Public Rejects Right-Wing Narrative On Media Coverage Of Iraq
Public Rejects Right-Wing Narrative On Media Coverage Of Iraq
The White House narrative about Iraq, parroted by conservatives everywhere, is that the media has failed to report the “good news.” Bush has faulted the media for ignoring “the quiet, steady” progress in Iraq. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently blasted the media for “exaggerating” Iraq’s security problems.
Today, Ralph Peters, an author, wrote an piece for conservative website Real Clear Politics that began “During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media.” It was linked enthusiastically by right-wing bloggers.
The American people, however, aren’t buying it. A new CBS poll shows that about 60% of Americans believe that the media is reporting things in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are:
Of course, CBS did the poll, so it’s probably making things out to be worse than they really are.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
100 Responses to “Public Rejects Right-Wing Narrative On Media Coverage Of Iraq”
Topic Cloud
So right now… I’m commenting on the analysis of the reporting of the opinion of the reporting of a war.
Party on, Wayne.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:39 pmNo-one cares about polls! Let’s have more content on the administrations incompetence. You can’t argue against facts.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:41 pmThe Bush cabal lives by “If you tell a lie enough times, people will start to believe it. The problem is that we are not Germans in the ’30s, we are Americans in the ’00s. It takes people a little bit of time, but pretty soon, they will see through the bullshit.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI wonder what woke people up to the fact that the Bush Cabal shit stinks?
Nice to see people awake. Sorry it took them so long to wake up. Is it time to do something about all that shit that occupies the WhiteHouse? Please? Can we do something about it? Now?
Impeach Bush NOW! And bundle the entire cabal up and send them to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes!!!
March 14th, 2006 at 1:46 pmBen,
We do care about polls. The only people who don’t want people to pay attention to polls are the right wingers who always look bad in polls.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:47 pmJUDD - Wasn’t CBS the liars that ran a story with fabricated documents.
You hold on to your polls Juddy, while I hold onto my congressional majorities. That’s what matters.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:51 pmRight wing so-called “conservative” Bushites are America’s enemies…
Progressives all over the world have a duty to make “conservative” a dirty word, much like they’ve tried to do with “liberal”…
…but this duty is much more compelling when one takes into account the TREASON being committed by Bushites who continue to support a president who has broken the law……with illegal wiretapping of American citizens…
…raided the U.S. treasury and continues to bankrupt the country and mortgage our future and the future of our progeny to our enemies…
…to finance an illegal, immoral and murderous war in Iraq…
George W. Bush and L’il Dick Cheney et al are TRAITORS…
…their followers are TRAITORS…
….their co-conspirators are TRAITORS…
…and these TRAITORS are your friends, neighbors and family members…
…you know who they are, and you must shun and ostracize them…
…they are the enemy, they are destroying our country and we must not let them off the hook…
March 14th, 2006 at 1:55 pmYes, this is good. But we do have to worry about the “infiniite regression” problem. At some point, we’re going to see a poll that asks the question:
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE MOST?:
– News reporting
March 14th, 2006 at 1:58 pm– Polls on issues reported in the news
– News reports citing poll results
– Media polls on the quality of media poll results
– News reports citing media polls on the quality of media poll results
– Blogosphere comments on news reports citing media polls on the quality of media poll results
– Polls on the validity of blogosphere comments on news reports citing media polls on the quality of media poll results
– Independent “blue ribbon” panel assessment of polls on the validity of blogosphere comments on news reports citing media polls on the quality of media poll results
– This poll
– A “Magic 8-Ball”
– The talking bronze head of Albertus Magnus
– Your lyin’ eyes
since things are so gosh darn good in Iraq let’s bring our troops home……now
March 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pmA minimum wage cashier at a local grocery store said something to me about Bush being “friends” with the “oil people”. If it’s sinking down that far, to those who voted for him twice because they believed in his ability to take care of them, then he is really screwed… About time America.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:12 pmWhy does the media hate King dumbya’s regime so?
Uhhh, Jeez..Maybe because his administration has shown a preferance for making shit up?
March 14th, 2006 at 2:15 pmFor what it’s worth, I believe it’s “Peters.”
March 14th, 2006 at 2:17 pmThe mainstream media like ABC, CBS, and especially NBC is lazy. They perscribe, as they always have, “if it bleeds it leads”.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:24 pmIt’s amazing that, after joking that the right woudl attack the integrity of the poll because CBS commissioned it, the right shows up and attacks the integrity of the poll.
(p.s. Thanks bones, fixed the spelling.)
March 14th, 2006 at 2:26 pm#13 Just lucky for George that EVERTHING is bleeding these days!
March 14th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#14 Judd: That was inevitable. The Freepi refuse to acknowledge “unhappy data.”
Hope you didn’t think I was piling on. Just cautioning against polls-about-polls or news-reports-about-news-reporting.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:37 pmIt’s amazing that, after joking that the right woudl attack the integrity of the poll because CBS commissioned it, the right shows up and attacks the integrity of the poll.
Comment by Judd — March 14, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I don’t know that this is entirely true… I think it is funny -in a sad sort of way.
What is amazing, though, is the highly predictable nature of the ThinkProgress-haunting trolls’ nincompoopery: No amount of evidence will ever sway them, and they cling to the flimsiest of hopes that Iraq is a success, as their fantasies would have it.
I wonder how many of them also believe the Earth is 8000 years old, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWHILE IRAQ REMAINS THE MOST SERIOUS OF ALL THE ISSUES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE WITH THIS PRESENT ADMINISTRATION, the “media’s description” of events there is among the least of all the issues the American People have with this present administration, or with the media itself.
And it’s not because I don’t care about the quality of the “media’s description” of events in Iraq, but because I don’t care for the “media’s description” of events taking place in Washington D.C., because the “media’s description” of the administration itself is so worthless (and yet they are so nearby); and so why would I care for that same “media’s description” of that same administration’s handiwork in Iraq (which is so far away).
Besides, why is it the American People need to hear reports of the “media’s description” of events in Iraq, when they just could have heard the President’s report on the matter just yesterday, from Washington D.C.; a report in which the themes of “promoting Democracy” and “advancing Liberty” were so much the mission of our Armed Forces in Iraq, that the speech itself was titled “President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Iraq”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2006/ 03/ 20060313-3.html
A report which I found troubling, not so much for the fact that the missions of “promoting Democracy” and “advancing Liberty” (impossible missions indeed, in Iraq) are being cleverly substituted for the statutory mission of H.J.Res.114, to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq (an impossible mission to now justify, based upon the incredible ‘pre-war intelligence’; but hey, that’s why we have the substitution of missions, isn’t it now)…
No, it was not so much the clever substitution of missions that I found troubling, it was what the President said when he said:
“On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.”
Because not only did I find it incredible that the President would yet again invoke 9-11 in this matter of Iraq, I found it incredible that he would link them in that way (unless the “oppressive state 7,000 miles away” he was referring to was Saudi Arabia, in which case I had wished he’d have said so).
And I found it both incredible and troubling that this could happen, and that the media would fail to describe it accurately, or to describe it at all.
And this, despite the closeness of the media to this administration, as close as was the President’s speech yesterday, in Washington D.C.
And so you see, I care nothing for the “media’s description” of things so far away as Iraq.
7,000 miles away, according to the President.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:40 pmBig Papa - actually, people like you should be wearing a t-shirt that says I Heart Stalin. The left’s track record on identifying evil is pretty bad. You have a habit of overlooking the real enemy as opposed to say, your own country. Don’t worry, thanks to the right, communism failed and the secret police weren’t able to go after your peasant family. And one day we’ll win the War on Terror and your wife won’t have to be clothed from head to toe.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#6, LWM
March 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pmYes, the CBS documents were dishonest, but what was CONTAINED in them was factual. The right wing media scooped up the story and focused on the documents, throwing everyone’s attention off the facts contained therein.
The issue of Bush’s service during the Viet Nam war is still unanswered - and with so many documents “msising” destroyed” or otherwise unavailable, the lie will stand.
Like so much of the GWB life story — lies, that remain standing due to extraordinary influences.
As for the admin. their toadies and lackeys complaining about the media, they are simply repeating an out-dated, inaccurate attack on the so-called liberal media. It is pretty well established that the media are all leaning, if not already full tilt, toward the right. There may be a few liberals writing op-ed pieces, but the media is owned and operated by corporate friends of the right wing.
Rummy and friends simply can’t stand that the facts are coming out, despite all the best efforts to squelch them.
And if the American public believed that the holocaust didn’t happen, that we never went to the moon and that corn flakes are made of shoe leather, that wouldn’t make it true. Would it?
And if it makes it “as good as true”, is that a good thing?
Oh well, I’m asking people to think critically when they are unaccustomed to the concept.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pmWhile the Bush minions defend the administration’s Iraq war policy for free, big corporate contractors from both sides of the Atlantic are (and will be) making hefty profits out of the Iraqis’ misery. From The Independent:
British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago, the first comprehensive investigation into UK corporate investment in Iraq has found.(…)
March 14th, 2006 at 2:55 pmThe findings show how much is stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq’s new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come.
The War Dividend: The British companies making a fortune out of conflict-riven Iraq
#10
When was the last time you saw a “W” sticker on the back of a vehicle?
March 14th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#19, you bonehead, communism didn’t fail, it was Leninism. There has NEVER been a truly communist society, which requires a successful capitalist state first, and obviously Russia didn’t meet that criteria. But if you knew the first thing about anything, you’d know that.
As for your “secret police” statement, I sit and stare in amazement at your outright stupidity. We already have secret home searches without a warrant; that’s been going on for a decade. Now we have warrantless arrests and detention without writs of habeas corpus or even a right to trial.
Just because you think they only happen to terrorists or brown-skinned people doesn’t mean YOUR name might not pop up because you made a big payment on a credit card bill that caught DHS’s attention or were named in error by a suspect.
But I guess you’ll say you don’t care because you didn’t do anything wrong. That’s typical of how far the conservative movement has strayed from its philosophical roots.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:03 pmOh and this report came from the Media who exaggerated the results (just practicing up for the RNC talking points we will be hearing)….LOL
Jamie
March 14th, 2006 at 3:08 pmhttp://www.intoxination.net
#19, you might find the history of the Spanish Civil War instructive - while most of the world applauded what Hitler did for Germany and American political and business eleites like Charles Lindbergh, Prescott Bush and Joe Kennedy hobnobbed and dealt with the Nazis while they built the concentration camps, the so-called progressive left, represented by people like George Orwell and others, put their lives on the line in the International Brigade against totalitariaism. They were right, they were in the fight years before the rest of the captialist world stood up and they risked their lives for it.
The Spanish Civil War was where Hitler inaugurated carper bombing against civilians as a terror tactic in Guernica and where Stalin capitalized on opposition to fascism by undermining the Republican effort with his own brand of communism - which turned out to be just a run of mill murderous dictatorship.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:09 pm“No, it was not so much the clever substitution of missions that I found troubling, it was what the President said when he said:
“On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.†”
Maybe Afghanistan?
March 14th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#20 -MARIE
You are exactly right. The documents that Rather had in his possession were copies of the originals and were true and correct copies, however, the rest of the press jumped on him saying he did not have authentic copies.
I have seen a bunch of those documents myself, in person. Items are blacked out, corners torn off, and attempts to erase words and comments.
One of the shrubs boys even went so far as to use white out on a sentence, and type over it!
Yes Marie, there are many holes in the Bush story of guard service. He deserted the guard for a long period of time and did not obtain permission for the move until some months later. He was grounded for failing to take a medical examination because he was warned that an integral part of the exam would be drug tests. That is when he bailed out. We all know why, dont we?
March 14th, 2006 at 3:15 pmTerryTurtle.
What do you expect from the average Troll, they think with a small list of simple concepts. You blasted the dumbass out of the water.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:25 pmA minimum wage cashier at a local grocery store said something to me about Bush being “friends†with the “oil peopleâ€. If it’s sinking down that far, to those who voted for him twice because they believed in his ability to take care of them, then he is really screwed… About time America.
Comment by unbelievable
Ohhhhh….just say to yourself….”I could’a had a Kerry”
March 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pmWhat do you expect from the average Troll, they think with a small list of simple concepts. You blasted the dumbass out of the water.
Comment by For Truth
But at least we think.
Oh, wait…Terry blasted somebody? This I gotta see.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOf course, CBS did the poll, so it’s probably making things out to be worse than they really are.
Judd
I’d “Rather” hear it from Fox if you don’t mind.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:40 pmIt’s amazing that, after joking that the right woudl attack the integrity of the poll because CBS commissioned it, the right shows up and attacks the integrity of the poll.
Comment by Judd
I thought CBS was part of the Right Wing owned MSM? Huh? WTF?
March 14th, 2006 at 3:42 pm[…] Read more Polls […]
March 14th, 2006 at 4:24 pmI wonder how many of them also believe the Earth is 8000 years old, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 14, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Wanna hear my latest? We just briefly discussed the Big Bang this week, and I was careful to express that it was a theory - though a theory in Science is not conjecture, but very educated information based on years of study and observation. Some of them started saying that it was just made up, and that the photos were hoaxes.
Anyone wanna recommend a good state for me to move to? I’m serious.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:40 pmOhhhhh….just say to yourself….â€I could’a had a Kerryâ€
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 14, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Then I never would have met you, IRI… and really, what is a woman’s life without a man to define her?
Please. Right now, I’d take a Ross Perot over Peeping George ;).
March 14th, 2006 at 4:42 pmUB, you could switch to geography - they need the help
Otherwise I think New Zealand looks good, that would be my tip.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:51 pmThanks Terry,
But it needs to be a U.S. State for the near future…
March 14th, 2006 at 5:25 pmSome of them started saying that it was just made up, and that the photos were hoaxes.
Anyone wanna recommend a good state for me to move to? I’m serious.
Comment by unbelievable — March 14, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
I know I am off-topic, but here I go nonetheless: This sounds a lot like the Moon Landing Hoax crowd, who think that the several Apollo lunar missions never really happened: Apollo moon landing hoax accusations
A state to move to? I would follow Ted Rall’s advice: Move to a coastal state.
Every day in America, hundreds of our most talented young men and women flee the suburbs and rural communities for big cities, especially those on the West and East Coasts. (…) These oases of liberal thinking–New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Boston–are homes to our best-educated people, most vibrant popular culture and most innovative and productive businesses.
March 14th, 2006 at 5:29 pmWin or Lose, Kerry Voters Are Smarter Than Bush Voters
I wonder how many of them also believe the Earth is 8000 years old, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 14, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
You guys always fall back on ad hominem, don’t you? Well here’s my take, and I heppen to believe in the Big Bang:
A poll that a mainstream media outlet takes to grade itself is just plain dumb. Do you honestly think they would have published this poll if an overwhelming majority thought CBS and the like weren’t accurate?
You always point to polls too to make your case. Like when the majority of Fox viewers though Iraq had WMDs, when in fact the poll didn’t clarify if they thought Iraq had WMDs at the time of invasion. Yes, they had stockpiles of WMDs. They just got rid of them. Fox viewers didn’t want to believe Iraq was as clean as the anti-war crowd made them out to be. So it was a lame argument.
Polls are like statisitcs. They can be interpretted a hundred different ways. Take them with a grain of salt.
Iraq is the BIG story. The economy is great, and there are no other major controversies, so the broken-record of the Iraq “debacle” is what we’re hearing.
March 14th, 2006 at 5:42 pmYou guys always fall back on ad hominem, don’t you? Well here’s my take, and I heppen to believe in the Big Bang:
Comment by Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
It is funny how you accuse people in this blog of ad hominem attacks, when we have to endure daily doses of hateful, racist, and overall vile personal insults from people who, like you, cannot accept even a mild criticism of your Supreme (mis)Leader.
Also, you do not “believe” in a scientific theory; you either accept it as a valid, accurate explanation of the world around you or you don’t. You cannot “believe” in it. It is not a religion.
A poll that a mainstream media outlet takes to grade itself is just plain dumb. Do you honestly think they would have published this poll if an overwhelming majority thought CBS and the like weren’t accurate?
So, the poll showing the majority are not buying the White House spin was published because the overwhelming majority would believe it is accurate -but somehow we must not trust this poll because… what?
Do you have a comment on the methodology?
You always point to polls too to make your case.
What case? Fact is the majority are not buying the White House spin anymore.
I will ask again: Do you have a comment on the methodology? Is it flawed? If so, how?
Iraq is the BIG story. The economy is great, and there are no other major controversies, so the broken-record of the Iraq “debacle†is what we’re hearing.
Interesting you chose to put the word debacle in quotes, as if you didn’t believe it is. Specially considering the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has said the Us invasion of Iraq has opened Pandora’s box -not exactly an upbeat assessment.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:34 pm#39
So what exactly makes this guy qualified to make any assumptions the blue states are better that red states considering he left when he was a boy? Also if all of the people on the east and west coast are half as big of an elitist jerk, as the guy is, why would anyone want to live there?
March 14th, 2006 at 6:50 pmThe Goebbels propaganda ministry is disintegrating.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:58 pmI know I am off-topic, but here I go nonetheless: This sounds a lot like the Moon Landing Hoax crowd, who think that the several Apollo lunar missions never really happened: Apollo moon landing hoax accusations
Oh yeah, I had a kid come tell me that one too. His ‘proof’ was silly things like the flag”flying” when it was really held straight out by a rod on top of a pole, and the supposed ‘waves’ were actually wrinkles that the unfurled flag did not have enough gravity to straighten out. Stuff like that that anyone with an education would understand.
A state to move to? I would follow Ted Rall’s advice: Move to a coastal state.
Win or Lose, Kerry Voters Are Smarter Than Bush Voters
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 14, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
I wasn’t very big on San Francisco. Didn’t connect to the culture and it was very expensive, so I didn’t get to do much but work and work to afford my apartment. Maybe Seattle would be a better fit?? I have friends there and with Global Warming it will soon be a bit warmer : )
The coastal state where I now live has gone blood red… And it’s just frustrating. Not even being able to talk about Science in a Science class without some static about the dinosaurs being a hoax as well… No wonder there’s a shortage.
Thanks for the info. I always value your two cents :)
March 14th, 2006 at 6:59 pm#41
“….you either accept it as a valid, accurate explanation of the world around you or you don’t.”
To truely accept something, for me at least, it has to be a proven fact. The Big Bang theory…all you can do is BELIEVE in it considering you can’t prove it.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:59 pmYou guys always fall back on ad hominem, don’t you? Well here’s my take, and I heppen to believe in the Big Bang:
Comment by Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
How is the 8,000 year old Earth ad hominem? It isn’t. It’s routinely spouted by “Creation Scientists” as the actual age of our planet. What Gregor was poiting out was not an attack, but simply a reiteration of claims made by so-called “Intelligent” Design “Scientists”.
Please, belief is for deities, not Scientific Theories. Don’t ruin Science too by trying to turn it into a religion.
March 14th, 2006 at 7:05 pmall you can do is BELIEVE in it considering you can’t prove it.
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Nothing in science is “proven”. Evidence points in a certain direction, and is used to draw conclusions. In the case of the Big Bang, the evidence although not overwhelming, is very good and supported by observable phenomena. The Wikipedia has a very good entry on the subject: Big bang
Again, you either accept a scientific theory as a valid explanation/description of the world around you, or you look for a different one. If what you want is a scientific one, it must be supported by whatever observations you make. If you need a theological one, well, then pick whatever makes you tick -and can believe in. You cannot believe in a scientific theory. You can believe in its validity, but not in it. It is not a religious dogma.
So, what about them polls?
March 14th, 2006 at 7:17 pmThanks for the info. I always value your two cents :)
Comment by unbelievable — March 14, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
You are very welcome ::blush:: ;-)
I love the coastal state where I live -although the area where I am is very expensive. Oh well. My state is supposed to be liberal, but…
My in-laws live in a smallish town about 100miles away. They think the media is too “librul” (except for Faux News and Rush Limbaugh), that the Bible is the literal word of God revealed, and that the world is 10,000 years old. I kid you not.
They belong to the 6% that believe things in Iraq are going very well, and the 3% that believe the US invaded that country to promote democracy (those pesky WMDs are not mentioned anymore, though I am sure they will be remembered again when my in-laws get wind of the “they were whisked off to Syria” spin).
Needless to say, our family reunions are very, umm, interesting.
March 14th, 2006 at 7:51 pmWhat case? Fact is the majority are not buying the White House spin anymore.
What fact? A poll is your fact? And you’re lecturing me about scientific theory??
A poll is evidence at best. It is evidence of a majority’s opinion (a plurality in this case). It is definitely not evidence of the reality of the situation in Iraq. If all those polled had been to Iraq, then it would be. There are opinions and then there are facts. I could ask 100 random people in LA who they think the best player in the NBA is, it doesn’t mean Kobe Bryant is going to end up being MVP if the Lakers can’t make the playoffs.
And this poll isn’t about the spin of the White House, which also can be spun (what this blog does). It’s about the accuracy of the media’s Iraq coverage. Who said believing the press and the president are mutually exclusive? The press usually is negative (if it bleeds, it leads), the president is usually positive (he’s an elected official after all). The reality is somewhere in between. (more say it’s showing the situation worse than it is than those who it’s showing it better)
Oh and sorry for not being technical, science nazi. I believe the theory of the Big Bang. Is that better?
March 14th, 2006 at 8:17 pmIt is definitely not evidence of the reality of the situation in Iraq.
Comment by Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Nor did I say it was. But fact remains the majority of the people surveyed do not believe the media is painting a gloomy picture of Iraq, as pointed by the poll, and contrary to Rumsfeld’s claim.
And this poll isn’t about the spin of the White House,
In a way it is. Rumsfeld is faulting the media for “exaggerating” Iraq’s problems, when most of the people surveyed said the media reports things accurately or better than they actually are.
It’s about the accuracy of the media’s Iraq coverage.
But the thread is also about what Rumsfeld said, aka, the White House spin.
Who said believing the press and the president are mutually exclusive?
Dunno -I didn’t. What I have said is that, when it comes to Iraq, the White House is losing credibility and their version of the story (spin) is no longer believable, as shown by the poll.
Oh and sorry for not being technical, science nazi. I believe the theory of the Big Bang. Is that better?
It took you two posts before launching your first ad hominem attack. How quickly you went from decrying it, to doing it… aaahh, the delights of a passive-aggressive personality.
Oh, and it is marginally better.
March 14th, 2006 at 8:37 pmWho said believing the press and the president are mutually exclusive?
Dunno…
That would be a rhetorical question. No need to answer it. Look, I can complain about the mainstream media only reporting negative events all day long but that’s the nature of the beast. If it bleeds it leads. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are intentionally painting a gloomy picture.
If all of those polled had access to alternative forms of media, whose membership doesn’t overwhelmingly consider themselves Liberal and is more representative of the popualtion, then I would accept this poll as a rejection of the White House’s spin. But the truth is that CBS is hearing their echo from the average American who has no idea of what’s going on in Iraq other than a lot of people getting blown up. They get no historical or political context either. How many people were brutalized and killed under Saddam? How many Iraqis feels that they are better off? If we leave Iraq, what happens? No it’s all people getting blown up. Does any “we need more troops” debate get out there? No. Because in the MS media’s mind, “we’ve lost, and who cares if Iraq turn into Talibania, just as long as our anti-Bush anti-war stance is validated”.
It took you two posts before launching your first ad hominem attack. How quickly you went from decrying it, to doing it… aaahh, the delights of a passive-aggressive personality.
It was’t ad hominem because it was alluding to your intolerance of my grammatical error. Besides, I only decried using ad hominem in place of an argument. That apparently comes easier to you, since you had no problem mislabeling my personality when it wasn’t justified.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:44 pmBut the truth is that CBS is hearing their echo from the average American who has no idea of what’s going on in Iraq other than a lot of people getting blown up.
Comment by Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
True as this might be, fact remains the majority thinks the media are reporting the situation in Iraq either accurately or better than it actually is. Not worse.
They get no historical or political context either. How many people were brutalized and killed under Saddam? How many Iraqis feels that they are better off? If we leave Iraq, what happens?
This is such a weak argument. What you are saying is, in a nutshell, that the US occupation is not as bad as Saddam’s regime was.
You know you are in trouble when you compare your human rights record to that of a thug.
Because in the MS media’s mind, “we’ve lost, and who cares if Iraq turn into Talibania, just as long as our anti-Bush anti-war stance is validatedâ€.
Read the topic of the thread again. Slowly this time. Most people think the media are portraying the situation accurately or better than it actually is. Not worse. If what you are saying were true, most people would think the media exaggerate the situation in Iraq -just like Rumsfeld said. That is not the case.
If you think the media are anti-Bush, you may want to read this interview with Keith Olbermann
t was’t ad hominem because it was alluding to your intolerance of my grammatical error. Besides, I only decried using ad hominem in place of an argument.
Calling someone a Nazi qualifies as an ad hominem.
Saying that some people believe the Earth is 8,000 years old does not.
I personally know a few who think our planet is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. A few of the conservative visitors to this blog subscribe to that notion as well.
In my own personal experience (completely unscientific), the more conservative and Bible literalist people are, the more likely they are to support Pres Bush’s policies no matter what.
Also, pointing out an error is not “intolerance”. Calling you names and asking for laws be passed to ban your set of beliefs is.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:34 pmRead the topic of the thread again. Slowly this time. Most people think the media are portraying the situation accurately or better than it actually is.
Look at the poll results again. Carefully this time. Of the majority of people who don’t think the media are portraying the situation accurately, a lot more think they are portraying it worse than those those who think they are portraying it better. Why am I supposed to go along with the minority that believes the media is being accurate?
See, poll numbers can be spun as well.
And about the science nazi comment, it was a reference to the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld. I was not calling you a nazi, although there are some on the Left who are just as intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:47 pmSee, poll numbers can be spun as well.
Comment by Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
Once again, you are ignoring the topic of the thread.
Rumsfeld criticised the media for exaggerating the problems in Iraq. Had people bought into his spin, most would think the media portray things in a worse light. That is not the case.
Of those polled, the majority think the media are reporting the situation accurately. An additional 24% think the media is giving the news a positive spin -they think the situation is worse than what they see on TV, read on the newspapers or the Internet.
Again, if people agreed with Rumsfeld then the majority would think the news are slanted to make things look bad for the administration. That is not what is happening.
there are some on the Left who are just as intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
Well, at least you are not saying Nazism is a leftist ideology -another favorite of the conservative visitors to this blog.
Once again, pointing out an error is not intolerance. Disagreeing isn’t either. Don’t expect your errors and inaccurate statements go unchallenged.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:26 amWhat a surprise. Another poll heavily weighted in democrats. It was fairly spread when the poll was unweighted, then they give democrats a 60pt handicap. It’s a sham poll.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:00 amgothic, what exactly do you mean? Could people who considered themselves conservatives but not republicans be considered democrats in this poll?
March 15th, 2006 at 8:11 amNeedless to say, our family reunions are very, umm, interesting.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 14, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
At least it’s your in-laws :) This is the mentality of many of my relatives… And we hail from a very Blue State. Odd.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:54 amThese trolls. . . we’ve had ONE attack and it’s like the world ended. Meanwhile, Iraq, with (1/8 ??) the geographical size of the USA and with 1/10 (?) the population, has, in effect, a 9/11 casualty amount every couple of weeks.
I think if there were attacks in the US that killed 30-40 people every other day, that would be at the top of FOX news programming instead of whether a new school was built or other “good news.”
Now. . . as far as I’m concerned, I haver rationally answered — and destroyed– the “no good news from Iraq, boo-hoo” talking point. Trolls are such idiots.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:10 am#57. . . I don’t even talk to my two brothers. They get purple-in-the-face mad when we talk politics. And they’re even dumber on the issues than any troll here. . . well, most trolls, anyway. . .
March 15th, 2006 at 9:14 am#47
“Nothing in science is “provenâ€.”
When experiments are performed and data is collected from a scientific experiment things are proven to be true. Certain aspects of science are are base on theories for the simple fact that they can’t be proven.
The genesis of the Big Bang theory is illogical on it’s face. Time is without beginning and without end, even from the most basic logical standpoint. This is the only problem that I have with the Big Bang therory….time. Everything after the “big bang” I do in fact think is correct and very logical.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:30 amThe genesis of the Big Bang theory is illogical on it’s face. Time is without beginning and without end, even from the most basic logical standpoint.
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 9:30 am
Like other scientific theories it too is an evolving theory. Relativity and Quantum Physics do not meet in the middle - yet. This is another problem of the Big Bang. Some day we might know, but I accept that there are things we might not have the ability to know because we are just a miniscule part of a very, very large equation.
I have problems with the Big Bang, but I believe it doesn’t invalidate the entire theory. It’s, so far, the best educated guess we have. Even certain religions accept it, they just put God as the catalyst instead of “Unknown” or “TBD”
March 15th, 2006 at 9:45 am#50
“In a way it is. Rumsfeld is faulting the media for “exaggerating†Iraq’s problems, when most of the people surveyed said the media reports things accurately or better than they actually are.”
How do we know really know what the situation in Iraq actually is, considering the only thing the the media really reports on is the bloodshed most of the time? In turn the troops get pissed off because the same media doesn’t report on HARDLY ANY of the good things that they are doing.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:26 am#58
I wonder when Sadamm was in control of Iraq how many people died every week from either his well documented neglect of his people or those he just simply had murdered? Why does everyone here seem to think that the regular slaughter of Iraqis was anything other than routine while Sadamm was in charge?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:56 am#61 You know its funny you bring that up, how things don’t seem to change about this, ‘We don’t understand it, so it must be and ‘Act of God’ - quick, get your bibles out brothers’ hoohah. So there I was, looking up at Jupiter with my telescope like you do, watching those four little points of light whizz around it every so often and I found my self wondering whether that had anything to do with the crazy wandering about the sky Jupiter did, and Venus, and Mars. I mean the planets lurch about the sky like I do on my way back from Florence Piazza on a Friday night. And I thought to myself, ‘Hey, my Polish bud, Copernicus (or ‘Nick the Polack’ to his homies) had been reading these far-out Arabic astronomy texts on heliocentricity, you know that the sun is the center of the Universe and all that - maybe there’s something in that’. So I got out my compass and paper and let ‘Euclid do the walking’, as we say in the 16th century. So sure enough, putting the Sun at the center of the universe and earth as rotating around it explained all the drunkeness I’d observed in the sky.
Unfortunately, I’m right there in the middle of the Reformation and despite that my old drinking pal is now the Pope, he’s become all anally-retentive about any idea that might displace man from his place as a divine creation and that all this earth, sky, planets stuff is just there to prove to him that the Church has the final say in everything and that whatever the Church has said about the natural world through the Bible is 100% on-the-money, no fallibility, talking donkeys and all.
Anyhoo, cut a long story short, I run my mouth off that the Earth revolves around the Sun, my old china the Pope gets wound up that I’ve just set fire to the ‘truthiness’ of the Bible and promises to set fire to me (after he’s had someone inspect the insides of my bum with something hot). Apparently when science threatens the Bible, people get a bit snaky - who knew? Well, I’m not the martyr type so I cave in right (but I cross my fingers and mutter that ‘it does move’ in my final trial, so I fooled those bastards?).
Oh where was I? Getting a bit forgetful after 400 years, sorry. My point? Yes. you know if the Pope had been able to suppress science in the discovery of the truths of the natural world in my time, what state would you be in today? Still sticking flowers up your noses to ward off the pox no doubt (that always cracked me up). So why is all this Bible thumping still going on? After my work finally got out, that conceited git Newton did some neat stuff, then that old Kraut Einstein and next thing you know, some farm boy from Ohio is on the moon! But I mean giving that nice chap Hawking a hard time is a bit off since he;s said that the Big Bang says nothing about God’s non-existence and I bet if some of you could find Darwin’s body, you’d dig it up and drag it around Kansas behind a pick-up truck. The dude was mostly right, and sorry if that means that funny feeling you get looking at the gorilla cage at the zoo flies in the face of Leviticus chapter whosit, verse whatsit, then tough t**ties to you fish-face.
For Christ’s sake, if God had the grace to make man a critical thinker, don’t you deny God by turning your brains off? Anyway, must dash, good show on the Discovery Channel coming on.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:25 am#63 You are merely a Bush apologist and he does need to apologize. However, your wondering and posting about wondering is wasteful and uninformative. You wonder? Why don’t you go get some facts and post them. Better yet, just go inform yourself. Your “cipherin’” is to simplified. Sometimes you have to look beyond what you are told. I know, it may be unsettling, but you are doing your country a disservice to not question your administration, per George Washington, if you remember him.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:42 amFor Christ’s sake, if God had the grace to make man a critical thinker, don’t you deny God by turning your brains off? Anyway, must dash, good show on the Discovery Channel coming on.
Comment by Galileo Galilei — March 15, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Thanks for the laugh…
I’d share it with my class, but I’m sure I’d get fired for it.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#57. . . I don’t even talk to my two brothers. They get purple-in-the-face mad when we talk politics. And they’re even dumber on the issues than any troll here. . . well, most trolls, anyway. . .
Comment by ElectricBassPlayer — March 15, 2006 @ 9:14 am
You know, having been raised in a Republican family (although I’ve recently realized that my mother was actually as much of a Progressive as she was capable of getting away with, which is probably why I am a liberal), I still don’t understand the mindset of that side of the fence. I know fear has a lot to do with it, but at some point, at least for me, the fear isn’t great enough to stop the human mind from questioning those supposed unquestionables and then watching the whole thing fall apart.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:33 pmYou wait until we get Einstein on here. He’s a hoot. He’s got some burr in his bum about Star Trek breaching some copyright, but otherwise he’s an OK coot.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:36 pmYou wait until we get Einstein on here. He’s a hoot. He’s got some burr in his bum about Star Trek breaching some copyright, but otherwise he’s an OK coot.
Comment by Galileo Galilei — March 15, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
I can’t wait! :)
March 15th, 2006 at 12:41 pmYou know I always thought I should have been on that Star Trek episode, that one where Data is playing poker with Einstein, Hawking and Newton. But that ponce Newton slept with one of the producers and that was that.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#58 - “These trolls. . . we’ve had ONE attack and it’s like the world ended.”
March 15th, 2006 at 12:51 pm- insightful comment by Electric Bass
*****My guess….the bong has taken it’s toll….I guess you don’t RECALL the first attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya or Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, the foiled millenium attacks….Nah…just a series of coincidences….
Certain aspects of science are are base on theories for the simple fact that they can’t be proven.
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 9:30 am
I cannot believe I have to explain this. You say “certain aspects”. My reply to you is: Almost everyting in science is a theory. Here is why.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, a scientific theory is not a guess, or speculation. A scientific theory is a model of reality, an explanation of the world around us.
All the evidence collected, all the observed phenonema lead to certain conclusions that are summarised in a self-consistent model of reality: A scientific theory.
Beyond the Big Bang, other scientific theories include: Universal gravitation theory, acoustics theory, plate tectonics theory, and germ theory . What a surprise -gravity, sound, earthquakes, and viruses are “just theories”!
You can choose to believe that things fall due to “intelligent falling”, that the sound is not propagated by waves, that giant snakes cause the ground to shake, and that sickness is a punishment from God. That would be preposterous, but you can choose to do it.
You are probably wondering “hasn’t gravity been ‘proven’?”. Well no, it hasn’t. All the evidence points to it. There is no doubt it exists. We witness it effects on a daily basis. But gravity as such has not been “proven”. We can perform experiments to collect evidence and that still doesn’t “prove” it: We could still be wrong. It might just be -just might- that things fall due to “intelligent falling”. Also, in our search for an explanation, we don’t know exactly how, why gravity works. Hence the need to build a model of reality that is self-consistent and that explains all observable phenomena: A theory.
Same exact reasoning is valid for germs. Continental drift. Atoms.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pmBeyond the Big Bang, other scientific theories include: Universal gravitation theory, acoustics theory, plate tectonics theory, and germ theory . What a surprise -gravity, sound, earthquakes, and viruses are “just theoriesâ€!
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 15, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Though gravity being a theory gets my high schoolers, it will probably surprise some folks to know that math is also a theory. Funny how much resistance I get to the latter one. Even after saying “Then go get me a two.”
You know Gregor, you’d make a great teacher if you ever get the inkling to do so :)
March 15th, 2006 at 1:32 pm“A scientific theory is a model of reality, an explanation of the world around us.”
…based on what we think happened or will happen under certain conditions. It’s a educated guess. Lets not get into semantics here.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:42 pmSo, its OK not to say two hail marys and kill a chicken everytime I turn on a light switch? Maxwell’s equations are just a theory after all.
Hey Galileo, do you fancy Italy for the World Cup this year or not?
March 15th, 2006 at 1:51 pm“Why don’t you go get some facts and post them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam’s_Iraq
BTW YOU are an apologist for Saddam and his regime.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:51 pmbased on what we think happened or will happen under certain conditions.
It’s a educated guess. Lets not get into semantics here.
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
A scientific theory is based on observable phenomena -like the Germ Theory. Or the Gravitation Theory. Or the Atom Theory.
“What will happen” makes a scientific theory more robust, since any (scientific) theory must be predictive.
And what I explained is not semantics. From the wikipedia:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.(…)
So one can see how a theory is a model of reality that explains certain scientific facts yet may not be a true picture of reality and another more accurate theory can later replace the previous model.
Theory
Scientific theory: A self-consistent model for describing the behavior of a natural phenomenon that has never been falsified, and a model of reality.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:15 pmAs someone who has lived outside of the US for the last 10 years (England and South Africa) i have found this discussion amazing, from both sides. Calling the US a police state is funny, i have been amazed at how free Americans are. I had forgotten.
Conerning Bush, i can’t see where he is any better or worse than anyone. All politicians are scum and out for themselves. The big difference i see is that in the US we can talk about it, even more so than in England and cerainly South Africa, even with its good constitution.
I find the most discouraging thing about the US is the intolerance of the right and left. Conservatives believe in a true or false world and are intolerant. Liberals are intolerant in their tolerance, and there is no right or wrong, just your own feeling. To me both sides miss it.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:22 pmYou know Gregor, you’d make a great teacher if you ever get the inkling to do so :)
Comment by unbelievable — March 15, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Thanks. Coming from you, it is a compliment but I don’t think I have the patience.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pm“So one can see how a theory is a model of reality that explains certain scientific facts yet may not be a true picture of reality and another more accurate theory can later replace the previous model.”
In other words a theory can evolve IF and WHEN more reliable or concrete evidence is introduced. To me that means that a theory is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable, i.e. we really don’t know…for sure.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:57 pm#80, doesn’t mean to say that a theory is useless because it does not fully describe the natural world. It’s how we use our theories and what we do with the gaps in our theories that make the difference. For example, Newton’s law of gravity is wrong - it had in it the seemingly illogical premise that a body over there could exert an unseen force on another over there at an inverse square of the distance between. What transmitted the force? He didn’t know - he gave up and said God does it. Now Einstein came up with a better theory that explained all of Newtonian gravitation and the illogical premise - curved space-time. But what did the Apollo astronauts do? They went with Newton’s equations because they were good enough ‘for government work’.
Now do I like Newton, throw my hands up in the air and say ‘God granted us a miracle’ when the tornado rips through my neighbor Bubba’s trailer instead of mine (ignoring the supreme arrogance that God would spare me over Bubba), or do I take Chuck Yeager’s approach when confronted with the sound barrier and put the ‘heel to the steel’ and find the answer to why my theory have seemingly illogical or unexplainable end cases? The so-called science of Intelligent Design tells us what the answer of organized religion is to that question.
Religion’s contribution to science are the shackles of ignorance tying down a philosophy of discovery. It has always been and always will be.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:28 pmTo me that means that a theory is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable, i.e. we really don’t know…for sure.
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
You are trying really hard to make a scientific theory into a conjecture, speculation, or wild guess. It isn’t. A scientific theory is supported by the evidence. The more favorable evidence, the more confirmed a theory becomes. Scientific theories are the best model of reality we have at our disposal.
A scientific theory does not seek to explain the unexplainable, don’t be ridiculous. That’s an illogical statement and an oxymoron. What it does try to explain are observed phenomena, by natural, physical means. Things we know happen. Things for which we have evidence, aka, facts.
Scientific theories do change, obviously, if conflicting evidence is introduced. That is the beauty of science. If the explanation does not fit the facts, then the explanation must be changed to include the new evidence since a scientific theory is -by its very nature- descriptive. What would you think of someone who ignores the evidence when trying to explain an observed phenomena? Wouldn’t you think they are, well, deranged?
And no, we will never know anything for sure. Ever. Not every aspect of everything in the universe will ever be explained 100%. It is simply not possible. You are asking science to reach a goal that is not attainable. What we can do is build models of reality in order to explain, understand, and explore our universe. Plus, the fact that gravity is “just a theory” doesn’t make you want to jump off a tall building, right? Or does it?
March 15th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#82, a couple of hail marys and another dead chicken and I’ll be just fine - how many floors?
March 15th, 2006 at 5:06 pmReligion’s contribution to science are the shackles of ignorance tying down a philosophy of discovery. It has always been and always will be.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — March 15, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Plus, the fact that gravity is “just a theory†doesn’t make you want to jump off a tall building, right? Or does it?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 15, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
I really love you guys ;) It’s so nice to be around sanity and common sense on such a regular basis.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#82
“You are trying really hard to make a scientific theory into a conjecture, speculation, or wild guess.”
No I am not. I am just saying that a theory does not have to be accepted as fact. You might have already stated that. Like you said a theory TRIES to explain are observed phenomena.
“A scientific theory does not seek to explain the unexplainable, don’t be ridiculous.”
You are right my mistake. Let me restate: A scientific theory is an attempt to explain the unknown or unproven.
“And no, we will never know anything for sure. Ever. Not every aspect of everything in the universe will ever be explained 100%. It is simply not possible.”
That is all I have been trying to convey here…for a while now. It is OK for we as humans to say we don’t really know for sure how the universe started or that time speeds up as we approach the speed of light or that humans decended from apes, ect….
March 15th, 2006 at 5:29 pmTerry -that was funny. Really funny ;-)
Unbelievable -Thanks. Trying to stay sane is a full-time job nowadays.
Tracy -what can I say? You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like. But if the explanation of an observed phenomenon (aka fact) built upon the best available evidence, and confirmed over and over again, does not make you think there must be something to it, then… well, why even bother? Things don’t fall to the ground, the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe, the gods make people ill, and let’s all go back to our caves and pray to the rain god or something… I give up…
March 15th, 2006 at 6:09 pmI’m frankly unconvinced that any of the caves I can see across on the other side of my valley are capable of supporting life.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:30 pm“You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like.”
This has nothing to do with accepting things I don’t like. It has to do with not accepting things that have NOT been observed, i.e. the “Big Bang” was not observed. You yourself said that science can’t and will never be able to explain all of the unanswered questions of the universe.
“But if the explanation of an observed phenomenon (aka fact) built upon the best available evidence, and confirmed over and over again, does not make you think there must be something to it”
Not all explanations of an observed phenomenon are AKA facts, even if they are built upon the best avaliable evidence. How do you come to the conclusion that a human produced explanation of a phenomenon that has not been observed is AKA fact?
March 15th, 2006 at 6:50 pm#81
I never said that theories are useless, just the theories are base on limited information and knowledge.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:08 pmHow do you come to the conclusion that a human produced explanation of a phenomenon that has not been observed is AKA fact?
Comment by Tracy — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
I didn’t -observed phenomenon is aka fact.
Also, other phenomena have not been observed either. Gravity, for instance, has not been observed. No, seeing an apple fall from a tree is not observing gravity, but its effects on the apple. We infer the existence of gravitational forces due to their effects on us, and everything around us -like the apple. Same for atoms. Neutrons. Electricity. Magnetic fields. These have never been observed either, but we have plenty of evidence they exist.
So, you don’t accept the existence of things that have not been directly observed, eh?
March 15th, 2006 at 7:18 pm#90 not when it was supposed to have happened billions of years ago. and science can be manipulated just like anything else. cloning anyone?
March 15th, 2006 at 8:25 pmThis is off-subject, but #91 sort of broughtn it up:
March 15th, 2006 at 10:31 pmAdvances in science are incremental. When I was a child, I could watch an electron beam vary as the inputs to the grids modulated the electron stream in an imperfectly evacuated vacuum tube. By about 1955, there were near perfect vacuum tubes. Guess what? An invention from 1949 came into focus as the transistor came into the fray. Problem was that there were five to six mechanical joints in each transistor. Viola - the integrated circuit, only mechanical joints were in the external connections. Later came the invention of the micro-chip. What this has spawned is that a computer from the mid sixties that would require millions of mechanical connections or it’s equivalent of the fifties (if it could have been produced) that would have required trillions of mechanical connections is a multifold increase in reliability in today’s machines where only a few thousand mechanical connections are required.
I just repoped (Tubes and electrolytic capacitors) my EICO Williamson power amp at a cost of $4000. Doesn’t sound as crisp as my BOSE, but the music seems to flow smoother in the Willie. So much for progress.
#90
“I didn’t -observed phenomenon is aka fact.”
“So, you don’t accept the existence of things that have not been directly observed, eh?”
Yes I do, but AGAIN remember I am talking about the Big Bang itself, i.e. the “event”…something that WAS NOT been observed. Also remember I am not debating with you about the subsequent events after the “big bang”, I am debating the premise or the event itself, which leads to the notion that there was nothing before the “big bang”, which to any logical person is illogical. If you can prove the time is a finite dimension, then entire idea this “event” is plausible. Again I think we as humans DO NOT know how the universe “started”….if it did at all.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:46 amI am debating the premise or the event itself, which leads to the notion that there was nothing before the “big bangâ€, which to any logical person is illogical. If you can prove the time is a finite dimension, then entire idea this “event†is plausible. Again I think we as humans DO NOT know how the universe “startedâ€â€¦.if it did at all.
Comment by Tracy — March 16, 2006 @ 10:46 am
There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
* The BBT [Big Bang Theory] is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
* BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
* The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): “That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an ‘explosion’ - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.” (…)
The simplest description of the theory would be something like: “In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler.”
TalkOrigins: Evidence for the Big Bang
(…)the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Virtually all theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:04 pmHuge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as that from COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Such data has allowed cosmologists to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to a new level of precision and led to the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. (See dark energy.)
Wikipedia: Big Bang
#94
“the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.”
Then we don’t have a debate here and we probably wasted our time and effort really debating….well nothing. Although I thought I made it rather clear early on that I was not disagreeing with the evolution of the universe over time as presented by the Big Bang Theory.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:25 pm“Our” Universe is but a pimple in time. The black hole that contains us will continue for trillions of years. The Universe as we know it will dissipate into stellar dust sometime in the next seventy five billion years. I don’t really care about that as I probably be dead by then. But that basically describes W’s position on the environment.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:09 pm[…] Sixty percent of Americans believe that the media is reporting things in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. Just 29% approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. But if you watched today’s “townhall” event with President Bush you’d never know it. […]
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm[…] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. […]
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:52 pm[…] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. […]
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:16 pm[…] So far, the public isn’t buying the spin: 60 percent of Americans believe that the media are reporting events in Iraq either accurately or better than they really are. And they’re right. Eyewitness accounts both by the Bush administration and by journalists on the ground back up the media’s perspective of the chaos and refute the right-wing’s claims of journalistic neglect: State Department Human Rights Practices report on Iraq, 3/8/06: [A] climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons. … Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. An illustrative list of these attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence. […]
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm