.

Hey, maybe Kucinich will get elected, his buddies from space will come and attack us, and you'll have your common enemy.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

What does it mean when the Right believes the media is Left and the Left believes the media is Right?

It means The Reality-Based Community™ isn't.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Not this weak BS again.

For what its worth, the media did not help sell the current war any more than they helped sell Desert Fox in 1998. What I find interesting is that the Left seems to believe that the world began in 2001, on January 21st.

Go back and read what the Press Corps was writing and reporting about Saddam Hussein during the Clinton Administration up until 2000. Back then he was a dangerous bad guy. How does that fit in with your little theory ...?

My little theory is that the media is owned by corporations that care about profit. If selling a war makes them money, they will; if hyping the Clinton sex scandal makes them money, they will; if talking up the threat of global warming makes them money... well, you get the point.

Saddam was our bad guy before he was a dangerous bad guy, a common occurrence in US foreign policy. My little theories tend to reject left/right dichotomies as overly simplistic and inaccurate.

media is owned by corporations that care about profit. If selling a war makes them money, they will...

Let's see now. ABC's news division loses money. CBS' news division loses money. NBC's news division loses money. MSNBC has never made a nickel. CNN if they make money, it's not much.

NYT, taking a major bath. LAT, heh. Boston Globe, double heh.

You want overly simplistic and inaccurate you cooked one up here.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Really? I'd like some sources for that, the best I can come up with is that ABC's Nightline is not nearly as lucrative as a late-night talk show would be. And yes, I agree that time devoted to news is not being exploited as fully as it could be given the American penchant for LCD entertainment; even the news focuses as much on Britney's Starbucks visits as it does on serious issues.

Of course, recently (the rise of the internet and all that) the advertising market has been undergoing major upheavals as eyeballs shift to new distribution modalities, but the money is still there.

This article (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071023/20071023005915.html?.v=2) about the New York Times reports strong increases in profit. Maybe NYT hasn't done so well in 2007, but I strongly doubt your facts, and certainly doubt your general premise.

I'm sure all that typing about dichotomies and not being "simplistic" is supposed to make us think of you as being "sophisticated."

It's kinda old.

Saddam was our bad guy before he was a dangerous bad guy, a common occurrence in US foreign policy.

Hindsight is 20/20. Who knew? Now you'll say America provided Saddam with the T10(?) tanks, AK 47s, Hinds and MiGs he had amassed for his armed forces.

My little theory is that the media is owned by corporations that care about profit.

What I most object to about the media has nothing to do with the profit motive (which I pretty much support) or their ownership. I don't like PBS for the same reason I'm not enamored of CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.

The Clinton sex scandal was all the rage back in the day.

What do you most object to, that media bias doesn't always correspond with yours? It's handy to disregard every story that doesn't corroborate (oops, another big word) our worldview as biased, but that's a dangerous route to take as it leaves us at risk of becoming blind to reality.

And it's not even a "big" word. Noone complains about a single story subject or the subject of a series of stories as being bias.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Some complain that the media has a liberal bias in general in that they focus on stories that are detrimental to conservatives.

Others complain that there is a conservative bias because of the framing of certain debates, etc.

I'm trying to make the claim that if there is a bias it is at the behest of profit and not a political agenda.

My understanding of bias is generally limited to science where I worry about conflating variables and underlying phenomena that might skew results.

I'm trying to make the claim that if there is a bias it is at the behest of profit and not a political agenda.

And you're failing pretty badly at that.

PS: Has it ever occurred to you that profit and a political agenda are not exactly mutually exclusive?

The very fact that you call it a "Clinton sex scandal" tells us what your bias is, and we can correlate that with the narrative we saw in the media at the time, which was also that it was a "sex scandal."

From where we sit, "It's all about sex!" was James Carville's chant, the White House line, and it became the media's line. And now it's yours. It's Democratic Party pap, and the media pumped it all through the country as loudly as they could. That was all a big Shiny Object, intended to distract the public from something else.

What else could it have been? Well, maybe it was about Clinton lying under oath. Remember Scooter Libby? He's been convicted of a felony, fined a quarter of a million dollars, and would today be in prison had not President Bush commuted his sentence. And what did he do? Lie under oath. Nothing else; no one even suggested he had anything to do with 'outing' Plame. It was strictly lying under oath. That was a real serious offense in the media a few months ago. But when Clinton did it, it was "all about sex."

For his testimony in the Jones lawsuit, Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was fined $90,000 for giving false testimony. And still today, you, the Democrats, and the media call it a "sex scandal."

Please do not try to sell us your lame arguments suggesting that the press in this country is not the media wing of the Democratic Party. Every journalism school that has looked into this has found overwhelming bias in favor of Democrats throughout the press, with the single exception of Fox News. That does not surprise us; it is our daily experience.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

More effort with a troll than I'd ever try, but sometimes it's good to just spell it out like that.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Yep ... was that before or after Newsweek tried to squelch it, whereupon Matt Drudge took the opportunity that made him a household name? The MSM did try to avoid covering it until it got out in the open and then they had to protect their credibility/pose of being neutral observers by covering it.

It wasn't that long ago and I wasn't suffering from narcolepsy when it happened. Therefore I did not fail to notice how quickly the MSM adopted the Clinton White House's "everyone lies about sex" narrative to present to the American people instead of the more damaging one about a President lying under oath. I saw the myriad of stories attacking Ken Starr. I saw Dan Rather's hideously one-sided narration of the impeachment vote.

I also did not fail to notice everyday seeing some variant of "The Economy: Still Great - All Praise Be To Clinton" in the news everyday during the entire circus. A cynic would think keeping the President's job approval numbers up was one reason why the 90+% liberal Fourth Estate was so loudly cheerleading the economy (quite a contrast from what they're doing nowadays, isn't it?) and praising the President's "handling" of it to the skies. Interestingly enough, Clinton's job approval numbers went up while his personal approval numbers continued their downward spiral.

In other words, that the New York Times covered President Bush's inaugurals is not a sign of neutrality any more than The Nation doing the same is a sign that it's a politically neutral magazin - media bias is not just about what stories are covered, but also how they're covered, from the tenor of the coverage, saturation, narrative, cited experts, wording, headlines, etc.

PS: You're really are not that sophisticated.

I suppose you and the media will soon be touting Barry Bonds' trial as a sex scandal as well.

Oh, that's right, Clinton lied under oath before a grand jury. The same crime seems to be causing Barry problems.

It amazes me there are still apologists for Bill. If any other CEO molested an intern they would not be forgiven so readily.

Retread.

as the cover story of their November 2007 issue.

==== 13 ====

This seems like a newsworthy incident to me and I'm glad American Spectator carried it. However, what about the TV media? If the TV media did not report on it then Haystack's main post is exactly right, which is really unfortunate.

You would think mainstream American media companies would want America to win and the terrorists to lose.