ParanoiA

I think iNow is testing the establishment. Don't lose respect for the site, I think they're just trying keep their hands off. iNow is highly emotionally driven and frequently deteriorates to name calling and childish insults when someone won't accept his point. People aren't perfect, not even psychologists. By the way, I was watching some documentary last night about organ donation and the thousands of people on waiting lists and how some are working around it by going to China to get organs and transplants. They mentioned that China had executed close to 10,000 people in one year. And that's how they were harvesting so many organs. Shocking. Truly shocking.

Yeah I've smoked cannabis for most of my 36 years of life and haven't noticed any side effects. I have no problems getting up in the morning to go get our food stamps, or check in with the unemployment office (that's my chore I do to live in my mom's basement). I would share more but "they" are tracking me...I'll report back when it's safe.

Excellent observation. I know I'm disgusted at all the attention they give to the pop tarts. Again, an answer to what society here wants to see. They wouldn't give a crap about Anna Nicole Smith if we didn't insist on it. Of course, I haven't met anybody willing to admit they enjoy that coverage.

You're not getting the point Swansont. Yes, he makes fun of Slick Willy and impotent democrat congressmen, but not on ideological terms - only the republicans get that. Democrats are made fun of because they're "ineffective", republicans are made fun of because they're "wrong". Spin it however you want, it's obvious. We're not crying in our milk, just making an observation. TDS is a leftie show. Sorry that bothers you so much. Their disclaimer supports Pangloss's argument earlier that the implied defense is "it's just a joke". He can write 5 pages declaring himself and his show innaccurate and stupid, self depricating jargon, and it still doesn't stop him from making politically ideological, philosophical scores against righties. And so what? Maybe you should try Colbert instead? It's also a leftie show in that it's prime directive is aimed at mocking Fox News O'reilly-esk republicans, and it's a lot funnier. I'm sure some of the interviews on the show are set up to some extent, but damn Colbert sure is quit witted. I absolutely love how he mocks conservatives.

Also, it's important to realize that to lefties, TDS is going to appear quite objective. Just like Fox news doesn't really feel as right leaning to me as lefties claim. I'm a righty kinda guy so unless they're trashing "Big Science" or promoting religion it comes across fairly common sensical to me. This is also why TDS and CNN are so obviously leftish to me, and why Fox news is so obviously rightish to most of the left leaning crowd here. Again, no big deal here, just pointing out that when your bias is validated it doesn't feel like bias.

Ben Stein did an interview on O'reilly and he continues, as does most of the ID proponents I've debated with, to use the failure of science to "explain everything" or have an answer for everything as an excuse to make shit up and claim the high ground since they have now provided an answer for everything. This is actually what disturbs me most about ID rationality. It confirms what I've always suspected, and I'm sure others, that the idea of deities comes from the human repulsion of the unknown. Science has no issues with "not knowing" something. Very freely admits we don't know this, or we don't know that. But some humans just can't deal with that. They MUST know. So, they make it up. Sounds ridiculous, yet we're seeing that in real time right now with ID. And to take it a step further, not only are they promoting unsubstantiated beliefs to fill holes in our knowledge, they're commiting the logical fallacy that because science DOESN'T, means science is wrong. How many times have you heard an IDer point to science and say something like "They can't tell you how the first cell was created. They don't have those answers. But ID explains this...blah blah blah." Ben Stein freely admits ID could be wrong "but at least we're trying to fill those holes". WTF?? Filling holes trumps substantiated filler? This illogical propoganda trick of pointing to what science admits it doesn't know and using that as some sort of validation that science is inept, really bugs the hell out of me. Science is willing to be honest and humbled, whereas these idiots are proving to be the wingnuts Dawkins labels them.

Yeah I don't know either. He's quite passionate about this. Too bad he's not passionate enough to convince the rest of us, but rather just sulk about it and continue to push us further and further out the door. I've never seen anyone successfully change the hearts and minds of others by insulting them over and over again. Never.

I don't expect him to make fun of the democrat president, he'll just stick to the republican representatives. What I've noticed is that he'll make fun of the lefties in the good spirit that Pangloss was talking about, making fun of their tie, or the look on their face in a still shot, non-political joking. But he'll actually try to score political points with the righties, although also equally non-political if the opportunity is there. I think most people see the Daily Show similarly to the whole pop culture presumption that republicans = bad and that for every one of their fans and the audience it's a foregone conclusion. I always wonder how many republicans are sitting in the audience when Trent Reznor does his ignorant teenager impression on stage crying about the republicans, or Bush. I've never heard any of them say a democrat's name with that bratty snarl in their voice. Funny actually. Too bad real life ignorant teenagers are impressed by this and grow up to live up to that short sighted, dangerously stupid view. That said, I still enjoy the Daily Show (I love the funny looks he does) but Colbert is the best!

Perhaps it's our expectations that create the problem here. We're setting ourselves up for failure if we think a human being can be truly objective, even with sterlized leadership. Sure, that's their intent, but we all know this entirely impossible. So, maybe the answer lies, once again, in public perception and expectation, rather than the problem truly being externalized in big business. Perhaps we should wise up, quit being so naive, and quit expecting humans to sell us a product that isn't biased. Rather, understand it is biased, and then soak up news and information in that context. Keep our sources diverse, and reject any notion of "unbiased" reporting. Maybe Fox news could rename themselves Fox Conservative News Channel, and CNN could own up to being the Liberal News Network.

I love the spirit of the OP. Likewise though, I'm having trouble understanding what regulation is being endured by corporate media. I agree with the premise that lack of regulation should equal lack of influence since the connection is figuratively severed. I just don't know how that applies with media. Also, consider that while corporate news agencies may not be inclined to report negative things about their owners, that doesn't mean the corporate news agency down the street won't report negative things about the other agency's owners. I think there's still a bit of competition to be enjoyed here. Great thread, abskebabs.

I don't like the requirements to spread it around. There have been several times, here lately particularly, I tried to give someone rep points but says I have to give to 5 other people first, or something like that. I think that's a bit much. I understand the spirit of the requirement, but some people just earn them more often and others just don't. Then I start writing a private message to let them know, but then I stop myself for fear of being presumptuous enough to assume this person should care that I like their post. Anonymity is nice.

I second that. I was impressed with PBS's presentation, but as usual, not too impressed with completion. They brought up terrific insights and truths related to Bush and the rushed NIE report, the tunnel vision and spin and etc, complete with the standard still photos with slow zoom and chilly background music that could make Mother Teresa suddenly appear like the antichrist. But they didn't talk about congress really at all. Definitely covered their butts as they indirectly strengthened the notion that congress was entirely tricked with no responsibility whatsoever.

Yeah, I'm not a military expert so I say go with Petraeus' opinion on the matter since he is. Funny how certain Global Warming advocates that have posted in this thread are also the same people who criticize conservatives for pretending to be "experts" and denouncing scientific evidence as conjecture. Surely we're not going to turn right around and do the same thing we accuse others of doing here?? Surely not... Climate scientists are experts in climate matters, and military generals are experts in military matters. Let's try to be consistent with that premise and listen to Petraeus.

SkepticLance, enough with the condescending defeatist rhetoric. His position is quite tenable.

There must be a way to link the capital to the movement. Economics is about supply and demand, so could it be as simple as campaigning demand? If everyone wants it, the market will give it. For all the time spent lobbying the government to circumvent the people's will and force their causes upon them, they could have spent all of that time simply persuading the masses to get into renewable energies. The drawback being that corn is fraking joke, just stop it, I mean really, stop it. I see no advantage to dropping one finite source of energy for yet another finite source, particularly when we need land for food and the population of the earth isn't shrinking. Hydrogen, solar, these are as infinite as we can realistically expect. I'm completely into it, and can't wait to buy my first hydrogen or all electric vehicle - and I really can't wait to get off the grid and go solar. I hate the electric company.

Ok, so you're a corporate news junkie. That's fine, but don't pretend a corporate business who's legal obligation is to profit for investors, just like AT&T, Wal-Mart and etc are trust worthy news folk. They are trust worthy profiteers, as that's their mission for their business.

It's certainly plausible. Anything that creates business out of GW solutions and uses government interferece to get the product sold does stain the premise behind GW. That's been a big hang up for me. GW as a scientific concept is not hard to accept, and when I absorb the impact and intensity of this issue, I have to throw up my hands in disbelief when some idiot comes up with Carbon Offsets. WTF? All of this drama and biblical catastrophes we are facing and someone's pimping Carbon tax? Come on now, if we're facing such a dire and dramatic event, why is everybody trying to sell me something or take more of my money for taxes? That ain't gonna' fix it.

No, you abridged my statement. Here it is again, this time read the whole thing: Quit asking us to provide really cool reasons why we should be allowed to do something - start providing really cool reasons why we shouldn't. IE..it's not up to us to provide redeeming qualities about Pit Bulls - nothing at all. AND, we don't allow people to drop bricks off of railway bridges because that is harming the person or property of another. That fits the qualifier of objective restriction of someone's personal liberties. No, my Pit Bull hasn't bitten you. So banning them would be preemptive. Humans are a known threat too. But we only ban those that actually do harm, to prison. Punish the abusive humans that mistreat and misuse animals, not the animals themselves. Otherwise, you're a victim of your emotion charged by ignorance. (Ignorance in this case being that you have no experience or particular knowledge about Pit Bulls in order to support an analysis of what the problem is - the breed or the people who own them).

Hate to sound like a broken record, but contact an endocrinologist. Probably your bones are done growing in length due to cartilage ossification. This process happens in your twenties. That's what kept me from being able to use growth hormone for height here in my 30's. If you're lucky, you can still get a few years of therapy in before it happens.

15 and 5'9"? You have no worries. My son is also 15 and around 5' even, if not shorter. He takes growth hormone prescribed by an endocrinologist and it has helped, but I doubt they would agree to any treatment for you since you're plenty tall. If you're going to do it though, definitely see a doctor about it. This stuff is really dangerous and there is a variety of growth hormone the doctor can prescribe, suited for you. This is important. That's not true though. They call mine and my son's condition Ideopathic Short Stature. There are formulas available to keep the cartilage growth going and postpone the point at which the epiphyseal plate completely ossifies. Coupled with growth hormone this allows for height beyond your natural born potential. Oh man, I heard that from everybody from the time I was 13 into my late teens. I wish I could find all those people and kick the shit out of them. I declined growth hormone therapy partly because of this anecdotal support. Actually, I declined because I insisted on being "who I am". Stupid, stupid, stupid. It wasn't until my early 30's that I stopped and thought, what the hell have I done? My parents should have made me do it instead of leaving it up to me. Oh well, I'm cool with it, but it would have been nice to be at least average height. 5'6" ain't bad and I do run across shorter people. Hell, if I just moved to Mexico or Japan I'd be average if not a little over.

Exactly. Debating does little for those engaged in it, but serves as part of the critical thinking phase for others observing it. We say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk, and that aspirin should be permitted in spite of the fatal risks, and that peanut butter should be permitted in spite of the risks - yet all of those things aren't necessary, all of them have perfectly suitable substitutes and alternatives, but it's all "because we want to" - it's the price you pay for objective liberty. Otherwise, cherry picking liberty will erode the republic to an oppressive power. The best guarantee for personal liberty is to define it as objectively as possible. That means no value judgements on what people are free to do, this means they don't have to explain why they want to do something, but rather you have to explain why they shouldn't. It's consistent with the principle of 'innocence until proven guilty'. You're rights end when you or your property harms another or their property. No "preemptive" strikes allowed, like banning breeds of dogs that you think are "scary" or invading foreign countries that haven't done anything to us.

What's this "Be brave" crap? The reason why no one is actually answering your OP is because you're coming off exactly how you claim you're not - a crypto-creationist. "Let's challenge it. Be Brave?" - that's exactly the kind of irrelevant, emotional, traditionalist appeal I would expect from a creationist. As if fear is responsible for the propogation of the theory of evolution. Weird. A scientist would have little reason to throw in such a left field statement like that for seemingly no reason at all. You don't understand scientists very well if you believe that. There's nothing they like better than disagreeing with each other and challenging big ideas. I think you're either a creationist, an anti-evolution anti-science type, or a troll. Otherwise, you wouldn't be using psycho provocative verbiage.

I agree. There have been some emotional posts, but the "emotional" charge leveled against the pro pit bull crowd has now morphed into rhetoric. iNow has brought up several logical points that have yet to be refuted by logical arguments. I would like someone to tell me why we need to jeopardize our principles of liberty for something that kills 3 people a year. We have other liberties that cost us thousands per year and just as easily arguable for restriction. It makes no logical sense to prioritize this matter when it's way down on the list of preventable human death. So, why do people go to so much trouble to restrict liberty for low cost damages over restricting liberty for high cost damages? Emotion. This is how the emotional charge works against you Lance.

Well, I can assure you I have no desire to defend Bush's legacy, although I have a strong desire to defend the ridiculous rhetoric that is used to criticize him. I figure he should be criticized accurately, for his philosophy. Instead I think people try to paint his intent as being malicious when he clearly believes he's doing the right thing. Maybe that doesn't make any difference to most people, but it does to me. I'm probably guilty of it as well, but I certainly try not to be because you can't trust your conclusions when you're jaded. Also, remember that for some of us the intelligence was irrelevant so it doesn't really matter how much of this information was controlled (and I do agree it was a con). Also, they didn't declare war. I know this doesn't make a difference to your position, but it does for us non-interventionist types. I don't think we should let anyone involved in the decision for Iraq intervention off the hook.