6/14/2008 07:37:00 AM
Tim Russert, 58
Obviously, reporters are used to being labeled 'unfair.' Some of these allegations are accurate, but frequently they're without substantiation. Often little more than rallying cries pundits wield against legitimate reporting. Partisans unable to offer logical criticisms of a journalist's work will typically defer to the tired old "liberal bias" or "media whore" labels.
The most common of these is the "bias" tactic; the right owns this one. Characterized by a selective recollection of the reporter's work, it usually falls apart once fleshed out logically (Bernard Goldberg's [confirmation] Bias is the Rosetta Stone of selective-memory-as-'science'). Most on the right never seem to mind the pseudoscientific nature of their favorite complaint. Then again, most accept the story of Noah's Ark, Lott's wife, and the rest of the Bible's mythology as literally true.
Recently these accusations have arisen from the left, as well. However, due to the difference in thought patterns, these manifest themselves as allegations of corporate sell-outism. I.e. a journalist being 'unfair,' to a liberal, is a "media whore" -- the implication being he or she has traded principles for a fat, corporate news salary. Often, as in the case of Dick Morris, it's an accurate description. But in some instances the characterization stems from critics' fundamental inability to discern between reporting and editorializing.
Mr. Russert caught it from both ends. Those on the right unable to find a hole in Russert's work would pull out the "liberal bias" card; those on the left who confused his reporting with editorializing loved to call him a "media whore."
In reality, however, he was neither. Tim Russert was as fair as it got.
..!..
6/08/2008 02:05:00 AM
6/03/2008 12:38:00 PM
Confirmation Bias
Before 9/11, my online efforts were largely directed at battling pseudoscience, like the crap spewed by religious zealots claiming to have disproved evolutionary theory, or the dime-a-dozen ‘Grand Unifying Theories’ by hack theoretical “physicists” claiming to have resurrected some pre-Einsteinian model of time. So when I caught the political bug in 2001, I was already intimately familiar with people unable to escape their own cognitive biases.
The phenomenon of Confirmation Bias is the psychological mechanism whereby a person only tends to notice stuff that supports what that person already believes, and tends to overlook evidence that contradicts what he or she believes. It’s a mindset all scientists must learn to overcome; an obstacle to objective evaluation folks who believe in things like Astrology, UFOs, and Bigfoot apparently cannot overcome.
Numerous neocons are enslaved by this mental mechanism. In fact, for a long time, the more I studied the right wing mouthpieces, the more I became convinced being incapable of seeing around one’s own biases tends to make a person conservative.
(There are just as many ascientific nut jobs on the left who've proved this idea wrong.)
One of the first targets of my “satire” was Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias.” That rag was one of the most obvious cases of Confirmation Bias I’ve ever seen (yes, I bought and read the whole thing without barfing once). Goldberg’s "Bias" may as well have been called “Stuff I Remember Noticing.” In my spoof I presented a Shepard Smith review of the book with excerpts. (I recently resurrected the “satirical” piece here.)
As I mentioned above, unfortunately there are those on the left just as enslaved to their cognitive biases. Wackos like the WTC conspiracy theorists. The nut jobs who believe in astral projection. And many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters (though if the tables were turned - i.e., if Obama were on the brink of losing the nomination - many his supporters would be just as incapable of rational thought).
Regardless who our nominee is this fall, if that person loses to McCain, supporters of the alternative Democratic choice . . . those who cannot overcome their own cognitive biases . . . will scream, “See? We told you so! We nominated the wrong candidate!”
But that's not our big obstacle at this moment. Our primary focus at this time is to keep these cognitive-bias-saddled Hillary supporters from destroying our opportunity before we win. We don't need to pull a GOP-esque self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sean Insanity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Orally and the rest of the right wing ascientific bunch continuously point to a handful of media figures as "liberal." Amazingly, many Clinton and Obama supporters point to these same, exact people as "pro-GOP" or "media whores." If you're not sure who on the left are incapable of thinking rationally --of seeing around their own cognitive biases-- a good starting point is these people. Coppage, for example, (the Bartcop guy) has let many of us down, revealing his own inability to see around his confirmation biases. Showing us his IQ really is just south of the Forrest Gump range.
If the GOP somehow wins this fall, convincing Clinton supporters their candidate would’ve been equally vulnerable to the Swift Boating job by Faux News et al will be like trying to convince Bible thumpers to take a rational view of evolutionary theory.
But that scenario will only become a reality if we let the ascientific, irrational sorts prevail. There are numerous, logical Clinton supporters out there. Let's hope they keep a lid on the idiotic fringes who cannot overcome their cognitive biases.
..!..
6/02/2008 01:00:00 PM
"We Report . . .About one-fifth the news everyone else reports
(...that’s all we can talk about without reminding you the GOP is in trouble)."It's awesome to be back with my family.
It's great to be home.
The back yard barbecue we had today was sheer joy. And it didn't take much suds to lift my spirits. My beer tolerance needs some work. Think I'll spend a good portion of my R&R time working on that...
It's always interesting to jump back into the "real world" after being gone for a significant chunk of time. The only TV news I got while deployed was FOX News (sic). My observations, therefore, should come as no surprise:
Ted Kennedy has an inoperable brain tumor? FNC didn't tell me this. I guess it's not "newsworthy" in their petty little minds. Apparently this was big news two weeks ago. That is, newsworthy to every news outlet except Rupert Murdoch's pile of shit.
Scott McClellan has published a book. Some sort of minor thing, you know, which suddenly seemed a lot bigger once I arrived home. And saw the real news networks.
Gasoline rose by 75 cents during my deployment. Of course I was aware of this, from conversations with my wife. But it didn't sink in until I saw it with my own eyes. Holy sheep feces. And it's supposed to inflate by another dollar over the summer. Joy.
I did learn a few things while watching nothing but FOX. When Dick Morris opines, his bottom lip moves in more directions than Mitt Romney's stance on abortion. Alan Colmes is more poised when he argues with Sean Insanity than I remember, though he still gets bitch-slapped occasionally. Mediocre comics with right-leaning political stances have established a late-night FNC show called the "Idiot Zone" or something.
What else, oh -- FOX News is petrified of Obama. Shemp Hannity is hilarious with his "Obama has connections with communist radicals" spin. And his "Hannity's America" show is hilariously dumb. Apparently, according to Shemp, Obama used to hang out with the Unabomber. Or something equally fabricated.
FNC wanted to get Hillary nominated, and tried for several weeks, until it became clear that's not going to happen. At this point they started asking "should Hillary run as an independent?" Ha!
I never heard a thing about Reverend Hagee. Not once in six months. You know, John McCain's Reverend Wright. Oh . . . I saw plenty about Reverend Wright, and some white Priest mocking Hillary Clinton. But Hagee – nothing. Now that I’m back in the real world, I’ve seen the Hagee clips and WOW.
None of this really comes as a surprise, but it's noteworthy.
-------------------------
On "our" side of the political fence, I've noticed my friend Bartcop acting inexplicably anti-Obama. Calls Rachel Maddow "Olbermann's toady" and thinks a McCain win will "prove" Hillary should've run instead of Obama. Maybe his IQ really is 60.
Speaking of Olbermann, he's getting fat. Not extremely so, just enough for someone gone for a half a year to notice. But he's still fighting the good fight, so I say lecture on O Jolly Man.
Rachel Ray has porked up as well, and seems to have aged about ten years. The scarf ad looked like the Rachel I remembered; her "mainstream" cooking show - on the other hand - looks like it's hosted by an older sister on Prednizone or something.
Huffingtonpost.com has made some improvements to their comments feature, Stephanie Miller still rules the airwaves, eBay sucks donkeys dicks (though I use it for beer can images... heh heh), snopes.com is just as silly as ever, Daily Kos still kicks ass, and YouTube still proves a valuable resource for SHIT I JUST DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT.
One last thing - how is "morning joe" without anyone named Joe? Is Scarborough - an embarrassment to many of us Pensacolians - so powerful an NBC employee these days that he can take huge chunks of time off while his staff continues to run his namesake morning show in his absence?
..!..
12/30/2007 02:22:00 PM
According to this retard, an actor
Don't know the date from the repeat O'Reilly show I stumbled across, but in it he's condescendingly hosting a "Culture Quiz" with contestants Steve Doofus and some blonde woman.
Anyway, as Orally asks the question, you see a scene from the 1950s movie "On the Waterfront" with Rod Steiger and Marlon Brando. After Doocey and the blonde lady correctly answer the question (about Brando), Billow interjects his own, supplemental trivia question: Who was the other actor we just saw . . . next to Marlon Brando?
Doocey guesses "Karl Malden" (yes, Doocey is fucktard), and the woman hazards no guess. The answer, as I indicated above, is Rod Steiger.
But here comes the punch line: obviously this wasn't a programmed question, as I gleefully witnessed during O'Reilly's proud pronouncement to his stumped guests:
"ROD SEIGER"
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
..!..
10/27/2007 10:49:00 AM
The wack jobs even have Bill Clinton rebuking them.
Big bad Bill can tolerate a lot of shit - but the truly ridiculous will get his goat every time.
Especially when it makes the left wing look as stupid as the right wing.
How much embarrassment are these knuckleheads trying to spread across the left swath of the political yard?
I'm feeling it - how about you?
Remember when we used to be the logical ones?
I used to take pride in the fact our side of the political spectrum was the more discerning, rational group. You know, the thinkers. We could look at religion, superstition, or other manifestations of the foolishness of the right, and – through logic – demonstrate just how idiotic our political foes were.
But this growing group of left wing nutbags stupidly insisting 9/11 was an “inside job” have shown the world there are more types of illogical boobs than just those on the religious right.
If confronted by a creationist, how in the hell could one of these 9/11 conspiracy theorists expect to be taken seriously when he or she applied “logic” to the evolution/creationism argument?
If you're one who honestly believes this 9/11 conspiracy stuff, but have the courage to objectively examine the evidence, please take an objective gander at the information on this site.
..|..
10/27/2007 07:59:00 AM
HA!
The neocons are afraid of speech, and - once again - have banned those who don't precisely agree with them.
No news here - most of us with at least a foot in reality understand the radical righties are petrified of rationale.
But it's pretty funny.
....
10/24/2007 11:49:00 AM
Since reading the articles on that hair whorl thing, I can't help but notice the whorls on those heads around me. After all, this is military world, and we're all walking around with short hair - makes it easy to see another fella's whorl.
And when I caught a glimpse of Neil Cavuto's counterclockwise whorl, it struck me - these closeted right wingers are very close to being outed! Ha!
I have nothing against homosexuality. Sure, I've poked fun at it, and would be initially bothered to learn a loved one was gay. But I'd be equipped to cope with such a thing: I'm intellectually and emotionally able to recognize the fact that sexuality is not a matter of choice.
What more traitorous thing could a person do than deny himself? We already know the GOP is full of traitors --- and I can't wait for the day when most of the world realizes what we political junkies already know:
The loudest corners of the anti-gay political world are filled with homosexuals.
....
9/24/2007 07:12:00 AM
-----------------------------
The Political Tool is Embarrassed at Being a Political Tool
He may be the second most powerful player in our deployed military, but General Petraeus has been made a pawn by President Bush. The recognition of -- and reaction to -- this fact is what motivated him to say he doesn't know whether the war in Iraq is making America any safer.
In response to Senator Warner's question General Petraeus could have said any number of things. And, he may have actually been considering this answer:
"I personally think so."
In fact, I bet General Petraeus was tempted to offer his opinion. Torn between "I personally think so" and "I don't know."
Whether or not the former would've been a lie was not the primary reason he chose the latter. In fact, although it might have been an honest response for him to say, "I personally believe so," General Petraeus responded "I don't know" because the spectacle of being a political device disgusted him.
I'm betting something like the following ran through his mind during those dramatic moments between Warner's question and his answer:
1. A simple "Yes" would be a blatantly political response.
2. I am not supposed to be a political figure.
3. In order to conceal the political nature of my response, I might qualify "Yes" with an "in my opinion..."
4. No, that won't work, because even if I qualify my answer as my own, personal opinion, it will be a political response, and that fact will not escape the American public.
5. As I am not supposed to be a political tool, I'll stick to the military role...
"Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
(Warner repeats the question)
1. I am a political pawn. This is bullshit. I can't stand by and let this miserable president ruin my legacy.
"Sir, I don't know actually."
This is not to say General Petraeus realized his role as political pawn at the moment Warner questioned him. Obviously he's no dummy.
But I don't think he knew the question was coming, and may have even, for a split second, thought, "how dare they?" In the seconds that followed the question, he undoubtedly recognized Warner's motives were much more honorable than anything pre-scripted by the Bush regime. Maybe the sight of another decent Republican before him motivated him to choose "I don't know."
Remember: "I don't know" and "I think so" are not mutually exclusive, and could both be honest answers.
Having spent so much of my life around very decent, intelligent military professionals, I tend to think the best of people like General Petraeus. Just as most people are decent, so are most military folks.
Some of us recognized it earlier, but the majority of men and women in uniform see the administration for what it really is.
....
9/23/2007 04:34:00 AM
Lewd Larry and his self-loathing, denial-city homo repugnant buds.
9/16/2007 03:01:00 AM
Though the conspiracy theory that the US Government/BFEE orchestrated the events of 9/11 is not restricted to lefties, most who espouse it are liberals. And, even if a miniscule portion of us subscribes to the idiotic theory, neocons can gleefully point to it as proof we're stupid.
So thank Buddha Bill Maher said this. Yes, right wing world, most of us on the left are smarter than Rosie O'Donnell.
Too bad Bill couldn't have aired this piece last week, when brain damaged Mos Def was touting the moronic theory on the show.
....
9/08/2007 12:35:00 PM
Larry Craig is a naughty, nasty boy.
By the way, I'm sorry if I offend any Mos Def fans, but he's on Maher's show right now and what a moron. Holy shit. Thank Koresh Bill's got Dr. West on the panel.
..!..
9/03/2007 03:52:00 PM
Not a YouTube fan? You're welcome to download a WMV of the movie here:
Enjoy
..!..
8/28/2007 08:44:00 AM
Like this guy.
And this guy.
And these guys.
On the other hand, when the tough man is knocked down, he gets back up and faces his opponents...
"Winners never quit and quitters never win."
-Vincent Lombardi
Speaking of FOOTBALL and politics, if you're like me you often think of political cartoons, but lack the ability to draw. So keep that in mind when checking out my nifty Paintbrush.exe 'toon about the Michael Vick saga:
And last, but certainly not least...
LARRY CRAIG NABBED IN MEN'S ROOM SOLICITING UNDERCOVER POLICEMAN!
In case you don't already know, Craig is one of those repugnant conservatives who rabidy bashes homosexuals and lobbies for the "protection" of marriage. Moreso than your typical Sean Retarditty - you know, the stuff self-loathing, totally-in-denial homosexuals do to compensate for their desperately unwanted yet totally innate "perversion." Like Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, Arthur Finkelstein, Ken Mehlman, and Rush Limbaugh.
You know, all those guys in the Homosexual Mafia.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!
....
8/22/2007 11:46:00 AM
Is Matt Drudge's counter-clockwise whorl significant?
Is it really a well-known fact that conservative water carrier Matt Drudge is a closet homosexual?
That is to say, is Matt Drudge a self-loathing gay man?
Isn't it cool how asking a question instead of making an assertion - like, say, asking if it's true Matt Drudge uses warming gel when he rides his favorite dildo - is a cowardly way to smear someone without actually libeling them?
Which brings me to my main question: is Matt Drudge a self-loathing, closeted homosexual?
If Drudge is not a homosexual, why does the word "gay" typically appear a dozen or more times in every article written about him? That's not even true of Tom Cruise, is it?
Do all self-hating homosexuals despise liberals, or are people like Matt Drudge, David Dreier, Ken Mehlman, Mark Foley and Ann Coulter the exception?
;)
