Skip to main content

Anything for a buck

I made the mistake of perusing the local paper tonight (and it was the "good" one too) only to see the letters section still debating Michael Moore's idiotic 9-11 movie. For heavens sake, why? The guy who liked the film had a paranoid list of U.S. Atrocities and falsehoods that was missing only the fake moon landings and the UFO parts being kept in Roswell. The letter writer in question also knew - for a fact - that the U.S. sunk it's own ship, the USS Maine, as a pretext to start the Spanish American war. They also killed only black sailors in doing so. Don't ask how that's possible, or how the nutjobs come to know these things. They just know, y'know? Moore's questioning of the president is not a bad thing. But his line of questioning is so weak it must be dismissed. If you can call the president a fascist in the media and not go to jail, you are rather obviously wrong on that point. Why is no one asking questions about U.S. overreach? About what might happen to Iran in a second Bush term? About what might happen to Taiwan (for example) if the U.S. is seen worldwide as being stretched to the limit by being in Iraq and Afghanistan? There are good questions to be asked. To return to my point, why do such stupid, ranting accusations continue to get printed? Because very few people in the media actually subscribe to the notion that they have a duty to tell the truth. They see the truth as being irrelevant to what they do. What they do, really, is sell papers. And they will do anything, print anything, say anything, to achieve that end. Under the old paradigm, media outlets sold their credibility, and they had to be wary of what they published lest they sully that reputation. Letters for and against Moore get people riled up. The sell ads. The merit of Moore's attack on the presided is utterly beside the point. Record companies that sell profane, sexist crap to kids are doing the same thing. So are women's magazine's that scream "you need to buy this" and fill their with sludge extolling the virtues of the products advertised in their pages. There's a word for people who'll do anything for a buck... Maybe it's not all their fault. Maybe they were just raised that way. Brainwashing 101 :: AcademicBias.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi