the explosion was engineered to look like a successful attack at a polling place. It was not. But the free-lance photographers collaborated with the murderous goat-fuckers to produce propoganda that media outfits took as fact without question.
RLTW
trying to kill and intimidate Iraqi citizens from electing their own government.
Do I have that right? Regular bunch of Patrick Henry's fer sher...
This link reflects exactly the stuff I have been thinking about lately.
I just read State of Fear by M Creighton (sp?). I know a little about this guy and respect him. And here he is writing a book that contradicts a lot of environmentalists' core beliefs. Including my own.
The book makes a few major points:
the data about global warming and its impact is certainly much less than conclusive (as a function of the complexity of such a dynamic process);
institutions with large economic stakes in the environmental movement (pro and con) fund studies with a specific outcome as the objective attached to the funding;
gov't, media and much industry all have a vested interest in creating chronic anxiety (for which they provide a solution); and
one of the major aspects of the information age is the power of the brokers of information, a theme I have written about here before.
He concludes that much of the fears about global warming are more a myth than anything science can seriously validate.
And I walk away from the book wondering if we aren't all dupes. The liberals and the conservatives. What information are we selecting and which are we rejecting, and why? The point of RLTW's post/link....
I mean, I think we have our points of views for two reasons: one, because of who we are and how we see the world - our developmental status/bias/orienting assumptions. But also as a function of the information we get. What's the agenda of the sender of the information?
Anyway, it leaves me feeling a little screwy. Where the hell does one go to find decent information? I think this is why I still lurk on these boards. The tension keeps everyone on our toes.
And if you're not questioning some of your long-held assumptions, you're not thinking.
Creighton is usually a fun, plot driven read - but that's about it. The book is fiction and certainly doesn't purport to be a balanced account of the scientific arguments which claim anthropogenic activity is a significant cause of climate change.
If you want some 'decent' information try the following
Jeremy Leggett, 'The Carbon War'
Bjorn Lomborg, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' (the book which appears to be the source of much of Creighton's 'research',is a masterpiece of sophistic reasoning)
www.unfccc.int, the official UN website for global mechanisms to battle climate change
www.pewclimate.org, the Pew Center's Global Climate Change project
Thanks for the info sources....
The larger point he is making (and there are a couple of appendicies to the book where he talks about his perspectives - it seems this story is fiction intended to a) get a point across and then b), become a movie) is that sophisticated agendas drive the info we get and the mindsets we have. He happens to think this is true about several but not all environmental issues. I don't draw any specific conclusions about the subject of environmental issues, but about the nature and power of information, itself.... How many of our core beliefs about the big issues are just hogwash as a result of really bad information repeated several times??
you are just now coming to these conclusions, I find THAT fascinating...
BK
We're all bozos on this bus, and so I'll plead ignorance to the charge of being a bright guy. I am not sure which conclusions you refer to....
The conclusion that good information is hard to come by is not news to me. Maybe the point that strikes me the most from reading this book is not about the environment and environmental groups, per se, but about the dangers of agenda-based information. I like intelligent challenges coming at my beliefs from one of "our own." That is integrity that matters.
There's so much advocacy-based information, that truly balanced information and analysis is ... maybe a naive dream. Of this naivety, I am guilty as charged.
-- Modified on 1/30/2005 2:18:31 PM
I've never seen that show but I do know quite a bit about being a bozo..
Thanks for clarifying, I find much upon which we agree.
""the dangers of agenda-based information. I like intelligent challenges coming at my beliefs from one of "our own." That is integrity that matters.""
this is important to me. As much as my pride does'nt want to allow me to be wrong, I'll tolerate being a dupe much less. I have a deep distrust of those who make it their mission in life to either influence opinion (as opposed to inform) to suit themselves AND those whose life's goal is to be a pol who imposes his view of the world on everyone else thru the ballot (or government power).
The last thing I want to do is wake up and find is that I've been carrying water for some schlub....
In my work I'm often required to make decisions that affect different groups of people with differing agendas and make it work out to a common benefit. In order to do that you need to get down as close as possible to the pure unadultered facts as much as you possibly can while EACH side is trying top spin you...needless to say, I find myself saying "cut the crap" quite often...
BK
Much less three or four? One a photograph of a photograper poised to photograph the pretty explosion just out of range.
But I don't get the point of this point. It indicates that the insurgency has it's own propaganda arm of sympathetic Arab reporters, but few insurgencies don't have a propaganda arm.
/Zin
... usually, people that are dumb enough to play that game get caught because somebody gets the idea to follow the journalists.
These journalists have surces we don't like. Live with it.
the explosion was engineered to look like a successful attack at a polling place. It was not. But the free-lance photographers collaborated with the murderous goat-fuckers to produce propoganda that media outfits took as fact without question.
RLTW
Sorry RLTW, but goat-fuckers simply won't do here, if you want to be really insulting, refer to them as pig-fuckers.
Calling them goat-fuckers would be complimentary.
And I've got to tell you, as much as I despise this administration and its policies, that from what *I* can see, there is some potential to indicate that these imnages have been altered, via photoshop or other digital image manipulation.
It won't be the first time this method has been used, nor would it be the last. Doesn't matter if its Iraqi insurgents, Arab terrorists, George Bush holding a plastic turkey, or even an airbrushed Playboy beauty.
But the idea of journalists getting tips prior to an event, is as old as photo-journalism itself, so the image of a photographer in the shadows waiting for the event is not a stretch , although it is reprehensible the photographer would do nothing to interfere with his exclusive photos. THAT should also be criminal.
I would prefer to see photos of long lines of "newly democratized" Iraqi citizens voting in their own country without looking over their sholders for a terrorist homicide bomber to come looking for its moment of fame and immortality, prior to a grisly and foolish mortal death.
THAT would be the picture to put on the front pages.
THAT would be a picture to encourage support, not images of tired American troops scrambling to put makeshift armor on their vehicles.
But those are the images we see.
Follow the money trail to see who is really orchestrating the photo-ops.