Conservatives (ok, just the ignorant ones) are going ape-shit over Obama's speech that he will give to schools across the nation tomorrow.
Check out the woman in this video.
Holding back tears, the mother says, "Thinking about my kids... in school, having to listen to that just really upsets me." When asked what she is concerned the President might talk about, she pauses for a few seconds and says, "Socialism. Indoctrinating my kids with what he believes."
You can't see it in the video, but during that pause before she answers, in her head the woman is going "derrr, doot doot doot I have no idea", and then like a parrot she just repeats what others have been spouting.
Fortunately, every concerned citizen with Internet access can view the exact and entire content of the speech at whitehouse.gov. Read it. Read it and show me the part where he attempts to indoctrinate kids into his socialist agenda.
Showing posts with label political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political. Show all posts
Monday, September 07, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
News Sources
It is hard to find good sources of written news (And televised news? Ha!). I'm talking about online sources, of course; does anyone still read printed materials??
Here are some brief points to help explain what "good" means (and does not mean) in this case:
Now, why is it difficult to discover sources that meet the aforementioned requirements? Well, I'm glad you asked, because I was just getting to that.
The mainstream news sources all produce identical stories. A while back, I started using Google Reader to aggregate my news sources. I selected several different news sources, but instead of being provided with any variety, I was subjected to duplicate articles. It was worthless. The Daily Show often illustrates this point with a sequence of clips that show a bunch of newscasters all saying the exact same thing. It is hilarious and frustrating at the same time.
The Internet is huge. And you expect me to spend all day browsing it to find what I want? No thanks. I'm sure there are a ridiculous number of small websites that publish some really great articles, and I'm sure I will never discover most of them.
Fortunately, there are a couple sources that we feel we can trust. I wouldn't have expected it, but Slate and Rolling Stone produce very well written, high quality articles.
Here are some brief points to help explain what "good" means (and does not mean) in this case:
- Quality of writing - It is a formal publication. If it is littered with grammatical errors, for example, I will lose confidence in the source.
- Bias - An absence of bias is not necessary. I like opinions. I do not criticize the presence of bias alone. See next point.
- Integrity - This word is overloaded, so it means a lot of things. Think ethics and objectivity.
Now, why is it difficult to discover sources that meet the aforementioned requirements? Well, I'm glad you asked, because I was just getting to that.
The mainstream news sources all produce identical stories. A while back, I started using Google Reader to aggregate my news sources. I selected several different news sources, but instead of being provided with any variety, I was subjected to duplicate articles. It was worthless. The Daily Show often illustrates this point with a sequence of clips that show a bunch of newscasters all saying the exact same thing. It is hilarious and frustrating at the same time.
The Internet is huge. And you expect me to spend all day browsing it to find what I want? No thanks. I'm sure there are a ridiculous number of small websites that publish some really great articles, and I'm sure I will never discover most of them.
Fortunately, there are a couple sources that we feel we can trust. I wouldn't have expected it, but Slate and Rolling Stone produce very well written, high quality articles.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Y2k (Fear and the Media)
I do not watch news programs that contribute to a culture of fear (so basically I only watch the Daily Show). It is a despicable practice.
Thanks to the media, ten years ago computer illiterate people everywhere were panicking about the Y2K bug. I found the following quote on Computer Stupidities: Y2K from a TV news program.
Thanks to the media, ten years ago computer illiterate people everywhere were panicking about the Y2K bug. I found the following quote on Computer Stupidities: Y2K from a TV news program.
You open your eyes, slowly waking up. It's Saturday, January 1st, 2000. What time is it? You look at your bedside clock, but it's blank. Is the power off? You check your digital watch. It's blank, too. The coffee maker, which runs on computer microchips just like your wristwatch, doesn't work. The same for the microwave oven and the stove. Your three-year-old computer-controlled car won't start.You cannot excuse that as ignorance.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Effective Interrogation
People make all kinds of arguments regarding interrogation and torture. Americans can all agree that a major goal is to protect the United States, but many people also consider other issues, such as human rights and the effect that our actions have on our relationships with other countries. However, we can eliminate every single other issue and only consider the goal of protecting America's interests, and the answer is still that we should not torture suspects.
Torture is not effective. Interrogation experts insist that the way to get information out of a suspect is to pretend to be their friend. Here is a wonderful example of this truth:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html#
So why is it so hard to put our personal feelings aside and do what's right for America?
Torture is not effective. Interrogation experts insist that the way to get information out of a suspect is to pretend to be their friend. Here is a wonderful example of this truth:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html#
So why is it so hard to put our personal feelings aside and do what's right for America?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)