Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (62518)	9/15/2005 2:42:36 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others?" Truth for our own sake Phillip A. Gallagher The American Thinker September 15th, 2005 January 17, of 2006 will be Benjamin Franklin’s 300th birthday. Judging from what has been going on in our world it is too bad the old fellow isn’t still with us. As the weeks go by we will see more and more stories about Franklin’s numerous accomplishments in the fields of science, diplomacy, revolution, publishing, philosophy, and so many individual accomplishments to numerous to mention here. He may in fact be the single most accomplished human being in American history. For the moment let's focus on just one very small area of Ben's expertise and that is thinking. Ben called it "right thinking" and its basic premise was that in all cases what you think on any issue comes as a result of input from your own little world; and therefore any conclusions you might reach would undoubtedly be wrong. Franklin’s opinion was that, given the amount of information in the world, a man was far more likely to be ignorant of, rather than have a great deal of knowledge or wisdom about any issue. With this in mind it was paramount that he assemble facts before he drew any conclusions on any issue in his life. If nothing else, the pursuit of truth is what permeates every aspect of the monumental achievements in Franklin’s life. We need such people now more than ever. This commitment to truth is evident in one of his conditions for entering his “Junto.” The Junto was a group of his contemporaries who met regularly to philosophize and to contemplate the issues of their day. The primary question he asked of the would-be participants was this "Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others?" One can only assume that against this back-drop of critical thinking skills, Franklin would be horrified by what has been going on at every level of contemporary thought regarding the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Not only have the people of Louisiana and Mississippi been victimized by this enormous natural disaster, but so to has truth been victimized in any attempt by newspapers, television and politicians to seek the truth for truth’s sake. For those of us who are far removed from the disaster itself it appears that during the first 8 or 9 days of the event, not one word that was uttered by media, self appointed luminaries or public officials was clear unvarnished truth other than that Katrina was a hurricane. Every report or commentary seemed to be first jaded by the deliverer’s self-interest. The news media, the opposing political parties, the race baiters, local government versus national government, global warmers, anti war activists and Jihadists all expressed opinions that exploited the disaster in a way that would somehow seem to mesh with their particular agenda. Some of the opinion bordered on absurd. One critic, activist Randall Robinson, had black victims of the disaster resorting to cannibalism. A comment repeated nationally and worldwide, with not a single shred of credible evidence. Others said 25,000 would be dead, the national government was slow to respond, the local government was incompetent, President Bush hates black people, only black people were looters, New Orleans cops deserted from their duties. The list seems to go on and on. There are truths that we can extract from some of these things. When reporters report they might have a Pulitzer Prize in the back of their minds; when television reports they might be mindful of their ratings. When a politician speaks he may first think how it will position him in the quest for his next big campaign. When Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton show up you can be sure they won’t be bringing any help but will be exploiting the situation based on a racially motivated charges. President Bush does not hate black people but you can be sure that the New York Times hates him. If Ben were here and had an opportunity to assess the facts and consider the geographical enormity of this disaster he might conclude that the truth is that there were some extreme victim trauma and displacement and failures galore of public institutions. He might also conclude that the truth is that the degree in which things did work resulted in the saving of a great many lives and averted a human disaster of biblical proportions. He would however be disgusted with people, in whom we have trust, have so little regard for the truth. Phillip A. Gallagher is a financial consultant in Massachusetts. americanthinker.com

To: abstract who wrote (62518)	9/15/2005 3:18:59 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"It's easier to get people's attention and trust by actually doing something effectively as opposed to criticizing someone else for not doing it. If there are Democrats who fail to realize this, perhaps it relates to differences between conservatives and liberals as to their relative focus on objects (the real) vs. abstractions (the theoretical). Democrats and liberals, because they often emphasize words over acts and the abstract over the concrete, may tend to think that one thing is just as good as the other--that saying it is just as good as doing it." So what's in it for me?--making political hay out of disaster posted by neo-neocon (a lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11) There's a world of difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skeptics doubt and question in an attempt to get at the truth. Cynics doubt because they think that, by definition, every player has bad (or at least selfish) motives. What happens when journalists are cynics rather than skeptics? One result is that every event and every action is rated and spun as though its sole purpose is either to enhance or detract from a political party or a politician. It is assumed that whatever stands politicians may take, they are always based only on self-interest rather than even a consideration of such old-fashioned and outdated virtues as principle. A recent New Republic features an article by Ryan Lizza that is an example of this noxious genre. Lizza manages to deal with two of the most dreadful events of recent years--9/11 and Hurricane Katrina--and evaluates them only in terms of which political party is helped/hurt by each disaster, and how both parties are using them to "position" themselves into power. I believe that Lizza may be one of the New Republic's political writers, and if so it would be natural for him to focus on the political aspects of the disaster, I suppose. But there still seems to me to be something unusually cynical in what he has written here--dealing with 9/11 and Katrina as though they were solely opportunities for politicians to score points. Lizza writes that the Democrats can gain from the Katrina disaster by promoting themselves as people who handle humanitarian crises properly. He then compares that to the political advantage the Republicans received post-9/11 when they were perceived as the party that could best handle a security crisis. I don't recall any of the newspapers of my youth ever taking a Katrina-like tragedy or an attack and analyzing either of them in terms of how they affected the rise and fall of each party, and how each party was deciding to use the disaster/attack to its political advantage. It seems to be something that has cropped up in the last few decades only. When did we become so strategic in our thinking; when did journalists begin to resemble sports commentators, concentrating on ongoing play-by-play analyses of who is going to win the game? It's been particularly in evidence in the coverage of Katrina, as anyone who's been paying even a particle of attention has no doubt noticed. And it's not that I think politicians don't use events to further their own careers. I just think that the MSM has gotten to the point where this is often the primary story, and everything else is secondary. I am not willing to ascribe to that level of cynicism, and I don't think it does our society any good for the media to constantly take such an intensely cynical point of view. At any rate, Lizza's arguments in the New Republic article are also marred by some rather large flaws. If the Republicans are perceived as being better able to handle a security crisis, it is because they actually were engaged in handling a major security crisis post-9/11. It is logical to assume that the perception of Republicans as tough on national security was predicated at least in some part on their actual performance in a shaky situation that represented a demanding challenge-- one that many people give them credit for handling at least somewhat well--rather than on mere rhetoric and promises. But if Democrats were to get credit for handling a humanitarian crisis better than Republicans based on Katrina, wouldn't the Democrats have had to have actually performed better than Republicans during Katrina? Can a perception of better performance simply come from criticizing the performance of others? Somehow I don't think so; I don't think most people are that naive. Merely to say "I could do it better, trust me!" isn't usually enough. It's easier to get people's attention and trust by actually doing something effectively as opposed to criticizing someone else for not doing it. If there are Democrats who fail to realize this, perhaps it relates to differences between conservatives and liberals as to their relative focus on objects (the real) vs. abstractions (the theoretical). Democrats and liberals, because they often emphasize words over acts and the abstract over the concrete, may tend to think that one thing is just as good as the other--that saying it is just as good as doing it. But, ordinarily, it is not. It would be much better if Democrats could point to some sort of huge humanitarian crisis that they actually handled well recently. Oh, you say that there actually was a humanitarian crisis recently in which Democrats were involved? Which one was it? Well, as it turns out, it was Katrina itself. Both Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blano and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin were (drum roll here) Democrats!!! That Lizza fails to take note of this little fact in his article declaring how Democrats can position themselves, post-Katrina, as the party to turn to in a humanitarian crisis is just--well, it's just strange. He seems to believe that rhetoric can trump reality. I hope he's not correct--because, if he is, we're in even greater trouble than I think. neo-neocon.blogspot.com silha.umn.edu tnr.com

To: abstract who wrote (62518)	9/15/2005 3:38:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"Plenty of people want some accountability for government officials for their miscues during the response to Katrina. The Exempt Media has led that charge. If they want to see that, we should also demand an independent commission into the reporting that crossed over into hysteria and mythology, spreading falsehoods that unnecessarily have added to the burdens of Katrina victims from New Orleans." 'Toxic' Flood Another Example Of Katrina Hysteria By Captain Ed on Media Watch Captain's Quarters The Washington Post debunks another part of the media hysteria that has surrounded the Hurricane Katrina devastation -- the myth of the supertoxic flood. We have heard over and over how the raw sewage and chemical brew unleashed by the levee break made the flood so toxic that mere skin exposure put people at extraordinary risk for major illnesses. Tests, however, show nothing unusual about the flood water: <<< Early tests on the floodwater that covered most of this city do not suggest it will leave a permanent toxic residue or render residential areas uninhabitable for more than a short time, officials of both state and federal environmental agencies said yesterday. The pollution consists primarily of fecal matter and slightly elevated concentrations of metals such as lead and chromium that were in the city's soil before Hurricane Katrina. There are also trace amounts of many petroleum-based chemicals and some pesticides. Despite descriptions of the floodwater as a "toxic soup" and a "witch's brew" of contaminants, the preliminary tests reveal it contains little that is different from what has been seen after past floods in other cities and here. >>> The only exceptions to this come from localized contamination that will require spot abatements. Seven oil spills, including a significant one in the suburb of Mereaux, account for most of that damage. Another could well be the bus storage yard, where diesel fuel from the buses left a surface plume easily seen with overhead photography -- another good reason to get them to high ground in the face of a Category 4 hurricane bearing down on the city. Other than the localized points, the water from the flood poses no special threat. The main problem for residents will not arise from a toxic exposure or contamination of buildings, but instead merely from the damage done by the water itself to the buildings. That, of course, will provide enough problems of its own without adding the media hysteria of Katrina coverage to the dread New Orleans residents face in getting their city back on its feet. How did the "toxic soup" story start, anyway? So far we have heard ridiculous stories pushed over and over again by the national media that sounded just good enough to be true. The floods supposedly killed 10,000 people; now it looks like the casualties might not reach 1,000, still devastating but a completely different scale. Survivors supposedly resorted to cannibalism of corpses, according to civil-rights activist Randall Robinson, who later withdrew the story after the media spread it like wildfire. Plenty of people want some accountability for government officials for their miscues during the response to Katrina. The Exempt Media has led that charge. If they want to see that, we should also demand an independent commission into the reporting that crossed over into hysteria and mythology, spreading falsehoods that unnecessarily have added to the burdens of Katrina victims from New Orleans. captainsquartersblog.com washingtonpost.com

To: abstract who wrote (62518)	9/15/2005 9:02:09 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

John Hawkins on The Media Bias Factor: From the NYT: <<< Mr. Brown's version of events raises questions about whether the White House and Mr. Chertoff acted aggressively enough in the response. New Orleans convulsed in looting and violence after the hurricane, and troops did not arrive in force to restore order until five days later." >>> This is a fascinating meme and I'll tell you why. The original meme pushed by the media after things started to break down in New Orleans was that FEMA, and by extension the Bush administration, were supposed to be first responders, and therefore they were responsible for every mistake that was made. Unfortunately, this meme was out there for almost a week because most conservatives, driven by a sense of decency, didn't want to start pointing fingers while people were still being rescued. However, conservatives eventually started speaking up and pointed out that the locals, not FEMA, were supposed to be the first responders. Then, one screw-up after another that had absolutely nothing to do with FEMA were revealed. Nagin didn't follow the city's evacuation plan. He didn't use city buses to get people out of New Orleans. The state blocked the Red Cross from coming in to feed the people at the Superdome. Blanco was slow to call out the National Guard, etc., etc., etc. At that point, the media had a dilemma to deal with. They had already spent a solid week screaming to everyone who'd listen that this whole mess was Bush and FEMA's fault and yet, as the days went on, it became increasingly obvious that Blanco and Nagin were the root of the problems in New Orleans. Which brings us to where we are today. If the liberal MSM were to correct itself at this point, it would not only be embarrassing, it would require shifting the "finger of blame" from the hated Bush administration to two Democrats. Of course, that would never do. So, what the MSM has done instead is shift the goalposts and blame the Bush administration for not realizing Blanco and Nagin were inept overwhelmed sooner. This is a perversely brilliant tactic, because no matter what happens, the Bush Administration is always at fault. Did FEMA screw something up that was actually their responsibility? Then FEMA gets the blame. Did Blanco or Nagin screw something up? Then FEMA gets the blame for that, too, because they should have immediately realized that Blanco and Nagin didn't know what they were doing. That sort of, "dmned if you do, dmned if you don't," coverage for the Bush administration is typical of how the MSM has handled Katrina's aftermath. For example... Bush was too slow to fly over to New Orleans? That means he's a big jerk who doesn't care! Bush flies over New Orleans? What good is a fly-over? He may as well have just watched it on TV. Bush actually goes to New Orleans and talks to people on the ground? Oh, he's just looking to get some good publicity photos! It's as if the MSM's hurricane coverage started out with a premise of "How can we use Katrina to stick it to Bush?" and then they worked from there. You know, in retrospect, even if they didn't start out with that premise, would the mainstream media coverage have been significantly different if they had? The honest answer to that question is "no"... http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_09_11.PHP#004421 nytimes.com