Something Spooky This Way Comes...

[Void Singer]

I used to work for an HIV outreach org, and even gave the "gross out" lecture (complete with graphic picture book)... I don't think you could scare me (unless you reading westboro, then I might be scared for you)... probably better not to freak the mundanes though =)

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Tristizia Demonista wrote:

What was this old saying? "Every Country gets the Government it deserves" ?

 

Although i can't see what the US did to deserve something like the Rep. Candidates.

---

I think this is the result of a gradual reduction in our patience for thought. Reality TV is another thing we've brought upon ourselves.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Then she slyly asks me, if

I'm

supporting the latest person who declared that they'd like to be the Libertarian candidate, for Indiana Governor.  I reply, "Oh, who's that?"   "Rupert", she says.    "Rupert?", I query back.    "Yes, you know Rupert, all good Hoosiers know Rupert", she states.

  I have just a moment of confused silence before realization hits me, "OMG....I have no words".

---

/me considers moving to Indiana.

[Storm Clarence]

A nation of people who think and act as sheep, breeds a government of wolves. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ellyn Elan wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

---

Ellyn Elan wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

another election with crap for choices..

C'mon U.S. find a party that cuts the crap down the middle and says STFU to both sides..so we can get something done around here lol

---

This.

Please.

/whimper

 

 

---

I want what some of you guys are smokin'. 

 

( Sadly, the indications are things are moving in the totally opposite direction as for what you are whimpering.)

---

We're delusional because we don't like the state of things? Okay...

What exactly are you talking about, though? Opposite direction where?

---

No. You read me backwards. I'm agreeing with you, for the most part. 

I think it is wishful thinking (smoking some fine locoweed) to think that there is any way that it is going to be as Ceka suggested: A different party that will tell the other two to STFU so something can get done. If anything the indications are things are moving in the totally opposite direction as that, with the candidates and parties moving to ever more polarized positions so that we can be guaranteed even more crap set of choices and even less being done with each new political cycle that is never ending. Election day leads right into the next campaign session which brings us more political rhetoric, all style and no substance.

I wish it were otherwise.

 

---

The reason we're not getting the candidates we want is simple...we don't really want them. We have complex problems that require complex solutions, yet we have no patience for complexity. And there's another perverse idea at work... "balanced journalism". The idea is that every argument has two sides which must be equally represented. This is, of course, wrong. It both oversimplifies and actually unbalances issues. If you have 999 experienced individuals behind one idea and one dissenting opinion, it is hardly balanced to give a half hour to each side in a debate. Yet that's exactly what we often do as we pat ourselves on the back for being "balanced" and protecting the little guy.

The end result of this thinking is that many arguments winnow down to two talking heads. And the moment that happens, personality trumps everything else.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"I want what some of you guys are smokin'."

---

This follows from the discussion we had a few weeks ago about effects of caffeine and nicotine on society. I've not read anything about this, so have no opinion, but it wouldn't be the first time that we were clueless about something because of preconceived notions.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ellyn Elan wrote:

Spookier is the center image, not the effects off to the side. DOH! 

Spookier still is the next 449 years of coverage of this stuff now. Thank the gods for hulu.com and the like.

---

I agree, Ellyn. When I saw Homer's ghost in that image at CNN, I was certain that someone would comment on it there, and that someone would reply that Santorum was spookier still. I did try to leave the door open for that to happen here, though I also had in mind the hope that Homer might represent good natured blue collar folks disapproval of Santorum.

[Sy Beck]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

... "balanced journalism". The idea is that every argument has two sides which must be equally represented. This is, of course, wrong. It both oversimplifies and actually unbalances issues. If you have 999 experienced individuals behind one idea and one dissenting opinion, it is hardly balanced to give a half hour to each side in a debate. Yet that's exactly what we often do as we pat ourselves on the back for being "balanced" and protecting the little guy.

The end result of this thinking is that many arguments winnow down to two talking heads. And the moment that happens, personality trumps everything else...

---

 

I can't tell you how much this annoys me Madelaine and in some respects I feel sorry for credible news media who feel they have to represent all sides of a debate and their proponents equally.  It just appears to me sometimes that they give a minority view equal representation not to inform a debate, but to enflame it and create "good" television, which in short means conflict.

I have seen some serious scientific issues debased, twisted and cause death and suffering because some uninformed idiot was given airspace all in the name of balance.  If the weather reporter comes on to say, "Tomorrow will be sunny with few clouds." then we don't expect to have some talking head brought in to present an alternative forecast in the name of balance even though there's ample scope to have an alternative.

I'll cite an example from the UK though it was a worldwide story..

1. MMR Vaccine  One rogue scientist believes he has proved a link between autism and this commonly given child vaccine to prevent measle, mumps and rubella.  His findings are flawed and he is found to have several conflicts of interest in his research and his findings can never be reproduced by any other researchers.  The problem was his story was out first and caused a widespread scare amongst parents who then decide not to give their children the MMR jab.  Parents of autistic children start clamouring for proof and tests that the MMR caused their children's autism.  It's a big news story and everytime a credible scientist is put up to disprove it the rogue scientist or "concerned parent" is again given time to expound his or their views fuelling more scare and worry leading to even more parents not allowing their children to be given the jab.

As expected, incidences of measles, mumps and rubella rose hugely in the child population causing disabilities, suffering and even death.  All because, even though the overwhelming scientific evidence and opinion said there was no proof the news media felt that they had to represent the two sides of the argument evenly and thus fuelled a scare that led to deaths and disabilities.

Of course every minority view must be given airtime, but it has to have some proportion to it and be balanced in terms of credibility.

[Suella Ember]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

... "balanced journalism". The idea is that every argument has two sides which must be equally represented. This is, of course, wrong. It both oversimplifies and actually unbalances issues. If you have 999 experienced individuals behind one idea and one dissenting opinion, it is hardly balanced to give a half hour to each side in a debate. Yet that's exactly what we often do as we pat ourselves on the back for being "balanced" and protecting the little guy.

The end result of this thinking is that many arguments winnow down to two talking heads. And the moment that happens, personality trumps everything else...

---

 

I can't tell you how much this annoys me Madelaine and in some respects I feel sorry for credible news media who feel they have to represent all sides of a debate and their proponents equally.  It just appears to me sometimes that they give a minority view equal representation not to inform a debate, but to enflame it and create "good" television, which in short means conflict.

..snip...

---

Or, for example, a nutjob pshciatrist with a proven track record of blindly following his chosen field while ignoring strong evidence to the contrary (and, incidentally, his techniques with the subject of a Panorama expose in the 90s where children were given pshiciatrict treatment that bordered on abuse) claims that he gets death threats and stirs the media into a frenzy of 'ME \ CFS patients subject researchers to a torrent of abuse' drama. He gets press and air time. Lots of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14326514

Meanwhile there is a ton of actual biomedical research into ME \ CFS going-on with true researchers working hard to find a cause and a cure. They are far too busy actually doing important scientific work to get involved in the psychiatrist's drama. The psychiatrist is well aware of this and is desparate to do all he can to cause drama and discredit the ongoing research, because he knows his life's 'work' is on the verge of being proved to be incorrect and even downright dangerous to patients. This research gets little to no press or air time. Where's the story in that, right? A dramatic story about supposed death threats is much more interesting!

A few months later there is something of a breakthrough. Something to add to the ever growing evidence that ME \ CFS is a physical condition of the immune system. The press are slow to pick up on it but eventually do run the story. Of course, they still have to mention that 'Some patients have sent death threats to researchers after disagreements over a cause or cure' in the interests of balance. Not that anyone has actually seen any notable evidence of these supposed death threats, of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15401746

/end sopabox rant!

[Ceka Cianci]

i guess i am just tired of a two party system..i mean our country is called the united states but i am willing to bet we are the most divided people there are on the face of the earth because of how spoiled we are..

everything divides us because we are either too over sensative or too scared of each other or because of territorial crap or because of greed ect..

just so much things that we could never get rid of a two party system..i'm suprized there really isn't more than two...

i thiink the only reason there are two is because people have conformed to those two rather than actually pulling together to get a deciding vote party with some pull that could build into a serious contender..

that and when it comes to voting..not enough take it serious or put real thought into their vote..

i can't stand hearing someone vote republican because of saying they are republic or democrate because of them saying they are democrate..

it's not a game..going to the polls and just hitting all dem or all rep tabs because they are one or the other rather than voting for the best one for the job..

i'm done voting for the lessor of two evils..because all that does is keeps all the other parties from gaining any growth  to make it to the big leagues..

if crap selections show up in those two parties..my vote will be dropping somewhere on a better man or woman in some party..it may not be the top two parties but it will be somewhere..i'm tired of feeling terrible about who i voted for or didn't vote for..or guilty because i was told to vote on this person and didn't..

a vote is wasted if you sit on it..it's never wasted when you use it..especially when it is used to back someone you believe in..

why pick the lessor of two evils when there are some good guys out there just dying to do some good things rather than evil?? hehehehe

 

sorry i'm just getting home and kind of groggy..and maybe i'm not understanding some of the posts..my first post about telling the two parties to stfu was more on humor than anything..i didn't think i was gonna be judged on it or i would have put more thought into it lol..i'm just tired of thier bullcrap and never being able to decide on anything without getting something in return from the other..it's one of the biggest divides in our country..and it really made me sick when they were trying to come up with something for that whole credit rating mess and the whole world watchign saw just how how they really were when they barely made the deadline ..how they couldn't agree until they had to..

they made us all look bad..

the truth is..we will never get any better with these two parties..we will be spinning wheels and wasting rubber from now until our great great grand kids finally say they have had enough..if we haven't been taken over by some corporation named umbrella by then LOL

 

 

 

[jennylongview Innovia]

i guess i am just tired of a two party system

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhmmmmmm better then the one party system.... /me thinks

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

... "balanced journalism". The idea is that every argument has two sides which must be equally represented. This is, of course, wrong. It both oversimplifies and actually unbalances issues. If you have 999 experienced individuals behind one idea and one dissenting opinion, it is hardly balanced to give a half hour to each side in a debate. Yet that's exactly what we often do as we pat ourselves on the back for being "balanced" and protecting the little guy.

The end result of this thinking is that many arguments winnow down to two talking heads. And the moment that happens, personality trumps everything else...

---

 

I can't tell you how much this annoys me Madelaine and in some respects I feel sorry for credible news media who feel they have to represent all sides of a debate and their proponents equally.  It just appears to me sometimes that they give a minority view equal representation not to inform a debate, but to enflame it and create "good" television, which in short means conflict.

I have seen some serious scientific issues debased, twisted and cause death and suffering because some uninformed idiot was given airspace all in the name of balance.  If the weather reporter comes on to say, "Tomorrow will be sunny with few clouds." then we don't expect to have some talking head brought in to present an alternative forecast in the name of balance even though there's ample scope to have an alternative.

I'll cite an example from the UK though it was a worldwide story..

1.

MMR Vaccine

  One rogue scientist believes he has proved a link between autism and this commonly given child vaccine to prevent measle, mumps and rubella.  His findings are flawed and he is found to have several conflicts of interest in his research and his findings can never be reproduced by any other researchers.  The problem was his story was out first and caused a widespread scare amongst parents who then decide not to give their children the MMR jab.  Parents of autistic children start clamouring for proof and tests that the MMR caused their children's autism.  It's a big news story and everytime a credible scientist is put up to disprove it the rogue scientist or "concerned parent" is again given time to expound his or their views fuelling more scare and worry leading to even more parents not allowing their children to be given the jab.

As expected, incidences of measles, mumps and rubella rose hugely in the child population causing disabilities, suffering and even death.  All because, even though the overwhelming scientific evidence and opinion said there was no proof the news media felt that they had to represent the two sides of the argument evenly and thus fuelled a scare that led to deaths and disabilities.

Of course every minority view must be given airtime, but it has to have some proportion to it and be balanced in terms of credibility.

---

This is an excellent example, Sy. Jenny McCarthy picked up that single research paper and ran with it, scooping up every bit of anecdotal evidence that came her way (and it does come your way when you are a visible personality). When the research was finally shown to be bogus, Jenny did not change course. She'd put so much faith in her beliefs that she (and her child and her faithful followers) are now at risk of being bitten by their own dogma, a dogma that people find attractive because it's simple, it's certain, and it's proffered by an attractive personality.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

jennylongview Innovia wrote:

i guess i am just tired of a two party system

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhmmmmmm better then the one party system.... /me thinks

---

I'm tired of people thinking they are partying.

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

... "balanced journalism". The idea is that every argument has two sides which must be equally represented. This is, of course, wrong. It both oversimplifies and actually unbalances issues. If you have 999 experienced individuals behind one idea and one dissenting opinion, it is hardly balanced to give a half hour to each side in a debate. Yet that's exactly what we often do as we pat ourselves on the back for being "balanced" and protecting the little guy.

The end result of this thinking is that many arguments winnow down to two talking heads. And the moment that happens, personality trumps everything else...

---

 

I can't tell you how much this annoys me Madelaine and in some respects I feel sorry for credible news media who feel they have to represent all sides of a debate and their proponents equally.  It just appears to me sometimes that they give a minority view equal representation not to inform a debate, but to enflame it and create "good" television, which in short means conflict.

I have seen some serious scientific issues debased, twisted and cause death and suffering because some uninformed idiot was given airspace all in the name of balance.  If the weather reporter comes on to say, "Tomorrow will be sunny with few clouds." then we don't expect to have some talking head brought in to present an alternative forecast in the name of balance even though there's ample scope to have an alternative.

I'll cite an example from the UK though it was a worldwide story..

1.

MMR Vaccine

  One rogue scientist believes he has proved a link between autism and this commonly given child vaccine to prevent measle, mumps and rubella.  His findings are flawed and he is found to have several conflicts of interest in his research and his findings can never be reproduced by any other researchers.  The problem was his story was out first and caused a widespread scare amongst parents who then decide not to give their children the MMR jab.  Parents of autistic children start clamouring for proof and tests that the MMR caused their children's autism.  It's a big news story and everytime a credible scientist is put up to disprove it the rogue scientist or "concerned parent" is again given time to expound his or their views fuelling more scare and worry leading to even more parents not allowing their children to be given the jab.

As expected, incidences of measles, mumps and rubella rose hugely in the child population causing disabilities, suffering and even death.  All because, even though the overwhelming scientific evidence and opinion said there was no proof the news media felt that they had to represent the two sides of the argument evenly and thus fuelled a scare that led to deaths and disabilities.

Of course every minority view must be given airtime, but it has to have some proportion to it and be balanced in terms of credibility.

---

This is an excellent example, Sy. Jenny McCarthy picked up that single research paper and ran with it, scooping up every bit of anecdotal evidence that came her way (and it does come your way when you are a visible personality). When the research was finally shown to be bogus, Jenny did not change course. She'd put so much faith in her beliefs that she (and her child and her faithful followers) are now at risk of being bitten by their own dogma, a dogma that people find attractive because it's simple, it's certain, and it's proffered by an attractive personality.

---

This is OT to the OP, but just as a point of reference to the example given, I knew it was bogus in my case, since my son exhibited symptoms before his MMR...but on the other hand, it's easy for parents who are desperate for an answer to latch onto anything that is feasible to them

[Ceka Cianci]

---

jennylongview Innovia wrote:

i guess i am just tired of a two party system

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhmmmmmm better then the one party system.... /me thinks

---

my thoughts were of more choices.. not less choices than we have already..

[Suella Ember]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

jennylongview Innovia wrote:

i guess i am just tired of a two party system

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhmmmmmm better then the one party system.... /me thinks

---

my thoughts were of more choices.. not less choices than we have already..

---

Problem is, it still requires people to make sensible choices. A multi-party system is all well and good, but it doesn't make much difference if people still make uninformed choices, as we prove here in the UK!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Kylie Jaxxon wrote:

it's easy for parents who are desperate for an answer to latch onto anything that is feasible to them

---

For sure Kylie, and I do not look down my nose at those who grasp at straws. And in some way, maybe we all do. Thoreau observed that "most men lead lives of quiet desperation". We do not like uncertainty, we do not like hopelessness, so we are willing to believe in the irrational.

One of my philosophical heroes (who disdained philosophy), Richard Feynman, said...

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

[Quinn Morani]

---

Suella Ember wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

jennylongview Innovia wrote:

i guess i am just tired of a two party system

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhmmmmmm better then the one party system.... /me thinks

---

my thoughts were of more choices.. not less choices than we have already..

---

Problem is, it still requires people to make sensible choices. A multi-party system is all well and good, but it doesn't make much difference if people still make uninformed choices, as we prove here in the UK!

---

Exactly! My very best nonpartisan advice to any voter is to check facts and invest some time in staying reasonably informed about the various positions on issues of importance. It's too easy to be manipulated by propaganda without ever even realizing it, and the current political environment in the U.S. is pretty much nothing but propaganda. I find it very educational to look beyond the press and attack ads and really try to understand viewpoints that are different from my own. Often, I learn something that surprises and enlightens me.