Pangloss

Touché!

I agree, but I don't think that counters my point. To draw on a comparison from outside the field of comedy, Bill O'Reilly often criticises the right, but does anybody here really think that Bill O'Reilly is a legitimate political commentator with an objective analytical position? I kinda doubt it. But that's what he presents himself as -- an objective analyst, "just looking out for the folks". Jon Stewart does exactly the same thing, albeit less-directly stated, and in the field of comedy. I don't think Jon Stewart is the same as Al Franken or (on the right) Rush Limbaugh, but I do think him the same sort of act (in his own genre) as Bill O'Reilly.

I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out why The Daily Show lacks an objective basis for its criticism. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is something that has been forgotten in mainstream comedy in recent years. Comedians used to criticize politicians on the commonly understood basis that it was just in the name of fun, the implication being that it wasn't intended as real criticism, but was just done for laughs. After all, if you can't laugh at yourselves, who can you laugh at? But ideological, partisan-based comedy is a different animal. And I think people are starting to recognize that sort of thing for what it really is, just as they began to recognize Conservative Talk Radio for what it really is, in previous years. There is a place for that sort of thing, but it's not the same place. Jon Stewart (and others like him, David Letterman for example) just hasn't realized that fact yet. As amusing as I find his comedy, it is interesting to watch him proceed as if he holds the same moral high ground as, say, Johnny Carson or Bob Hope. It just isn't there, and even his increasingly left-wing fans know it. The disconnect is quite interesting to observe.

Well yes, but you probably prefer it that way. That way you get to study the meaning of being left out, analyze the multi-cultural impact, and frame it in a context of post-colonial oppression.

Those are not documentaries purporting to represent the truth. There is a difference, and that is a bad comparison. On the subject of Al Gore's house, I think it's important for people to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Al Gore needed a little reminding about his own contribution to GW doesn't mean he was wrong about the subject in general. Similarly, just because he was wrong on some points in his movie doesn't mean GW isn't real either.

I completely agree that their criticism of France turned out to be in error, but I don't think they are to be blamed for the public outcry against France, most of which was driven by CTR and right-wing media, and some of which was deserved, IMO. The Daily Show mocking Fox News is like Rush Limbaugh calling Al Franken a shill. It is actually an interesting example of what this thread is about, and clearly not an objective critic on the subject. In fact it is fast becoming extremely hypocritical on this issue. Jon Stewart has created quite a franchise out of anti-conservative bias couched as independent common sense, sinking his teeth into all sorts of interesting projects. And of course Comedy Central is owned by Viacom-MTV-Paramount-Gulf-Western-BET-CBS-Dreamworks-HBO-Showtime-UPN-NeedIGoOn.com? (Hey don't quote me on some of those, that's off the top of my head!) (Mind you, that doesn't meant I don't watch TDS or find it extremely amusing at times.)

Unless of course it's suffering that takes place under his rule. Or maybe he just wants to kick back with J-Lo in Hollywood. Who knows. But yes, it's obvious he doesn't favor a boycott. He says so. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/358636_dalai11.html He certainly supports the right of protestors, though. Why not? Protest is good -- actually winning and having to go back to Tibet? Hmm, swami thinks not. I do find it amusing the amount of support he gets from the left. Religious autocrats do find it so difficult to get help from that quarter when they're actually in power. (smirk) I love it when Richard Gere screams "Free Tibet for religious dictatorship and release from the commie bastards!!!! Er wait, hey guys, I thought we were the other way 'round?!" Also amusing to watch Europe's uncertainty. They seem just about ready to start announcing boycotts, but it's almost like they're afraid the US will climb on board and make them look bad. They want the US to say one way or the other so they can do the opposite and scream about it. (hehe) Ah man, I been doin this too long! Wanna bet?

I got a kick out of Jon Stewarts monologue last night as well. The dig about the French putting the flame out themselves was a riot. This is one of those rare occassions when I find myself in agreement (or at least empathy) with San Francisco protestors. Hard to believe though that may be. (hehe) The Dalai Lama said today that China has a right to host the games, and that protestors have a right to protest. Seems like a valid position to me, but obviously he doesn't favor a boycott. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/10/asia/dalai.php

Still waiting to hear how corporate ownership equates to, or causes, political bias. Corporations are not political entities, and they tend to sink their teeth into ALL available political parties -- in my country that means both Democrat and Republican. And for every right-leaning Fox News Channel, there's a left-leaning CNN, so you really can't say that corporate ownership causes political bias, at least not in any specific direction. To me that sounds more like a marketing choice than a political one.

What government regulation of the media do you think there is to be removed? There isn't anything that governs bias -- the Fairness Doctrine was dropped 20 years ago, and it's actually usually touted today as a way to RETURN objectivity to the media (though wrongfully so, IMO, for the reasons you describe). This is mainly a position of Democrats, annoyed at the rise and popularity of the right-wing media (ignoring the left-wing influence on traditional outlets), whose championship of free speech seems to have been conveniently misplaced on this issue. If you mean stuff like FTC control over mergers, or FCC licensing, I'm not sure how those issues affect bias. Maybe you could expand on that a bit. You mentioned something about competition, but I don't see the connection between competition and bias. Not saying you're wrong, just asking if you could explain that a bit more. I do agree that corporate ownership implies a desire by a media outlet to not offend its owners. Such has always been the case in media. It's expensive to run network news, and the money has to come from somewhere. But the rise of the blogosphere and Web outlets seems to offer a way out of that problem, does it not? The cost, of course, being unknown bias in thousands of outlets instead of known bias in a handful. An interesting conundrum. But even there I don't necessarily see a connection with political bias. Corporations are not political entities, at least in the same sense as parties and special interest groups.

+10 Severian. I don't have a problem with it but I don't really use it. But then I'm kind of a blabbermouth so I tend to say what I think anyway.

Yes, elephants indeed. I think there's still a lot of story to be told about the relationships between figures like Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and (importantly!) the "lesser" figures like Wolfowitz, Armitage, et al. It's also interesting to compare and contrast this group with the same roles in previous administrations -- the Nixon and Kennedy cabinets are fascinating comparisons -- and to look at what worked (and a lot did!), what didn't work, and why. And you know what's most prominent amongst the mysteries remains Bush's personal opinions about his people and their political predispositions. Isn't it interesting how little of that story has been told? People often assume that he was just unaware of their politics, but some aspects of Bob Woodward's books suggest otherwise, and I have a feeling that there's a very interesting story there, which we may or may not ever hear.

It's at least as good a correlation as some of the global warming charts I've seen. But you have to at least acknowledge that the chart shows a correspondance between the surge and a vast drop in casualties. The two drops in 2006 are obviously low-spikes in an otherwise horrid year, for example. There IS a correlation. I agree that the surge is not the only reason for the drop in casualties, but I've said that all along and so has the administration. It corresponds with the cease fire by Muqtada Al-Sadr and the similar cease fire by Sunni insurgents. You know. Political progress. Gee.

Plus they look SO good in high definition (CNN HD). That's important. If they're also accurate, well, all the better! ============= Mod Note: Just a little heads up, this thread has prompted a discussion in leadership, and we will be pruning or "civilizing" mud-dwelling partisan threads like this one during the upcoming months as we move into what I predict will be a heavy Bush-bashing period. Threads like this one (cheesy, unsubstantiated, unbacked partisanship), the "betray-us" name slur in another thread, won't be tolerated. By all means Bush criticism will be allowed, but the level of discourse WILL be kept at the normal, high level we're accustomed to here at SFN.

I watched it in high def when it came on. I thought about starting a thread on it but I held off since it wasn't really new, but it's funny how often it's been coming back to me over the subsequent period. I think the main thing about it that's useful is that it just does a great job summarizing a complex issue. These details are important, and we need to pay attention to them in order to learn the lesson here and stop it from happening again.

iNow I have no problem with your opinion on this -- I can understand how someone can see this, at least initially, and especially in the partisan atmosphere that everything about Iraq generates, as an example of moving goalposts. I just see it differently. In what way has he betrayed us? And how does making fun of the man's name enlighten us on this issue, Blade?

Woohoo, sweet academic legitimacy!

I agree about the threat of departure having an impact, but you don't really lose that threat by approving General Petraeus' request. If anything it actually underscores to the Iraqis the point that we're not going to be there in large numbers much longer. Although it's not as if they're not getting the message, IMO. I just think this falls under the same category as whether to ship more guns and armored Humvees. This whole thing has been an exercise in half-baked, and only got better when we STOPPED doing it that way -- just like the critics said. Of course the moment we put more troops there, the critics starting saying the opposite. But I think the last thing we want is to go back to what we saw in 2006. If that means the surge troops need a few more weeks to firm things up, so what? I'm not saying keep all the troops there until the job is done, whatever the frack that means, but I do think we should do what General Petraeus says we should do the moment he says to do it. Long term is another matter. But I tell you what, if there's a chance for Iraq to become another South Korea or Germany if a FEW thousand long-term troops are left in a base where they are welcomed and are helping in some way, then we damn well need to do that.

You need a checkbox for information science. It's been a recognized academic/research pursuit for a couple decades now, quite distinct from computer science. The ACM even has a well-respected Journal for it (Crossroads). Human-computer interaction and usability engineering, information ethics, information architecture, security, intellectual property, knowledge management, all of that stuff falls under IS now, not CS anymore. (In case it's not obvious, this is the field of my Masters and my current PhD work.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

Well I've been a subscriber since before probably half of our membership was born, so I guess I'm entitled to a LITTLE fun. Thanks for the link, that was amusing too. I especially liked this one: Hehe!

Good point. It could have a EULA like the one Adobe recently tried to pawn off on Photoshop Express users, where they basically get ownership of everything you do there.

Oh geez, great article. Here, let me sum it up: 1) Stop driving. 2) Stop flying. 3) Stop cooling your home. 4) Stop heating your home. 5) Stop consuming food. 6) Stop drinking water. 7) If you do eat food, don't eat beef. (?!) 8) Stop cutting down trees (not a problem; I'm already dead on 1-7) 9) Unplug the AC and heater you're not using (?!?!) 10) Don't have any children. (...)

Interesting new Google project. Scalable, data-driven, Python-based web applications off their servers, built via a web interface, with up to 5 million hits per month for free. Yowsers. You can sure bet Microsoft is perking up at this one. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html

Ok, those are valid points, but I have to also point out that in many of these cases when you say that science is damaged, what you really mean is that one ideological interpretation is advanced over another ideological interpretation. You also have to consider what the purpose of the report was -- was it supposed to just produce raw data, or was it supposed to represent the government's policy position? So let's say you have a report that shorts 5 out of 10 doctors recommend aspirin. If your goal is to show the number of doctors recommending aspirin, then I agree that's all the report should say. But if your goal is to tell the public why you are going to provide everyone in the country with free aspirin, you not only have to give them the data, but you have to explain to them WHY the data supports that expenditure of MY tax money. I think your concern is valid, though, because if that's all people are hearing then it becomes a defacto problem even if the government is arguably doing nothing wrong. But it bugs me because much of the criticism isn't based on a desire to see science thrive or even a desire to see that issue reported honestly, it's just a desire to see one specific administration or another demonized, regardless of what they do. I think much of the "anti-science" labelling of the Bush administration is just that -- baseless demonization. That doesn't mean the concern isn't valid, but I do think the partisanship is a larger and more serious issue than whether a report like that damages the integrity of science.