Bush-Dharmas&Karmas

[Guest guest]

You make good points David and it should be clear to anyone with a triple

digit IQ that our information/news sources are generally biased and sometimes

shamelessly and maliciously so. It stands to reason that if we limit our

research

to those who sing from the same page with us, we will only get reinforced in

our opinions, regardless how misguided they are.

 

Neither can we say that one side is as good as the other; or that both sides

are equal merely because they are opposing…nothing in nature is perfectly

equal. It's a cop-out to give two liars the same grade. There will be shades and

degrees of untruth and it is up to us to sort through every bit of information

and evaluate it as best we can.

 

It also makes no sense to give discredited sources the same attention and

status as sources that are not (or less) discredited. With careful observation

we

can get a pretty good idea when a source is lying to us and over which

subject.

 

Some sources try not to lie outright and limit themselves to embellishment or

spinning. Other sources lie by withholding crucial information while

reporting only the information they endorse. This is the preferred way of lying

used

by the New York Times and then followed by the mainstream media.

 

For example: in the Sunday Book Review section you can get positively glowing

reviews of left leaning authors but a conservative need not apply. Al Franken

had three separate and kind reviews of his book, while rush Limbaughs books

had none, although it sold 10 times more and was #1 on the list much longer.

Kitty Kelly gets the red carpet rolled out for her hit piece on Bush while Ann

Coulter gets a vicious attack review that does not address the rather well

documented contents and sticks to personal insults. Michael Moore's propaganda

flick is hailed as a serious documentary while the sworn testimony of 253

swiftboat veterans (who have little to gain personally) in John O'Neill's book

(Unfit

for Command) is summarily dismissed as "unsubstantiated" without a word of

explanation.

 

Yes, I have read Orwell's 1984 and it is a very accurate description of our

times where thought police is always ready to pounce on any utterance that does

not meet the orthodoxy's standard-du-jour. Orwell's Animal Farm is also a

perfect description of the mainstream media. And last but not least, regarding

the reluctance of the current administration to "bare all," I attribute it to

the natural reaction to an irresponsible and hostile media. It is an

established fact that when polled, 300 Washington correspondents admitted to

being

approximately 50% Democrats, 25% Independents, 20% Liberals and 5% Republicans.

86%

had voted for Clinton. So much for representing the rest of the country…

Woody Allen put it best: "Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not

after me."

 

 

 

In a message dated 11/12/04 10:04:04 AM, Aikido 108 writes:

 

<< We know or don't know how corrupt the Bush regime is or is not in

 

proportion to the quality of the information we receive.

 

 

That said, there is information available from diverse sources that,

 

while not conclusive, points to a greedy regime running things. How

 

is it different than the past or that of the Democrats? Good

 

question. Our whole governmental thrust seems almost feudal at

 

times, in my opinion.

 

 

On a meta- level, it seems safe to say that we have a regime

 

currently that is very self-protective in its information

 

management. This could be mainly due to wartime/ terrorism caution.

 

Draw your own conclusions on what the secrecy points to. But please,

 

please, please do look into it. Don't knee jerk defend OR attack.

 

Sometimes the paranoid is merely the one who knows too well what is

 

going on at all times. On the other hand, sometimes the truth to be

 

known is stranger and more "keystone- cops" absurd. But in most

 

cases, lack of self knowledge is a dangerous ill when you bring in

 

the issue of scale. The government is us? Maybe.

 

 

I assume you have read "1984." I wonder if you notice any

 

connections to the present.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

 

David

 

>>