There's not been enough hullabaloo on the board recently, so let me bring this up:

Project Censored, sort of a media watchdog association, recently published their top ten un- or under- reported stories of 2003. All of them are about our wonderful Federal administration. There's a rundown of them in my local free weekly, plus the fifteen runners-up, many of which are also about Bush and the Bushettes.

The number-one under-reported story is about the PNAC document that describes exactly what the administration is currently doing. You know, the one I was called a conspiracist for talking about on this board.

I don't know. Maybe we're all worn out of talking about this stuff. (One or two of the articles were about information new to me, though.) Assuming Bush doesn't get reelected, do you think that a new administration (assuming it wants to) can reverse all, or even most, of the absurd foreign policy and civil liberties changes that have been made over the course of the prior four years?

Project Propaganda would be a more accurate name.

Would you like to counter with some propaganda of your own?

Anyone else notice that he doesn't show up until I post something?

Anyone else notice that he doesn't show up until I post something?

I'm sorry, Bitt, but now that this has come to our attention, we're going to have to ask you to leave the BBS. Thanks for all of your contributions, but I'm sure you'll agree that it's for the common good.

I'll just be quiet.

I love how it's called a "media watchdog association" when all of their stories are about the Bush administration. I love how groups/people can just redefine words at whim and people seem to go with it when it suits their needs, or in this instance appears to give legitimacy. I'm going to have to lean towards d33zy's interpretation on this one.

EDIT:

I think "censored" is another example of a word being given a new meaning (along with patriotism and marriage) to suit people's needs. I've read nearly 1/2 of those editorials (or "news storys" is what I guess they are being called now) so I fail to see how they were censored.

Just because people don't agree with what someone writes doesn't mean that the author is being censored. It just means that he's being ignored.

Only I called it a media watchdog association. No one else. However, their ultimate point is that some stories don't get the air time they likely deserve. And it's not a new-fangled organization. It's sponsored by a California State university (Sonoma State) and has been going on since the mid-90s.

And it's not like these stories are illegitimate. It's not necessarily that the editorials (which many of the articles are, admittedly) are 100% correct, but they are based on verifiable fact, regardless of the conclusions, and seem to have been utterly ignored by the mainstream press. These articles are regularly featured in such publications as Utne Reader, et al., for example, not to mention European news sources, so it's not that it's just some random wacko (unless you want to claim that all Utne articles are by wackos, which I suppose some of you might).

Also, if you look back in their archives, which unfortunately go back only to 2000 right now, you'll see that they were hard on the Clinton administration as well, also mostly in regard to foreign policy. It's not that they're picking on Bush unnecessarily, but those are the big stories, and the ones that get reported on at all. (It's unlikely that a European news organization is going to report on state or local issues, after all.) And it's hard to even see the stories that go missing altogether. For example, my local newspaper (before they were bought out by a conglomerate) won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in reporting the environmental impact of over-hog-farming. What if it had been taken over a year earlier and the new owners were particularly pro-hog-farming? Those stories might not have made it to press at all.

Agreed on all counts... which was sort of my point... it's all "propaganda"... it comes from the left, it comes from the right, take your pick.

prop·a·gan·da
n.
1.The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2.Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda

Notice that the definition doesn't contain a negative connotation... that's something societal. Propaganda is information pushing your beliefs, be it fact or fiction. Just because it might be a viewpoint one doesn't agree with, doesn't make it any less true if it's fact.

Bitt, thanks for clarifying on them a little bit. One of my points was that I HAVE read most of those stories, and I don't read liberal papers like the New York Times either (kinda funny how papers can toss around the term "right-wing" or "neo-conservative" all day while I suspect I might upset a few by the use of the word "liberal" ).

And since when are media groups worried that our news sources are conservative?

Your post reminded me of this site. An interesting read.

/me walks out with Propagandhi's "A People's History Of The World" playing in his head.

I, for one, am proud to call myself liberal. I'm not sure where the negative connotation came from. (Actually, that's not true, I know exactly, but I'm tired of pointing it out.)

To take this on a new thread, I, for one, think that our news organizations, in general, have a slightly liberal bent. But our editorial organizations are almost 100% conservative. It's all but impossible to find an editorialist, at least on TV that's not a rabid conservative, despite the fact that they always assure us that they have no political bent, which is absurd, regardless of which direction they're denying. The whole point of editorializing is to show a personal opinion. The big problem is that many of these editorialists, at the same time as they're denying having that opinion, are also claiming that they're news sources, and the sort of flashiness that they use is more appealing to the mass populace than the dry nightly news, so they end up getting more airtime, in the mindset of the viewers, if not in reality. Actually, probably in reality, too, as the nightly news and the newspapers only get a fraction of the time that those editorialists are on the TV or radio, by my highly inaccurate guesstimation.

I have no beef with editorials being bent either way, so long as they are clearly identified as editorials. That's just the nature of them.

I guess I'm proud to be conservative too. Not sure how that because a bad word either!

Anyone else notice that he doesn't show up until I post something?

You know, to be honest, I don't quite understand the animosity towards d33zy. I rather like his posts. I think they're usually well placed and he rarely leaves his "character." I think it's funny how easy it is for him to edge bbs'ers on. Anyway, that's my $.02.

- trs

Yeah, I mean, besides Van Mundergaarde, I'd possibly consider him my main man. I mean, well, maybe he could hook up with the cinder block. Although, I think the cinder block is a guy.

I assumed it was because he often posts a conservative view therefore he thought to be a moron by the liberal posters.

I haven't spelled conservative t-r-o-l-l since I was 4.

So this Project Propaganda would be a more accurate name is more troll like than this I haven't spelled conservative t-r-o-l-l since I was 4.

I never claimed I didn't suck.

First, I don't dislike people (just) because they're morons.

Second, I don't dislike people (just) because they're conservative.

Given, neither one makes it more likely that I'll like someone.

No. The reason I don't like him is because he's a troll, he's posted what I believe are thinly veiled personal attacks against me and others on the board, and he's hacked the board to produce more post-spam than he could manage on his own. Then he can't take the hint and leave. Why? Because he's a troll.

However, I'll admit that there are a few posts that he's made that have been genuinely amusing. There have been one or two that seemed somewhat insightful (though I personally mark that down to ``if you shoot enough times, you're bound to hit something''). I also do not begrudge him any support on his empeg that he might need.

But most of this board's members, conservative or liberal, seem to be able to carry on a discussion while continuing to respect each other and each other's opinions. He is and was unable to do that, so I return the favor in kind. Personally, I like all of you, and like to converse with you, and for a while there, his trolling presence threatened to undermine that. I don't want to lose the ``friends'' I've gained on this board and he was and is the only thing making this board unenjoyable.

All of the rest of you can spout conservative polemic all you want. I'll spout my brand of liberal polemic, too, but at the end of the day, I think that we can at least agree to disagree and still call each other friends. He's just a sociopath.

Yeah, I mean, besides Van Mundergaarde...

It's funny, a friend of mine and I were discussing how the people at Google probably noticed last Monday an unusual one-time spike in searches on that name which produced no hit results, and wondered why.

> he rarely leaves his "character."

Um, that is not his "character", that is how he really is. Read some of his racist, sexist, and xenophobic stuff from when he first started here (as yz33d, before he got that account banned) to really understand people's personal dislike of him.

Um, that is not his "character"

by his "character" I meant Saddam. He played that role pretty well during the war in Iraq discussions.

that is how he really is.

Do we know that that's how he really is, or is he just playing the devil's advocate, sometimes?

I just did a search on some of his old posts, and every old post I clicked on was rather funny and in good taste - and quite a few were helpful and insightful. Someone's going to have to show me some specific posts.

- trs

I think the fact that he's considered a troll says more about this BBS than him. By that, I mean until he came along, no one ever posted a sarcastic post without a ";)" after it. Compared to the rest of the web, he is in no way a troll, but for our little community, it was a bit of a shock. And once people kept pointing it out, he may have realized that those people weren't going to like him, so why not just go along with it?

Back to another tangent, Tony, who is that guy you're referring to with the Google search? Did I miss a new internet thing?

Back to another tangent, Tony, who is that guy you're referring to with the Google search? Did I miss a new internet thing?

This Monday's StrongBad Email had that "Van Mundegaard" name in it. And a friend of mine googled on that, thinking he'd missed something. I mused that he probably wasn't the only one doing the same thing.

I suppose we all have our differences, our good days and our bad days, our good sides and bad sides. We all have our own views on how things should be or how things are. Expecting everyone or even anyone to think exactly like you would be hoping for a sad, empty world. One characteristc I hope we all have in common is the ability to get along even if we are so different.

Someone might say that making statements and comments that go against the flow will only serve to divide. I disagree. It brings out the best in people and gets out their true thoughts, allowing us to be more open and honest with eachother. I suppose we could sit here and exchange smilies and nice comments all the live long day, but what does that mean? My goal isn't to piss you off, but to see what you're thinking and what you you're really feeling. In the long run, conservative or liberal doesn't make a difference.

Now everyone download a copyrighted version of kumbaya and let's pretend like we're holding hands.
EDIT:

> "I suppose we all have our differences..."

3 words into this paragraph, I found myself reading it as if Kyle Broflovski were saying it at the end of an episode of South Park.

Someone might say that making statements and comments that go against the flow will only serve to divide.

d33zY, I would never say such a thing, nor would Bitt or anyone else here, I'll bet. Bitt and I disagree on may things and have been more than happy to discuss them. I'm a pretty conservative guy myself and agree with a lot of the points you try to make. However, many times it's not what you say but how you say it. Whether you intend or not, you come off as beligerant and uncaring. I do know of a specific incident of this, but will refrain from linking to it as it wasn't targeted toward me.

Because of this attitude I have made the mistake of jumping on you too quickly before, assuming the worst. This is a lesson I have learned: to let people's words speak for themselves and not assuming things that aren't being spoken.

That aside, however, if you want your views to be taken seriously (here or anywhere) you need to learn how to communicate them in a respectful manner. Putting down the "other side" constantly is not going to win anyone over to your viewpoint. While the liberals here on this board have plenty of negative things to say about conservative thinking in general, I have rarely felt attacked personally for my ideas, even when we differ so greatly.

This is all not to say that you haven't made some genuinely interesting points and enriched conversations. I feel that you have. The problem is that when people start perceiving a poor attitute from you, they stop listening to anything you're saying.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

gets out their true thoughts, allowing us to be more open and honest with each other

As I am like a leftist liberal pinko funhouse mirror version of d33zY, I find myself agreeing with this statement!

I'll give a quick example. On a BBS devoted to the kind of car I drive, a guy posted how his 8-months-pregnant wife had just been in an accident, but "thank God I bought her that SUV." Although I was certainly glad she was OK, I tried to point out that this was the classic passive (vs. active) safety, "bigger must be better" thinking, and that had she been in a more nimble vehicle, she might have avoided hitting the parked car altogether.

That did not go over well. But it did prompt quite a debate....

if you want your views to be taken seriously (here or anywhere) you need to learn how to communicate them in a respectful manner

Darn it Jeff, you did it to me again. I was all set to make a lucid, cogent reply to d33zY and you beat me to it, saying pretty much what I was going to say.

An excellent example demonstrating what you say is.... you.

Your views on life and in particular religion are, I believe, minority views here on this bbs, and you have not hesitated nor held back in your expression of them. Yet, you are not labelled a troll. If anything, just the opposite. There are few people on this bbs held in as much admiration and esteem as you are.

As you said, how you say it is as important as what you say when it comes to getting your message across.

tanstaafl.

To get totally off the subject:

I tried to point out...

Yeah. For example, what if they'd decided on this SUV?



I think that that baby wouldn't be so happy with knees in it.

I tried to point out that this was the classic passive (vs. active) safety, "bigger must be better" thinking, and that had she been in a more nimble vehicle, she might have avoided hitting the parked car altogether.

That same question was posed to me on Usenet years ago. Someone said they had a choice between commuting in a Miata (top-down it has the ultimate visibility and is very nimble) or in an SUV (which could survive pretty much anything short of a direct Stinger hit).

They made the same argument: That the former is an accident avoider, the latter an accident survivor.

My response was simple logic: No matter how nimble you are, there are some accidents that you just can't avoid.

So given those two choices, the SUV is a safer car.

The truth is that it's possble to build a safe, accident-surviving car that's doesn't need its own zip code. The Miata isn't one of them, but such cars do exist. He just didn't have a Volvo in his list of choice when he presented the question.

Damn, I've just started another SUV thread. Please forgive me.

Another digression! How great . . .

You make a really good point here Tony, and I can say I’ve experience with both sides of this issue. My wife was driving a full size GMC truck when we first met (she was 19) and I can honestly say she didn’t know how to handle it. It was a big vehicle that was cumbersome to turn and slow to stop. She got in three accidents in it, and while one was completely not her fault, I think at least one of the other two had to do with handling such a large vehicle. So while she was “safer” in the large truck, it made the road a more dangerous place (boy I hope she never reads this!). On the other hand, I drive a mustang, which, while not a small vehicle, turns much more quickly and stops a lot easier. This has saved me in more than one occasion simply because I was able to react quickly enough to avoid the accident.

My wife now drives an Escape, which is a much smaller, nimbler SUV. It’s still an SUV though, and a lot “safer” in terms of getting hit. Somebody absolutely nailed her last month while she was sitting still at a yield sign; there was no way she could have avoided it. Yet the damage to her car (and person) was very minimal, while his was absolutely crushed. Part of that had to do with the way cars are built to crumple easily in front end collisions, but had she been in a car she would have certainly sustained more damage.

So I have two thoughts on the subject: SUVs and trucks can make the road more dangerous in general if people do not know how to drive them and that raises everyone’s danger. SUVs are safer (in general) for the driver than most cars (but not all, as Tony pointed out), and sometimes accidents simply can’t be avoided. I think a big key in all of this is to make sure that you are driving a car you are comfortable with and can handle appropriately (which I realize doesn’t address all of the issues associated with SUVs).

Once again I appreciate your kind words. All I can say is to repeat again how wonderful it is to be able to converse with such a tolerant group of people who all bring different perspectives to the table. We may not all respect each other’s ideas, but we do respect each other, and that is a breath of fresh air in this day and age.