Here is a link on ThinkProgress to a conversation between BillO and his "ombudsperson" named Dhue, unless he's fired her for not putting out and then he may have, by now, hired Huey or Luey.
Their theory...too many "haters" are contacting the ombudsperson about facts! Facts that are incorrect! Bill cheers for the "regular viewers" to write in and tell him how right he is instead. And there we have for all to see the Fox News definition of acountability, and I'd dare say the conservative definition as the current resident of the white house appointed the same sort of ombudsperson at CPB.
Of course, the problem is simply that the definition of ombudsperson accepted by the English-speaking world differs dramatically from the definition amongst the neocon faithful. It is a very common aspect of cult behavior; Creating "cult-speak" that the non-initiated find baffling and vacuous. The problem with communication seems to be that the neocon faithful are unaware that their definition of ombudsperson differs from the rest of the English-speaking world. When people are speaking a similar, but significantly different language, trouble almost certainly ensues. Really, it is a recipe for disaster that is being repeated day after day between liberals and conservatives.
At some point, it must be acknowledged that we speak 2 related dialects of a language called English but we certainly don't speak the same language. The first step to improving communication is understanding that we speak different languages and beginning the arduous task of creating a Liberal English-Conservative English dictionary and train translators to work, first and foremost in the congress. Then a translator should add subtitles in Liberal English on Fox News. I theorize that once enough data on this new dialect is collected, we will find that it differs significantly from any dialect of English currently spoken. I suspect we will realize in the future that watching a minimum amount of Fox News was a unnecessary requisite for fully understanding the dialect. Unfortunately, this activity also seems to erase the knowledge of standard English/Liberal English. Therefore, it becomes impossible for someone to expose themselves to the requisite time to fluency and still be able to relate the new meanings back to other speakers of standard English. This complicates the path to translation greatly. In my experience, which I know is merely anecdotal evidence to begin theorizing and not data, speakers of conservative English are unaware that they were ever educated in standard English. Bill O'Reilly and Ms. Dhue are good examples. They seem completely suprised that announcing an ombudsman would initiate any emails concerning the inaccurate facts promoted by the show.Yet anyone who was aware of the standard English definition of ombudsperson would expect exactly that. This amnesia for the previous dialect is very interesting and does not seem to be common in language groups were multiple dialect knowledge is needed for functioning. Many Chinese, for example are fluent in Mandarin (putonghua or the "official" language) despite the fact that most of them speak a different dialect at home. (I wonder if it has to do with their being more distinct differences between Chinese dialects or that this new English dialect is disseminated in such a way that tricks the mind into believing this was always the definition of ombudsperson. Obviously, a large number of people not fluent in the language of this cult, made the assumption that he was using the word in the standard way, unaware of what ombudsperson means in this cults vocabulary.
The process of creating this dictionary is going to take long hours of reading exchanges between people on Fox News (merely because it is that richest source of this new dialect) deducing the intended meaning of their speech and trying to check via other shared words if we have made the correct deduction. Of course, the time to fluency would have to be carefully avoided or the person would be entirely convinced that the cult-speak was standard English.
To try to help, at least in this instance where it is clear the difference in dialect left both sides suprised, I wrote the following email to Ms. Dhue. I hope it will be a first step towards Americans being able to communicate with each other and solve problems together.
*******************************************************************************
I read with great amusement the conversation between you and BillO about your job as ombudsperson.
The problem can be easily solved. You have taken the title of ombudsperson, which suggests that your job is to check the false "facts" endorsed by Mr. O'Reilly on his show. Therefore, people who speak English are naturally going to assume that you wish to be made aware of the multitude of falsehoods that are promoted every day on Bill's shows. Of course, the "regular people" to whom he refers don't understand that calling them "regular people" is a well known way to promote falsehood by making people feel a part of the "in crowd". If what a person says is true they have no reason to suggest (without any data of course-unless of course you can supply the itinerary for his trip to meet all the "regular" people who watch his show and confirm their unanimous endorsement) that all "regular people" (definition please) agree with the falsehood, i.e. the statement at odds with reality.
The position you and Bill described today would be more accurately called "Defender of the Faith". Obviously, if the Catholic church publically announced a content related ombudsman, they would get all sorts of mail pointing out that most of their assertions have no basis in reality. And on the third day he rose again? How is an ombudsman going to check the facts on that? It is simply an article of faith, as is most of the content of the show that your title suggests you hold accountable to the truth. I'm sure they wouldn't wish to deal with that mail and thus they don't have an ombudsman, they have a defender of the faith. (I know they've tried to change the name but not with much public ado.)
Of course, those writing to the defender of the faith that Mr. O'Reilly promotes would be the letters you are looking for. The "regular people" who watch the show and believe will tell Bill how great he is, how right he is, how valuable his work to convert the masses to neocon fascism has been. I hope that you see the difference clearly...ombudsman checks statements against facts...defender of the faith checks statements against an irrational belief system and finds "truth" when the statement matches the belief system regardless of its relationship to reality. You and Bill very clearly made that distinction today.
If defender of the faith is distasteful, I have suggested another option in the subject line...OmBill'sperson would get what you tried to communicate today across. You could also consider the rather clumsy OminBill'sPocketperson. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it would have a relationship to his past conduct that many of us would watch the show just to hear him say!
Oh! Judging from the aging of Bill's demographic, my medical opinion would be that a majority of them are not regular. Maybe his website could add a BillOLax to help him be talking to more regular people when he promotes this faith based system. May I suggest a picture of Bill with is face distorted in a mighty grunt for the packaging?
I think that as long as you retain the title of ombudsperson, English speaking people's will assume you check facts and send you reams of emails each day that merely represents how far from reality the views expressed on the show are. If you don't want reality based emails and you want the emails from the "regular people", which I assume means other members of the neocon fascist faith group, then a simple change to a more accurate title would, I'm sure get all of that nasty reality out of your inbox!
I'm glad I could help with this problem that is obviously troubling both of you.
*****************************************************************************
I hope we can start the process of reconciliation. My next thought goes to the realization that these cult members are reading the constitution in conservative English. God knows what that sounds like when translated to standard English. Maybe there is a need for a national standard English that everyone must know. Children may be being taught at home that the constitution was written in this new dialect. The fact that this dialect is of recent vintage and could not be the language of the founders needs to be disseminated as well.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Modern American Journalism
Here is the problem with the media in a nutshell. It is definitely not liberal bias.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
What's O'Hanlon Been Handlin'
Mr. O'Hanlon has taken to the op-ed pages again to defend the op-ed that he couldn't defend when Glenn Greenwald asked him the relevant questions that the media as a whole couldn't come up with. Scary!
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:
Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).
He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?
The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.
Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.
It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.
Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?
O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.
I: And did you attend any of these classes?
O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!
I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?
O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.
I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?
O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!
Can't argue with that logic!!
*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:
if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment.He is a critic. He's not a critic. What week is this? Did he forget his morning Kool Aid the day he spoke to Greenwald?
Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).
He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?
The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.
Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.
It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.
Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?
O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.
I: And did you attend any of these classes?
O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!
I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?
O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.
I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?
O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!
Can't argue with that logic!!
*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Long, Long Haul
I am aghast, as are many others, at the writings of Stu Bykofsky in a Philadelphia newspaper calling for another 9/11 to unite our country. There are so many things wrong with the article, not the least of which is the fascist idea that if we just had an enemy, real or imagined, to inflame our nationalist, stateist, xenophobic fears we could be the strong fatherland that god intended us to be and rule the world. Many people worry that the holocaust will be forgotten. Well, whether Bykofsky is a Jewish or Polish (or both or neither) name, it is sad to see that the rhetoric of the fascist state would win support under such a name.
I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."
Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.
Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.
In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?
No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.
The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.
Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?
An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.
I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."
Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.
Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.
In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?
No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.
The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.
Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?
An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
JetBlue, O'Reilly, and Dictionary Usage
Another day, another dumb blunder from Faux News and Bill-O. It would be hilarious entertainment if there wasn't the sad backdrop of realization that there are people in this country who take Bill-O seriously.
As many of you probably already know the man who would be McCarthy attacked DailyKos as a Hate Site, comparing them to Nazis for the contents of some unmoderated diaries on the site. We all know there is nothing more "hateful" to the progress of a good authoritarian state than free speech! One in particular was quite an egregious pronouncement of hate...someone called the pope a primate!
I emailed Billy to ask, since I'm sure he can use a dictionary and knows that a primate could be a mammal in the group that includes humans or the highest bishop in a church, whether it was the characterization of the pope as human or as the highest bishop in his church that Bill-O found hateful. I was hoping to be able to clarify for everyone just which usage he was objecting to but, alas, he hasn't responded. Still looking for his dictionary I presume. (Bill! It's over there under the loofah!)
I was even hoping that Bill would give me contact info for whatever group informs his views on the pope. He must either believe that the pope is to be thought if as a diety and not at all human (unless of course pope Naziburger is actually a robot, I didn't think of that until now! So that's where Hitler's Brain went!) or he must belong to a sect professing an alternative Catholic hierarchy and holding that someone other that the Bishop of Rome is the primate of the Catholic church. I thought I was going to be able to bring you a great report on whichever group Billy belonged to but no such luck.
Now in his show B-O had a staffer ambush the JetBlue CEO and challenge him about their donation of 10 tickets to the YearlyKos blogger convention. The JetBlue CEO handled things fairly well considering the circumstances. I wrote to JetBlue corporate communications and expressed my support and understanding that they had been ambushed by a horrible and dishonest "journalist" and they actually wrote back thanking me for seeing through the charade.
However, within 24 hours of being bombarded, I'm sure, by the utterly non-hateful B-O supporters JetBlue asked that their logo be removed from the YearlyKos ads/banners and issued a statement that voiced assent to the idea that Kos is a hateful site. Bad move.
I wrote back to JetBlue and expressed my disappointment. I summed up what I thought of the move and I offered them free access to use it in their ads if they wish to count on B-O's dwindling demographic for their business. But if you see it, you'll know this slogan is my baby!
JetBlue: If you're smart enough to define primate (or even to look it up), we'd prefer you use some other airline!
As many of you probably already know the man who would be McCarthy attacked DailyKos as a Hate Site, comparing them to Nazis for the contents of some unmoderated diaries on the site. We all know there is nothing more "hateful" to the progress of a good authoritarian state than free speech! One in particular was quite an egregious pronouncement of hate...someone called the pope a primate!
I emailed Billy to ask, since I'm sure he can use a dictionary and knows that a primate could be a mammal in the group that includes humans or the highest bishop in a church, whether it was the characterization of the pope as human or as the highest bishop in his church that Bill-O found hateful. I was hoping to be able to clarify for everyone just which usage he was objecting to but, alas, he hasn't responded. Still looking for his dictionary I presume. (Bill! It's over there under the loofah!)
I was even hoping that Bill would give me contact info for whatever group informs his views on the pope. He must either believe that the pope is to be thought if as a diety and not at all human (unless of course pope Naziburger is actually a robot, I didn't think of that until now! So that's where Hitler's Brain went!) or he must belong to a sect professing an alternative Catholic hierarchy and holding that someone other that the Bishop of Rome is the primate of the Catholic church. I thought I was going to be able to bring you a great report on whichever group Billy belonged to but no such luck.
Now in his show B-O had a staffer ambush the JetBlue CEO and challenge him about their donation of 10 tickets to the YearlyKos blogger convention. The JetBlue CEO handled things fairly well considering the circumstances. I wrote to JetBlue corporate communications and expressed my support and understanding that they had been ambushed by a horrible and dishonest "journalist" and they actually wrote back thanking me for seeing through the charade.
However, within 24 hours of being bombarded, I'm sure, by the utterly non-hateful B-O supporters JetBlue asked that their logo be removed from the YearlyKos ads/banners and issued a statement that voiced assent to the idea that Kos is a hateful site. Bad move.
I wrote back to JetBlue and expressed my disappointment. I summed up what I thought of the move and I offered them free access to use it in their ads if they wish to count on B-O's dwindling demographic for their business. But if you see it, you'll know this slogan is my baby!
JetBlue: If you're smart enough to define primate (or even to look it up), we'd prefer you use some other airline!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)