[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Is MS bribing bloggers?

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: allen
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:

> >  Even very intelligent people can make stupid mistakes. Look at Nixon.

> "The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of 
> producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to 
> resign, and CBS apologized to viewers."
> 
> suggests that Dan Rather's condition, whether stupidity or "stupid is as 
> stupid does" was catching around CBS.

 And a lot of people were ejected in disgrace from Nixon's administration,
too. I just think it's funny that I compared Rather's actions to Nixon's,
and you appear to think that means I'm *going easy on Rather*.

> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

> Hardly a comprehensive review of the episode.

 Well, if you can find such a review, I'd like to see it. I've presented
my memories and that article, you've presented your memories.

> I didn't find your phrasing ambiguous at all. Bush is guilty and it's 
> just a matter of finding something, anything, that'll stick to him.

 Apparently we have some alternate-reality bridge going on here, and
you're responding to messages from selgnI yaR. I do in fact believe, based
on the evidence (both positive and negative) in the article that I linked
to, that it's extremely probable that Bush didn't really fulfill his
obligations to the National Guard, and used the Guard to avoid service in
Vietnam.

 That's not the same thing as finding 'something, anything, that'll stick
to him'. For that kind of thing, you'll need to look at, e.g. Kenneth Star.

 :->

> If you can't find forgeries that are sufficiently well-wrought to obtain 
> a conviction for misdeeds then an insufficiency of documents proving 
> that President Bush hasn't done something wrong will have to do.

 Um, there's more to it than that. Y'know, like I actually pointed out.

> That's because you're suffering from a self-induced misconception. News 
> organizations, being made up of human beings indistinguishable in any 
> important regard from "the masses" don't get the presumption of 
> innocence, i.e. accuracy and objectivity. Whatever credibility they 
> enjoy is conferred by a skeptical public and is contingent upon ongoing 
> evidence of accuracy and objectivity or, where that's not possible, the 
> absence of evidence of bias.

 And yet, I haven't seen anything produced that contradicts the overall
accuracy of, say, the situation in Iraq. So far, the 'poster boy' story
of bias (the "Jamil Hussein" affair) has been shown to be credible in
essentially all confirmable. What else ya got?

> Who cares what commentators agree about? The man has a job in the 
> profession. That he does is a mark against the profession

 And I *agree* with you. But, as I've said and you've apparently not
read, over and over again, I *don't* think that the media is unbiased.
I think it's biased towards 'whatever makes money', and further distorted
by deliberate attemtps to shape and spin coverage by all comers.

 What you apparently seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
"they're all liberals" or something. Which manifestly isn't true.

> No, actually, Fox News didn't defend their right, in court, to distort 
> the news and outright lie...

 Yes, they (in the person of their corporate parent) very definitely did.
They very *specifically* advanced that argument in court.

> ... so you're still in need of some case of similarly egregious behavior.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

 I fail to see why the *exact same type of evidence* that you believe
proves *liberal* bias in other media sources does not apply to Fox News.

> And please, no more sites like the one you linked.

 Okay, here's the actual court decision:

  http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

 I particularly recommend for your consideration the top of page 4.

> It would be nice if you could point to some connection between support 
> for Israel and access to Mideast petroleum rather then establish 
> causation via repetition.

 Well, it made a lot more sense in the period of the cold war, when it
got started. But the relationship has continued after that, and it's
still a convenient ally for military actions in the region. (Which,
again, wouldn't be necessary if we didn't need the oil.)

> As for the aside about Darfour, perhaps that exemplar of international 
> community, the U.N., could organize a some modest effort on behalf of 
> the residents. Of course, the U.N.'s pretty busy running prostitution 
> enterprises utilizing desperately poor children. That's got to keep 
> those U.N.'s piece keepers busy.

 Tell ya what. How about we treat them the same way - either Darfour and
Israel get the same level of help from the U.S., or else they get the help
from the U.N.

 My point, if it's not too much trouble to ask you to address it, is: Why
do we fund Israel at several million dollars per day but not Darfour?

> You ought to read a bit of history then. The mideast has been 
> strategically important since before the advent of petroleum 
> industrialization and continues to be strategically important for 
> reasons other then the presence of petroleum in the general, 
> geographic neighborhood of Israel.

 Name, say, your top three other reasons.

> As to Israel's military tenebility, that issue's laid to rest by 
> left-wing bleating about that big bully Israel, with its seven million 
> citizens and zero natural resources, beating up on three hundred million 
> helpless, peaceful Arabs and their 40% of the world's exportable 
> petroleum reserves.

 Well, if you're right, then they *don't* need us. So why are we supporting
them again, even at political cost to ourselves?

> Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder
> in the Mideast is right up there and Israel serves as an excellent safety-valve 
> to regional pressures.

 A. Why is disorder there a threat to the human race? Be specific.

 B. Is support for Israel a band-aid solution that cannot work indefinitely?

> You're free to deal with the geopolitical realities as they existed, 
> with the limitations on information, political scope of action, military 
> realities extant and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but on 
> balance I don't find all that much to fault.

 So, we (based on probable disinformation from Britain) overthrow an elected
government to impose a monarchy in Iran. That blows up on us later, so we fund
and supply a brutal dictator in his war against our former puppet, providing
him with satellite photos and analysis (which gave him information he could use
later to try to hide things from us). Then he slips form his leash and attacks
another country and we have to go in and stomp him with a full military
offensive.

 Meanwhile we are funding and supplying radical Islamist insurgents against
the USSR in another country, helping them learn how to run a guerilla war
against a superior military force.

> The U.S. no more overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran
> then a shout is an avalanche.

 That's, uh, a rather charitable reading of events.

> Given the history and proclivities of communist regimes

 The actual allegations of the 'communism' of Mossadeq came from Britain,
upset about losing control of Iranian oil, and appear to have been largely
disinformation. It wasn't really the key reason, anyway - they were worried
about a weak Iran being taken over by the USSR.

 I might diffidently suggest a possible alternative - convince Britan to
work with Iran on their oil negotiations, maybe even accepting a
less-than-desirable settlement from the British perspective, but one which
would cement Iran's relations with the West. (The US could have brokered
such a deal - we'd already saved Iran from a Soviet incursion once.) Britan
just wanted the oil, though, and the US wasn't willing to hold to the courage
of their convictions. And that led to, well...

> You've already supplied the reason for support of the Saudi regime: 
> petroleum. If it's a good enough reason to support Israel then it's a 
> good enough reason to support the House of Saud which is at war with 
> Israel.

 *If* we're going to do that, we should get more for our efforts. The
Saudi regime is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:

 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer

 And the fallout from that will be much worse from our perspective... if
we're still dependent on their oil.

> Does your notion of evenhandedness require that the U.S. treat nations 
> engaged in actively undermining or barely tolerant of U.S. interests the 
> same as the single nation in the region with which the U.S. shares 
> values and goals?

 Oversimplification. We don't have to treat Israel "the same as" the rest
of the Middle East; what I object to is the *major* amount of *unconditional*
support we offer without any apparent consideration of the ROI or
consequences.

> >  By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifying'
> > the terrorists those regions spawn.

> Of course you're justifying the terrorists those regions spawn. How else 
> would you characterize your views?

 To "understand all" is *not* to "forgive all". I want to understand why that
schmuck killed all those Amish girls a few months back, but not because I
feel any need to justify or forgive him. I want to know why he did it so that
we can maybe prevent such things from happening in the future. Ideally by
arranging things so that nobody *wants* to, but if that can't be helped then
at least by predicting where and when it might happen so as to head it off.

 In the same way, it sure seems to me we can see the political and social
forces at work that result in murderous bastards crashing planes into buildings
without believing those crimes are in any way 'justified'. If you're in a
looney bin with some whacko who attacks anyone who says 'cannoli', you'd want
to know that and you'd probably avoid talking about Italian desserts. Of if
you had to, you'd take precautions.

 I'm interested in efficiency. The best ROI. The Middle East is a screwed-up
area, with old hatreds and ideologies blown far out of proportion to their
actual importance by the flood of money coming in from oil. Most Western
countries developed their economic power gradually, via a process of
developing their social, political, educational, and scientific systems in
tandem. In the Middle East, you've got a basically midieval social and
political system suddenly flush with cash from the geological accident of
a (currently) extremely valuable resource being concentrated there. (A
similar situation obtains in Africa, too. See, e.g. 'blood diamonds'.)

 Reducing the flow of oil money would cut their economic, political, and
military power and, long-term, *reduce* tensions in the area. When you
can't grab power by just seizing control of one industry you have to
govern a little more carefully.

> Whatever the shortcomings of the anti-drug policy of the past few decades, 
> and they are manifold, they won't be redressed by smirking mirror-gazers
> like Maher.

 A court jester can, at times, serve a useful function by pointing out
socially-ignored truths. I'm not particularly fond of the guy personally
either, but he makes (some) good points. In a similar vein, I think
James Cameron is an aldulterous schmuck, but he makes good movies.

> The Manhattan Project made sense in the context of a world-wide 
> conflict but other then survival the only reason to develop technology 
> is to make an honest buck.

 But 'survival' *is* at stake! Let me qoute the noted expert Allen Majorovic:
"Among the potential disasters facing the human race, widespread disorder in
the Mideast is right up there."

 If you actually believe what you wrote, then why *not* put some money into
mitigating that danger, *especially* when it promises *other* large economic
benefits?

> Since all these tedious "alternative" energy projects are elevated far above
> vulgar considerations of profit

 Sez who?

> and there's no war in the offing

 I thought were were at "war on terror"?

> The agrarian economy *is* the alternative not to the Hummer but to free 
> enterprise which results in, among other things, the Hummer.

 And Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"...

> The single source of wealth in the world is capitalism and the extent to 
> which freedom of choice is circumscribed that's the extent to which we 
> move back toward the doubtful benefits of an agrarian economy.

> One of the things that's wrong with Mackinac Island is that it's so 
> drastically sanitized so as not to be too offensive to delicate, modern 
> sensibilities.

 No kidding. And I make no pretensions that my weekend camping trips are
anything like actual wilderness survival. But they can still serve an
educational role, in the proper context.

> I recommend "The good old days--they were terrible!" by Otto Bettmann. 
> You won't ever look at a covered dish the same way again.

 I wouldn't be surprised. I'll put that on my wish list. As I *said*,
I'm no Luddite.

> >>  We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?

> We also had enemy alien internment camps during World War II. 
> Just how far do you want to go with the metaphor?

 Ah, so you think the austerity programs in WWII were a mistake too?
Why?

> One of the big problems with all of the various alternative energy 
> schemes is that they're periodic, unpredictable or both. The 
> sun rises and you get electricity, the sun sets you don't.

 Um, that's why I specifically proposed powersats. Not "all" of the
schemes fall into your classification.

> The dog that never seems to bark is what to do when the sun goes
> down, the temperature stays up and the wind stops blowing. That's
> when all the money that wasn't spent on energy storage, because
> it's so expensive, starts to pinch.

 Of course, generally energy use *plummets* at night, so that puts some
limits on the problem. And energy storage can be cheap... if you store
enough of it. You can get surprisingly good efficiency by pumping water
uphill during the day and running a hydroelectric turbine at night.

> Extend the utility, increase the value. If you can "top off" the buggy 
> during the day when the sun's shining then you a way to market at least 
> some of that periodic, unpredictable or both, electricity.

 Sounds good to me.

> As far as powersats goes, it's a matter first, of efficient orbital 
> transport. That problem seems to be resolving itself...

 But we won't get there with chemical rockets. They just don't have the
energy/mass we need. We need nuclear rockets. At that point space becomes
*dramatically* more economical, and huge new markets and resources become
available.

 But that can't be done without government help. And for a reason that no
Libertarian can disagree with - you need nuclear material to work with,
and (for reasons of national security) that must be tightly controlled.
Enriched Uranium hexafluoride isn't something you want casually available.

 So, what exactly *are* your objections to such a 'Manhattan Project'? Be
as specific as possible, please.

> >  Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of
> > Jews. Right...

> It doesn't cost me anything

 I suppose if you don't value your credibility it doesn't cost you anything.

> nor do I court any danger in denouncing you 

 Nice that you accept unreservedly that I will behave in a civilized fashion
but feel no apparent desire to reciprocate.

> so why not?

 Because it's obviously false and simply a transparent, baselese rhetorical
ploy?

> >  "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
> >                     - Bertrand Russell
> >   
> Russell would have been a great deal more convincing if he'd displayed 
> immortality or used the word "we" at the appropriate place.

 Ah, the primary author of "Principia Mathematica" didn't think? A guy
who went from confirmed racist to condemning racism never thought? I
wonder what 'thoughts' you've come up with? :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                   (313) 227-2317

 "It will be generally found that those who sneer habitually at human nature
 and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant examples."
                            - Charles Dickens
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.