- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
What do me dino have to say now all these decades later?
Yeah, I'd avoid reporters too.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
- Joseph Goebbels, 12 January 1941
(From The Smithsonian --
"It’s been part of the conversation as far back as the birth of the free press
In the margins of his copy of Condorcet’s treatise Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind, President John Adams scribbled a cutting note.
Writing in the section where the French philosopher predicted that a free press would advance knowledge and create a more informed public, Adams scoffed. “There has been more new error propagated by the press in the last ten years than in an hundred years before 1798,” he wrote at the time.
The charge feels shockingly modern. Were he to have written the sentiment in 2018, and not at the turn of the 19th century, it’s easy to imagine that at just 112 characters, he might have tweeted it, instead.
RELATED CONTENT
Missouri Exhibition Explores the Centuries-Old Specter of ‘Fake News’ *
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...
From COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG
Early American Newspapering by James Breig
Daily publication began in the 1780s, just as the new American republic emerged. There were about 100 newspapers by 1790, many of them were spirited, and some were great annoyances to men in high positions. It was a time of enormous press freedom, a freedom exercised frequently in behalf of the Federalist or Republican parties, which subsidized their own publications. Humphrey said, "Many newspapers in the 1790s were intended to accept a particular political party." Two examples are the Gazette of the United States for the Hamiltonian Federalists; the National Gazette for the Jeffersonian Republicans. "Their editors believed that they should support their particular party in all that they did," she noted, "so they wrote essays in support of their party and included editorial comments in the news pieces that either supported their party or attacked the opposition."
http://www.history.org/foundation/jou...
from The Journal of the American Revolution
https://allthingsliberty.com/2015/02/...
The Massachusetts Spy, originally produced in Boston, moved to Worcester in early 1775. Published by Isaiah Thomas, the Spy supplemented the materials produced by the Boston Gazette about events in Massachusetts during the years leading up to the Revolution and throughout the war. Probably the most famous piece first carried in the Spy was Thomas’s report on the Battle of Lexington. Many reports about this first battle in the Revolution blamed the British for starting the fighting, but Thomas’s account became the most famous and was the one most remembered:
“Americans! forever bear in mind the BATTLE of LEXINGTON! where British Troops, unmolested and unprovoked wantonly, and in a most inhuman manner fired upon and killed a number of our countrymen, then robbed them of their provisions, ransacked, plundered and burnt their houses! nor could the tears of defenseless women, some of whom were in the pains of childbirth, the cries of helpless babes, nor the prayers of old age, confined to beds of sickness, appease their thirst for blood! – or divert them from the DESIGN of MURDER and ROBBERY!” Thomas went on to print much more about the Revolution, but this one piece was reprinted almost everywhere and made his newspaper very well known.
Allowing that Brig. Gen. Hugh Percy lost control of men who did take revenge on locals, the atrocities reported - women in childbirth being killed - were fabrications. Wikipedia on the Battles of Lexington and Concord relies on Fischer, David Hackett (1994). Paul Revere's Ride. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0-19-508847-6. )
I believe that most actual religious Jews are conservatives like Shapiro.
Helping or not helping should be up to those that chose to do so and can afford it.
I know Jews have eyes. Me dino would have no use for people who hated who I am.
I don’t even think of a person as being a Jew. They are just people. I used to think of black people that way too, at least until Obama infected many black people with entitlement. Now I find I look at black people as black people.
First, I suspect there is a lingering effect of the "split" between Judaism and Christianity - recall that Jesus did not meet the Jewish criteria to be the Messiah. Historically this was a big problem for many Christians. If this was enough to establish a habit of disdain I can see it persisting across generations. Think if it as analogous to mom cutting ends of the meatloaf off because her mom did that.
The second aspect would be basic "other". Combined with the relative success of Jewish persons this can engender additional suspicion. Hitler used this to extreme effect when he correctly noted the "overrepresentation" of Jews in positions of power or privilege, but then assigned that to conspiracy and "supremacy". This leads into the third aspect: collective scapegoating.
This and the previous are tightly intertwined. People tend to want someone else to blame for their misfortune or lack of success on someone other than themselves. However, we have a difficult time applying that to specific individuals, likely because there is a reasonable pressure to at least try to prove that specific person actively did something. However, there is no pressure to "prove" a group did something - mostly because it can not be done. For the Leftists/Progressives of today this is a "feature" because they dislike having to prove anything.
Note that I do not think any of this justifies such behavior, merely that it may explain some, or most, of it.
You can see this in the metrics on immigration n the U.S.. Legal immigrants from hard-life countries tend to have a high work ethic (legal immigration has a self-selection bias in this regard), but their immediate children have a bit less, and their grandchildren even less. By the third generation it is no indistinguishable from those who have been here any longer than that. Quite noticeably, this is the same pattern - and magnitude - that we see among newly minted rich people: each successive generation squanders more and more of the wealth generated to get them into that class and are progressively worse at both work ethic and skill in managing money.
During my late 20s I recall a small town flower shop lady I liked comparing gossips to vultures who swarm down on a body so they can proudly spread their wings and squawk.
married a Jewish fella and have never seen such a
solid marriage; loving husband, fab Dad; so glad to
have him in the family.
I've had encounters both as a corrections officer and a semi-retired security guard.
I've noticed that a black person's imagined discrimination by me against them makes their day.
I've been accused of racism by a good number of happy-eyed smiling mouths.
Rush Limbaugh once made a comment about race hustlers like Al Sharpton giving blacks an expectation of being discriminated against.
They look for it and seemingly can't wait for it to happen for something to tell family and friends about..
Do not trust anyone whose job is funded by any government agency.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov
(You can argue global warming if you want, but if they say there's a hurricane coming at you, you better believe them!)
Best Military News on this Planet
https://www.duffelblog.com
Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com
for example:
" Giuliani can’t figure out how URLs work, blames Twitter for liberal bias "Twitter allowed someone to invade my text," Giuliani tweeted."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...
Gizmodo
https://gizmodo.com/
This Customized Hydrogen-Powered Nerf Blaster Makes Its Own Explosive Fuel
https://gizmodo.com/this-customized-h...
Gizmodo also links to The Onion
https://www.theonion.com
Gina Haspel Briefs Senators On Saudis’ ‘Shockingly Uninspired’ Khashoggi Interrogation
Trump Boys Raid Sister’s Closet For Sexy Clothes They Can Use To Seduce And Blackmail Robert Mueller
Wisconsin Legislature Weakens Incoming Democratic Governor By Restricting His Access To Food, Water, Shelter
The current state of climate science is polluted by the religion of Global Warming, now called "Climate Change" because even the proponents recognize it isn't warming the way they said it was.
To dig deeper, just what do you mean by a "Social Justice slant"? Do you have specific examples?
http://ggwiki.deepfreeze.it/index.php...
I get your point, Mike. The instances of obvious political bias are statistically small compared to all they publish, and Ars doesn't appear to be as big an offender as MSM.
My conclusion is that we must examine carefully what they publish and not accept anything as fact without independent confirmation.
Yes, they do cover lots of technical issues and some of that information has been useful to me in the past. Unfortunately, I have to wonder what filtering process is being used at Ars before publication. Ars has shown that they do have political bias; is Ars subtly slanting the presentation to favor of some products and issues over others?
Last. year at this time, I read Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time. My advice is not to trust it (completely).
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2...
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtop...
Did you hear that the media want to ban the Christmas season song, "Baby, It's Cold Outside"?
Yes, this must be banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbuB...
They are (nearly all) idiots, dino.
https://youtu.be/jaBB0nmBpnM
As we all know, The Donald has by far better taste than dingbat Darth Cackles The Evil Hag,
That even includes greedy whores he has paid extortion to.
Oh, yeah, that reminds me, what goes around comes around.. Bwahaha!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/us...
If a man does not want to be a man or woman does want to be a woman that’s ok. What I despise is the mobs that relentlessly try forcing us to submit to their ideological dictates.
The people criticizing the song are truly brainwashed and ignorant of reality.
So a guy is trying to persuade some lady to stick around. Big deal. Banning that? Sheer stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFJ7...
This media source is slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
The Epoch Times is an international, multi-language news media company in print and online. The Epoch Times first published in New York in April 2000 (in Chinese only) and the online edition in August 2000. In 2003, The Epoch Times launched an online edition in English, which began printing as a newspaper in New York in 2004. The Epoch Times is founded by John Tang and a group of Chinese-American Falun Gong practitioners. The Epoch Times publishes in 21 languages in 35 countries across five continents. Their focus topics includes sections for world and national news, op-eds, sports, entertainment, business, arts and culture, travel and health.
Funded by / Ownership
The Epoch Times is owned by the Epoch Media Group, which also owns NTD. The Epoch Times is funded through a a subscription, advertising and donation model. According to their about page they are an 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Analysis / Bias
The Epoch Times editorials regarding US news generally tend to stay neutral as they source from both sides by using the Weekly Standard and Axios, however they do reflect a strong anti-communism bias. Opinion pieces are very poorly sourced when reporting about China. The Epoch Times also uses loaded language that occasionally favors the right such as this: Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative.
A factual search shows that they have not failed any fact checks. However, the Epoch Times has a section called Beyond Science that publishes pseudoscience news, such as Supernormal Abilities Developed Through Meditation: Dr. Dean Radin Discusses.
Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right-Center Biased and High for factual reporting regarding USA news, however we rate them Mixed overall due to the publication of anti global warming Pseudoscience. This source is also highly biased against communist news in regards to China. (M. Huitsing 8/21/2017) (Updated 11/13/2018)
Source: http://www.theepochtimes.com/
Speaking of scams, around noon a robot voice on my home phone told me something is wrong with my social security.
Bah! Humbug!
Me dino hung up before I was asked for my social security number. Had company I was trying to talk to in the house anyway.
To his credit Dan Rather actually resigned when he found out he had incorrectly reported fake news about ageorge W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. To my mind that kind of journalistic integrity put him right up there with Walter Cronkhite as a trusted source.
He was one of the last great objective reporters.
Tis the season to be scoffing.
Falalalala!
Rather, through his team and report, made an allegation based on phony documents. Rather than own up they shifted the responsibility for validating those documents from themselves to saying others had to prove them false. Yup, guilty until proven innocent writ large for the public decades ago - but only for Republicans. They even aired the interview with the secretary who wrote them where she outright said they were not genuine (ie. forgeries). That whole thing was as much as a sham as the recent allegations regarding Kavanaugh and most of them regarding Trump.
It may be poor memory, but I seem to recall there being discussion or documents from the debacle along the lines of they thought Kerry would win and thus little to no fallout from it. Oops. Perhaps history doesn't necessarily repeat, but it has an uncanny knack for rhyming. ;)
[Edit] Recap: Rather's team went right to "sources" who were politically connected to Kerry and vociferously anti-Republican, got docs, and used them as proof even when not proven accurate. When pressed and found to be lacking evidence they claimed it was their target who needed to prove their innocence rather than they prove his guilt. Sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Granted, he was something of a military interventionist, but that isn’t what they went after him for.
He liked to call JFK Der Fuhrer due to that POTUS's efforts to end segregation.
That office worker once fought the Germans as a fighter pilot during WW2.
That is one of the more interesting things to learn about JFK and his battle for the tax cuts: the difference in the opposition now vs. then. The Democrats opposed them because they understood that if people were experiencing economic growth they would be less hostile to black workers; which is one of the reasons Kennedy referenced it as a civil rights issue. It was one of his reasons for pushing for it before the broader civil rights agenda.
Everyone at the time acknowledged that the progressive tax reduced economic growth by design and that it hurt the lower rungs of the ladder the most back then. Now (mostly due, IMO, to LBJ) that exact structure is supposed to help them. The Republicans opposed it because they expected it to cut revenue and lead to debt. To be fair to them, what JFK was pushing for in 61-62 was a major cut and was unprecedented as far as I can tell. I can excuse people for thinking that would happen the first time.
But just as the segregationists wanted minimum wage to discourage employers from hiring black people, the tax structure was explicitly implemented to cut growth. Yet today we have this crazy notion that only more spending and taxes can do that. Yet every time the mix JFK pushed for (solid dollar, "tight money", and lower taxes across the board) has been implemented it has resulted in significant revenue increases (especially for non-federal governments) through economic growth.
Politicians don't make the same mistake. They like to make it dozens of times just to be sure. Then try it again just in case.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union must of kept trying to make socialism work the same stubborn way right up to the time their Marxist implementations finally just plain broke.
laughter!! Gotta thank you for this depressed-mood
destroyer. Still laughing.....