Sigh the US firearms ARGUMENT

Folks the problem with this argument (and it is that) is that the conservatives (sic) are arguing by non existent extremes or absolutes.
e.g. I challenge ANY conservative to give me ANY right (sic) that is ABSOLUTE !
We all drive vehicles but we must comply with rules and be licensed and If I'm drunk high I'm not allowed to drive and what's more my right (sic) to drive can be taken from me.
As for freedom of speech that two is controlled e.g. if I were to write and publish a book that describes a incestuous relationship between Mary (the Mary and JC ) what are the bets I'd be allowed to sell it, even if it was attached to a good story and well written Hmmm?
We don't even have the right to die (euthanasia) much less help a suffering terminally ill loved one to. Yet the conservatives want the unrestricted right to bear arms and to kill someone who we think is up to no good
(Trayvon Martin come to mind.) with impunity no less... can anyone see the problem here.
 As for abortions same deal.
What the conservatives really mean is we want to impose our (inconsistent/ hypocritical) views on others who aren't like them. The same goes for wars of commercial interest (sorry self defence(sic) i.e. Iraq, Haiti et al) . It's been a long time since I left the seminary but I don't remember the Christian dictum that says 'love thy neighbor/enemy then kill them, appropriate their resources and ensure their poverty. But I digress.
In truth there are no absolute rights they are all modified by virtue of living in an ordered/ civilised society.
So let's stop with the BS about my rights to absolute anything and get real. Lets try to figure out the most appropriate place to draw the line (for the good of the country) .

Neither side is saying take ALL fire arms nor is any side saying no more vehicles so stop with the BS about slippery slope (domino effect the justifying argument for Vietnam). I've lived in Australia and only an ignorant fool would say it's a socialist country and the citizens don't have fire arms or 'hunters'. Absolute rubbish just certain 'types' of weapons the latter still exist. What's the difference between the need for semi automatic weapons and having a formula 1 race vehicle for my daily drive and at its optimum speed e.g brakes don't work properly until near full power. ...none Both are ridiculous in most citizen situations .
While we're on Australia let's revisit the stats in the article. What they don't show is how and what was collected they all use official stats. BUT the data collected doesn't differentiate between accidental shooting merely fire arm deaths nor does it go into who is shooting who ...(for example figures collected other than police or hospital stats) indicate that 80% of criminal murders are actually criminal against criminal. Likewise bystander deaths can be counted on one hand over the last 15 years. Drive by shooting deaths are rare and innocents from them rarer still!

What the bald stats don't show is that MASS shootings of INNOCENTS take your pick be it a theatre, school , McDonalds etc haven't happened since John Howard a “Liberal Party” PM (read essentially conservative side ...supposedly Republican lite) brought in the firearm control and buy back. (note the conservative American tactic of misappropriation of the term Liberal and how this excludes a whole set of language and options ).
In short it all depends on what you want to achieve ...Australia just wanted to preclude mass shooting of innocents and REDUCE the availability of weapons to those most likely to do harm. The drop in gun related suicides is a bonus. Whether it on it's own reduced suicides I DON'T KNOW. What I as a volunteer crisis intervention counsellor it does give time to activate appropriate help.

What WASN'T on the agenda was total weapons ban or to absolutely stop violence. Neither was/is ever going to happen by one magic bullet (excuse the pun) . Those are too complex.
My point as stated comes down to this: which would you (as a parent) rather hear in the news.
1. Young man goes nuts and stabs mother or
2. some young man has gone nuts at your child's school and killed perhaps 20 children end 8 adults?
BTW Australian schools don't have and don't need lock ins, metal detectors, or armed anything no need. These events are as rare as kangaroo rodeos. There hasn't been one yet.
Aust. has its problems violence murder et al but in 99% of the time having weapons wouldn't stop them AND the the real nasties i.e. mass shootings of innocents just is not a factor there.

Sports boycott of Sri lanka

While I applaud the people who Get excited and want to sports boycott Sri Lanka for it's horrific crimes at the end of  decades long civil war I'm a little more pragmatic these days.
I need to explain what I mean by that. In NO WAY can it be seen as indifference, acceptance or 'the blind eye'. There is no way I'll ever accept that their actions were anything less than Genocide of the worst kind and should be appalled.

I simply mean that there needs to be and end game beyond the tactic i.e. what is it beyond the banning of sporting ties are you trying to achieve?
Taking Sri Lanka victors to the HAIG ? to what end? Cumbs, the those behind the Killing fields in Cambodia, SA apartheid hardly got touched. The estimated 4-6 million in Indonesia when Sukarno took over and the Suharto regime's are the stuff of definitions of hell on earth.... East Timor being classic yet in all cases the villains have prospered and even some military are still doing the same again in West Papua . Neither does this litany of man's inhumanity to man and corporate acquiescence, participation or tacit culpability in any way ooze out of the primordial slime of obscenity.

Notwithstanding no amount of vengeance/ justice et al is going to reverse a single death. I posit that unless there is an end game (i.e. a greater good) stirring up sectarian, ethnic, religious hostilities is counter productive to ALL Sri Lankans that struggle to survive TODAY. Esoteric(western sensibilities ) Principal is a luxury many can't afford. Keep in mind that South African poverty by and large while Truly awful isn't as appalling dangerous and severe as in Sri Lanka.



In all of this the Tamil tigers weren't exactly paragons of virtue either, their crimes against innocent people even their own were equally despicable. So where do we draw the line on prosecutable (revenge) atrocities? IMHO that is both a pit of quicksand and vipers after all people will be people regardless of an agreement on paper.

And don't forget the Apartheid was still happening and condemnation was at the national level global ... if not entirely corporately... different circumstances (world) and most importantly the boycott had a Practical END game.
To me the real effort should go into making it know to Sri Lanka we are aware of the killings and work towards it never happening again.

I'm sure if you asked the surviving Tamils if they preferred ' justice' and the probable violence and instability push back by those with something to lose OR (albeit slow and spasmodic) improving conditions now on the answer would be a no brainer.

Keep in mind human nature, i.e.  many prefer a harsh stability to Chaos and instability.
It is too easy for us in our assumed arrogance comfort expansive lifestyles to philosophise and project them on the mass peasants whose primary goal is immediate survival.

A Chinese Modern leader once wisely said "with 1 billion poor starving peasants we can't afford western democracy (consumerist excess consumption) ....first feed them " .
Likewise that same leader when berated by the US prez for not letting his people leave China he quipped "ok how many million do you want"
Be careful what you wish for the consequence may not be that palatable.

To drone or not to drone and why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDErbA_rsgM&feature=player_embedded

To me this whole topic reads like a latter day Federico Fellini version of Machiavelli's 'The Prince' gone wrong.

It is clear to see why Obama has taken this line ....simply put it stops or slows the secret pictures of returning US military coffins. So unpopular with Joe and Joan Average and let's not forget it robs the rabid peace-niks from their effective focal point. The USA is between a rock and a hard place largely of its own making

National Pride is based on a palpable lie. That of the 1940's mentality, to be the biggest power in the world all they need is the biggest military to back expansionist grab of world resources. Which in turn makes them the largest economy which allows them the best living standard and the biggest military. With being the biggest the corporatist golden rule applies i.e. "he who has the gold rules!" and that means making the rules to suit that end, political expedience, obfuscation, hair spitting , deception, if all else fails claim exceptionalism. After all who is going to object to the largest military force?

A truism of power nothing bring a disparate group together better than a common enemy. First it was communism now ....well terrorism. Pity about morality, equity and democracy that must be curbed for Security . This of course ignores the wise words " those who sacrifice freedoms for security invariably end's up with neither". Sadly 911 and the ensuing quicksand wars clearly illustrate that.

The problem is that the US military war machine is designed to fight massed battle field wars (so 1940's) . the only thing they learned from Vietnam was the 1933+ Nazi propaganda conditioning of it's public.

As they say 'after a common enemy nothing else motivates better than self interest'.

The USA has enjoyed the fruits of their hegemonic empire and been conditioned by its media which is little short of but marginally more sophisticated than Herr Goebels.

It should be of no surprise that this propaganda conditioning is a consequence of Corporate MSM desire for the profit and its invariable route pandering to the emotions and comfort of the masses rather than objectively showing the public an accurate reflection of it's self rather than deliberate conspiratorial intent. That came with the political system that has been bought by those with the most to lose at the hands of change.

The public now believe beyond almost any level of serious doubt that the health of their depends on the success of their corporation influenced government ergo their 'lifestyle' (to me an [dis]honorary four letter word). As the FIRST, most important, 'exceptional' nation.

Under this conditioning they are Right (justified) in all they do to protect that status. It is so entrenched into the average American psyche arguing with them by presenting reality the facts simply makes one an undesirable and if severely enough believed the dissenter becomes a target for the myriad of Alphabet soup of 'security organisations' and maybe on some matrix. Ergo drone attacks.

The nearest analogy is a version of the way the Japanese are (not) dealing with their WW2 atrocities in as much the core of the USA citizens never really hear objective reporting nor will they accept their compliance if not culpability for the list of atrocities done in their names.

What isn't discussed in this video is that because of USA's exceptionism (i.e. it have veto in the UN it doesn't accept the international court and it is the biggest military) who at the end of the day is going to enforce any adverse findings?

One should never forget “world pressure ?” is unlikely to achieve the significant changes in the core of the US voters to make any realistic changes in their foreign policy or the protectionism of their perceived rights to that exceptionalism. Objectively one only needs to consider the USSR (the only other mega power).

Contrary to US dogma it wasn't the skill of Reagan that caused its demise ...in reality it collapsed under its own weight of military expenditure and administrative sclerosis.

I detect the same sclerotic cracks forming in the US monolith. One only needs to look at its budget, its mounting military related cost cracks ( the drones are the other reason for their escalated deployment and proliferation) . Mankind being the perverse inventive entity it is one can or should sensibly ask how soon before there is anti drone technology …. (anti drone drones?) Micro electronic technology being what what it is, all those qualified computer/technologists that are un or under- employed in “the non US GOVERNMENT friendly nations” and with Moore's law firmly in mind, not that long. Of course how long before crude versions are cobbled together by the disaffected are brought into play?

The question is how many unnecessary deaths will there be before the crash or some conditioned terrified set of nut bags cause the unthinkable ...keep also in mind many's the wars that have been started by simply ramping up the tension to the point a seemingly unimportant spark sets off a set of catastrophic consequences. And no I'm not going all escalogical ….just emphasising the the point that unnecessary mass deaths are a catastrophic for many someones, beyond the actually killed ...i.e. if one of your children is caught in the cross fire how sure are you that you'd be all that philosophic. Based on the response to 911 I'd have to say the statistical probabilities are very low. Now imagine if tens of thousands/ hundreds of thousands are killed consider the exponential effects. The west has already killed hundreds of thousands it is naïve to think that 'the others' are all going to say “oh well the wars over so lets kiss and make up” without the afore mentioned motivator self interest.

The video told us that stopping this back lash is too hard. What it is is ego deflating nothing more. The problems are solvable but thus far the US shows no interest in wanting to do That.

I have many  pragmatic concerns with the 'one state' solution every being anything other than the formalisation of Israel's  ethnic cleansing of greater Palestine/Israel.

Three  key musings come to mind.

1. Israel's continued existence in 'its current form' (read bulwark against Arab (sic) regionalism) is almost exclusively, by the USA in that it 'suits' * Their perceived* national interests i.e. a non dominated Muslim state in the Middle East. If this weren't so they wouldn't insist on being a party (3rd wheel) to any peace plan etc. As opposed letting Israel and Palestine (2 parties) as equal partners say with a Non aligned moderator.

The US fears a 'Muslim' Cuba so to speak, that is a Muslim influenced state( read a platform for Arab regionalism ) that might jeopardise their control (Commercial ?) over Middle Eastern OIL.

One should note here that the US has a long standing record of supporting Tyrannical regimes regardless of their religion so long as they can control the Tyrants that control the population. You pick the country from Central America, as much of Europe they can get away with, Asia generally (including Indonesia... west Papua), Middle East and even Africa. The common factor in all of these countries is their ( largely Commercial) interests. [ Specifics by request].

One should not forget three important points

1. Not all of which are 'Arab' states e.g. Iran is Persian and has a different underpinning culture and drives. Not all Muslims march to the same drum either religiously or in interests. The same as not not all “Christian” countries are the same.
2. That there is external non US forces playing Proxy games with Palestine, It is *these forces * that concern the US . This is by all regards a faux fear in that even if Iran had Nuclear bomb capability it doesn't really represent any existential threat as any aggressive attack would mean the total annihilation of Iran while the US would survive largely in tact. What it does mean is that the US simply won't be able to attack it at will.
3. It seems self evident that what Israel may want to do is largely irrelevant. The US will be the ultimate Authority to which Israel will ultimately accede. It has no choice, If it doesn't, one only needs to look at what happened to NZ when it insisted on knowing if US visiting naval ships visiting their ports  were Nuke armed. It's interesting to note that the US ignored the ANZUS treaty and refused to share 'intelligence', a clear misnomer (spin) read spying details. One can reasonably argue that the US doesn't display too much of that with regards to Non Americans. 
   Israel would not survive without US support and the US both knows this and WILL use that against them. As one of the US founding fathers aptly put it "any one who relinquishes freedom for security invariably gets neither'.
1. Subsequently, the 'one state' debate is largely both a distraction to the *main * stumbling block to a permanent solution ( changing the US' hard opposition to a Non Christian  aligned state.), one that gives hope for self determination and some modicum of Justice .
2. From a negotiating point this whole debate puts the Palestinians in a weaker negotiating position. Effectively made the first part of the Zionist/US for the elimination of the Palestinian as a self determined identity. The option (right or left) they will choose would be . And once it becomes official then the matter is an internal one and will be orders of magnitude harder to change. (they'll argue “ they (the Palestinians) negotiated this conclusion and we Israel (right wing version) have the right to seek out and deal with “internal dissenters”... any guesses what will constitute an “internal dissenter?

Rule 1. of negotiation Don't make a concession without getting an equivalent concession in return. Frankly the elimination of the two state option is a 'Huge' bargaining chip to give it away/ taken away before the negotiation begins.

Israel ..".one state" a solution .... really ?

The pro  Israel  'one staters' don't seem to understand the reality of your solution.

What exists now is two things and it's wider implications to the *Individual *

1. An apartheid state that has institutionalised this fact. i.e. even those Palestinians (aka Arab Israelis) who live in the state of Israel are second class citizens. NB the Cultural extinguishable of the title, Arab is a generic term like 'black' but based on the Language ... And the Israeli (Jew). It's Like calling an Aussie, English. Good luck with that. It's interesting to note that Aussies (whites) are doing the same thing with the term 'Aboriginal', the reality is that Australia wasn't one singular nation but Something like 200 each with their own ancestral land history myths(religions) . Just a test name just 3 of these clan nations...my money is on 98% whites not having a clue. Now tell me our current policies aren't that of acculturation. Israel by name and definition is a secular(?) state for JEWS a Jewish homeland... a contradiction in terms . If it's a Jewish homeland it can't be a Palestinian homeland especial if they have to give up their identity.
2. It's currently a de-facto one state they have annexed the rightfully Palestinian land and systematically forced them into 'reservations' albeit illegally (by the USA's dominance in the UN (veto)) .It's systematically and deliberately disenfranchised the Palestinians via acculturation.

That is the pragmatic reality. What the one state will do is set this into accepted international law.

The reality beyond that the Palestinians will still become entrenched second rate citizens. The entrenched religious prejudice by the Jews will continue. In the minds of the Zionists they will have won and they will be emboldened to further persecute the Palestinians more, in all practical ways with almost impunity. The Palestinians will become the systemic underclass.

The Palestinian youth is already suffering from functional deprivation, via lack of opportunity. Their one remaining salve is the hope their identity and religion. In short their strength is in their shared suffering/sense of being the aggrieved, shared goal i.e. .. one “day they'll have a homeland and it will get better all we have to do is rid ourselves of the 'Jewish' over class”. (wasn't that the Jewish dream?). This is not dissimilar to that of the black Africans pre the fall of apartheid in their countries. Keep in mind too,5 that the Palestinians AREN'T tribal Africans with a culture rooting them to the earth in the same way. They are Socially, religiously and Culturally poles apart. Seems to me the 'one staters' are actually 'zionists (lite)' hiding behind 'pragmatism' (sic) .

Putting aside the inherent this hypocrisy we should look at the historic record of ...Successful (?) integrations they are VERY thin on the ground.

What the 'one staters' are naively (at best) selectively ignoring (at worst) is the sociological consequences for the Palestinians as individuals.

The bare truth is that there isn't enough opportunities for a growth (over night) to preclude the entrenching of sociological problems that will occur with an instant 3 million Palestinians (citizens). The vast majority of which live in appalling conditions compared to the average Israelis this inequity and given that 25% isn't a majority ergo a large portion of (hobs choice) citizens. Of them there is a high proportion of unemployed or under educated. Look around the world then ask your self what happens when you have the following.

• Ghettoised disadvantaged?
• A * LARGE * disadvantaged minority?
• A large portion of first generation migrants who suffer prejudice and lack of personal identity?

Think fundamentalist religion/ race in lieu of an personal identity, racial/ religious prejudice, violence gangs. Rampant crime. are the short answer and the bigger that minority the greater the problems are.. Imagine if Anders Brevik was to happen in say the UK and the victims were not white ? Well that is more likely in a one state Israel... After all the current Zionist government is voted in by a substantial minority of more than average right wingers (30% ish) ? Imagine what they will think when 40% more non Jews are incorporated in the state? Gerrymander comes to mind and with that unfair legislation etc.

My view is we're targeting the wrong cause ….not the current Israeli regime but rather the USA. After all they are the primary obstacle to UN forcing the abandonment of illegal settlements

Peace in our time in Israel (one state solution) and other Myths

The logic in this article is so one sided it almost flies around in ever decreasing circles and that it's prone to disappearing up its own fundamental rectum. Frankly the dilettante nature of this 'pro Israel/ USA ' is wantonly naive if not biased.

The whole article is focused on ISRAEL'S security and assorted paranoid fears..

What makes you think that the "Arabs" are thrilled or cool about the USA dominance in Israel or that a nutter strategic right minority in the new Israel could bomb Palestine/ Arab states ....oh wait it exists now?

And Israel has track record of giving a shit about international law ( when it comes to extra territorial adventures). 

Simply put NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST is safe from the paranoid nationalism of another...there are no absolute guarantees anywhere...

All meaningful negotiations are based on good faith...where's the good faith here?

 If I were a Palestinian/ Arab negotiator why would I accept the underlying biased assumptions, that status quo = albeit in a Bigger state is good?

The truth is that the USA has and will continue to be the spanner in the works...so long as it's hegemonic interests holds the Veto, no solution is really possible.

Just for interest what say both sides and the meddlesome and petulant mental Gorilla (USA) were to agree on a two state solution pre 67 borders and THEIR ONLY international protectorate for their international airport ... um, in between the two nations. i.e. paid for by both sides and staffed by UN troops.. and managed by a tripartite committee (Israel, Palestine and the UN, chaired/ controlled by UN) ? I'd ask where are the RISKS any different that anywhere else in the Middle East. 

 

["A one-state solution is only way forward for Israel and Palestine"] if you are a Jewish extremist or a settler. Is what is more honest.
What the “one staters” are suggesting has 4 MAJOR Flaws.
First, it rewards(encourages) those who have dispossessed the Palestinians in the West bank etc. Illegal is illegal. How are they going to unpick a litany of case law precedents fairly? Possession is 9/10s of the law …if you are Jewish.

Second. As the General's son said 'Arab ' neighbourhoods already have a dearth or absence of resources/ services how is this going to change in a greater Israel? Like the rump Zionists etc are going to accept 'their budget share facilities down graded (i.e. settlers lose currently enjoyed water levels for lessor amounts so the Palestinians can have more) to allow for the money to be spent where it's most needed on the Israeli Arab ghettoes or to provide the new population to the same currently enjoyed level of services/facilities etc
The devil is in the detail national budget.

Third. The Jews already have the Best property/land. By what mechanism, given Israel is already a receiver of USA ($ 2 billion p.a. Admitted to), are Palestinian refugees after 60 years of destitution going to be able to buy properties. Instant underclass.

In Australia the Conservatives resent Social Security and 6000 queue jumpers (sic) refugees and the 'hand outs' (sic) as it is . Imagine if suddenly 14 million( similar proportions) became citizens over night ?
By what fanciful notion do these people think Israelis are any LESS self interested, resistant to change/difference i.e. are more generous human-beings than Aussies. They sure don't have a history of such altruism/ generosity of spirit..... in short they are people. Not inherently good or bad just people.
Time for some reality. It must go two states if only to maintain any sense of fairness and to establish a rule of law in Israel with regards to ownership of land in the occupied/squatter settlements.

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.
So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.
Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelisine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]

Capitalism, Libertarianism and other myths

I obviously agree with the ability to say to a boss or any authority figure 'no, it's not my choice' or even 'no it's not my need'... And yes, I sound a bit like a Buddhist on cranky pills.
To me the KEY issue is a little more fundamental to the continuation of life and the under pinning moral imperatives.
I look at it like freedom of speech we nominally have that right to express our views BUT it's the HOW we use/abuse that right that is determined by greater imperative(s)that is the important defining factor.

ergo we have the right to jump on a plane buy BS products for PERSONAL conditioned illusionary happiness. The question is SHOULD we do so with out regard to the truth and the reality of the larger imperatives (as per the previous paragraph)

One should never forget the most irrefutable fundamental truth of everything....In *closed* environment (societies and the EARTH) EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else.
I have given the examples of traffic flows along highways and through malls that when taken in CONTEXT of the WHOLE one minor action has cumulative effect leading to seemingly disproportionate consequences. I'd STRONGLY RECOMMEND everyone Read "Critical Mass... how one thing leads to another" by Philip Ball. This book clearly demonstrates this principal with everything from electrons to you name it.
The problem with commonly touted Chaos theory is the Massive Misinformational, over simplistic "butterfly effect".
Back to the prosaic one person buying an Iphone 5 because it's cheap or even free with a encouragement to spend more on The cell.
Firstly 'your' individual decision is insignificant even to Apple they want millions of insignificant individuals to decide for a myriad of JUSTIFICATIONS although the key motivator is the deliberately stimulated (Cromagnon/Neanderthal Emotion/instinct) want. The Emotional temporary pay off makes the decision ... polluted reason JUSTIFIES it.
Apple do this to make a profit... they have NO regard or interest in the 'externalities' read consequences. Argue what you what you will on the emotional level but the moral reality is that " can the world afford the CUMULATIVE effect of 80% of the world's resources (read ability to support the continuation human existence) by 20% of the population (i.e. the 'developed world/ western world)?
You pick the major philosophy/religion all have a similar thrust ....biblically speaking "yes YOU are your brother's keeper"... Yet again I also repeat It isn't that you indulge your emotions ...an inherent human trait, but HOW and by how MUCH.
There in lies the inherent flaw in the much admired Libertarianism and or Capitalism (not exclusively)as they are practised today they are predicated on Absolutes and were formulated BEFORE the science of everything relates/effects or leads to another. However both these philosophies tend to focus on the individual ignoring or treating the self (the individual) gratification as the sole purpose/objective of life relegating all other factors as 'externalities' and therefore irrelevant , having no effect on the 'self' . Which in a closed environment and under the first law of thermodynamics ...impossible if not wantonly inane.
I don't dispute the 'right' to anything merely caution about the dismissal of The MORAL DIMENSION what is now 'myopic focus' on the use (abuse) of that right in isolation of the indisputable cumulative effect.

What's the matter with U.S. media it seems worse than other countries?

What is the matter with U.S. Media it seem to be worse than other countries ? In two senses it is.

The most important isn't at first as obvious to the US citizen until one stands off from being an American and look with a incisive mind at to what is different about American public (consumers of news [sic]).

To wit I've included the following piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_print.html

To someone from outside the US this is as I wrote on another site

[With all respect.., I would rate the piece as worthy of a high school 'journalism' (?) effort.

Who amongst us didn't know virtually everything written in the article and more? Then again he is writing for USA and it's citizenry not to mention under their paranoid military manufacturing complex and assorted Corporates' domination.

A trawl through the 'Guardian' archives goes a lot further actually discussing the nature of the nuke site, how the Israelis fooled the USA and the inspectors way back.....What this says about Israel's paranoia duplicity towards its friends I'm not entirely sure.

What is missing is the simple logic that the USA (probably Russia, France et al) has for years been able to monitor from space and via sophisticated seismic equipment can tell any underground or air testing of nukes anywhere in the world. Yet we're lead to believe by this article that the US et sec doesn't have very convincing evidence either way. What? A piss ant country with what 6 million people (same population of Iraq) like Israel which is the US's biggest recipient of aid, particularly military aid, hold off US dominance? I know the US myopic supply of weapons has a history akin to like a water buffalo with a bad attitude, (all bull and no long term smarts) …. But really...they (US) don't know ?

The only alternative is that if Israel has nukes they haven't tested them tested above ground since the 70's or underground since the late 80's … That I find very hard to believe.

The implicit relevant point is that American's are generally so jingoistic they are more often than not wilfully ignorant/ disinterested in anything that doesn't pertain to the US or them personally. The horrific implications of the Israel/ USA V the “Arab” (sic) (Iran is Persian...not Arab) world conflict is more obvious to the rest of the world but not the average American....they believe they'll be safe,they're not ! 911 AGW the rise of China (they are the U.S.A.'s primary bankers and it's in the process of losing it's $ dominance).

The U.S. Public seem to believe that they invented resistance to larger powers and the concepts in their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The reality is they didn't! One wonder what they think will stop the hegemonic nations from doing exactly what the U.S. founding father's did at the first available option. What makes them believe that watching their dead coming home from a U.S. initiated war of perceived interest (corporate interests most likely), a war they were pressured into, is going to endear them to the U.S.their trade practices don't help either. The U.S public believe they are safe from human nature...again they're not!   

Once one accepts this limitation 'America’s exceptionalism' all the other disasters/ limitations are emotionally justifiable. Keep in mind unless we guard against it the sales maxim holds true “ emotion decides and logic simply justifies”. If one assumes one is superior to others then “people who don't conform to my conflated criteria keeping them in their place (subservience) becomes logical.” e.g.  I got rich by hard work (sick) therefore anyone less than me is deficient in some way and needs punishing or my patronising." i.e. I got rich so the fact that they aren't means they're lazy so force them to work ' (like there's an endless chance of jobs).... 

Let's get real there isn't because corporations et al want it that way it forces down wages (less overheads) making more profit. And when the current host country's population demand more wages the corps will simply move to a cheaper employee market. 

 Even America's famous military market dominance is being challenged...Other countries are competing and the corporations are selling weapons to increasingly dubious purchasers .....e.g. the mercenaries/weapons dealers who have No allegiances except to the $ . I.e. the biggest private army in the world is training Somali jihardists etc.

  

As for his finish about 'if he was a child of the Jewish Holocaust' ...relevance? Justification for what he knows ? (i.e. HE READS PAPERS OUTSIDE THE U.S. PERHAPS)...the existence of Israel's nukes.]

The final point can be gleaned from analysing the author's most banal comment about ' because it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done' what a cop out! Tell the truth sir it isn't done because the powers to be (the military manufacturing complex, Commercial and Jewish commercial interests with whom they deal, don't want it done. They have already punished a media outlet of broadcasting an Israel “unfriendly” story by cancelling ads. There is little doubt in my mind of the US government (regardless of side) is a captive of these interests.

Sadly the party system (either side) encourages this.

what's with personality fetish in lieu of substance

I've been recently taken to task by yet another poster on a site. At the root of his criticism was the fact that I objected to a comment that was clearly racist. i.e. it was in the context of Obama's acquiescence to the powers that be in USPolitics ...he called Him an Uncle Tom.

This is based on Harriet Beecher Stowes book of the same name. It referred to a subservient 'nigger' (slave) who is willing to sacrifice his life etc for the white 'massa'.

In this , the only, real context... it introduce colour as a pejorative.

I would argue that one wouldn't refer to Bush or any other Prez as white uncle toms. Thus the term is demeaningly used,and as such my criticism was/is valid.

This obviously stung the poster in such a way he continued the attack later. But this time as a tit for tat attack on me personally.

Now here is the conundrum, One of his criticisms was that I'm verbose in my responses and using the site as an ego therapy. The first is valid (from his perspective), the second isn't.

Clearly the reader has made the non existent link between making a racist comment and him being racist.

Hence his response.

My problem is that see the difference between the two i. e. I don't believe that one swallow = spring . Put another way if I hit my thumb with a hammer and let out with an expletive, that doesn't mean that I am a simple minded foul mouthed individual prone to bad language in public or in print.

By that reasoning I don't believe the commenter is a burning cross or closet racist bigot. Merely that the terminology is offensive to me and that I consider it unacceptable, not to mention that coloured people reading would find it so too.

It is one thing to attack an action or words but not the personality of the person doing /making them. Especially given that I'm reasonably sure Obama is personally unknown to both of us.

I would further argue that such terms or personal attacks are unproductive in getting a discussed compromise or working conclusion. It is psychological fact that repetition forms opinions. One only needs to watch the news on politics or ads to hear/see the 'staying on message' and the incessant repartition.

The problem is that not enough people draw the line between personality and function.

i.e. Obama's fate will largely depend on the public's impression of him personally, their personal disappointments ( they over expectations about what he can functionally do), rather than the impressive list of positive things he has done... This is further emphasised by Romney's campaign being largely ' that he is not Obama'. The truth is if Romney is successful he will be beholden to simply a 'different'

group of Plutocrats.

The media in fact the whole Capitalist edifice is based and bolstered by the vagaries of Personalities/emotions not substance.

i.e. Gem stones ...diamonds in particular aren't all that rare rather the high prices/value is artificially kept high by restricting their availability by the DeBeer's cartel the consequences of which are diabolical.( blood diamonds)

Perhaps my most trenchant disgust is how the media focuses on the sensational or personalities rather than the un adorned facts . i.e. An US Senator visiting Israel went 'skinny dipping' and that is a scandal? Why? Because the media has said so again and again and Again. People have had natural tendencies deftly hyper sensitised to whereby such trivial actions has bearing on public opinion on his ability to do his job.

When in truth it has absolutely none.

Essentially I'm rebelling over the over simplification , the personality V competence to lead a country which leads me to How do I communicate with others if all they want is over simplified, glorified, sanctimonious gossip and personalised attacks in lieu of reasoned in context analysis of topics perhaps to arrive at a solution?

Refugees and illegals are they our fault

The biggest problem I have with arguments on what to do with refugees isn't based on idealism or ideology but rather pragmatics.

The fundamental flaw with the ' humane argument ' is that it assumes that people are just waiting to learn the truth about the appalling state of refugees to change their minds. That simply isn't true.

If the people really wanted to change the system they would.

There is no logical/ objective doubt that political systems are corrupted by irrationality , greed, self interest , power externalities and the totally artificial (naive ) belief that Political parties can "represent" a democratic/ or mass choice. The choices presented are 'closed'. A bit like mandating a choice between everyone getting flogging by whip or a cane for Minor breaches of laws/ by laws etc.

Arguments can be made for either option but what isn't up for choice are other alternatives. All choices are marketed between and by extremes.

e.g. in Australia's case Open slather or pacific solution ( unlimited refugees and we are talking about millions or so few it makes no appreciable difference to the refugee problem). There are comparable simplistic choices in almost every other country too.

I would dispute emphatically that the anti refugee is solely from the non suburban voters rather while the non suburban voters may have a disproportionate number of xenophobes/ right wingers, one shouldn't assume that the suburban or left leaning voters are really any different. One only needs to look at the fact that non suburban voters are a minority of districts/ electorates and therefore representatives.

Simply put, we the everyday voter support (by our inaction, practical indifference) the limited or simplicity of choice, 2 sides infer.

In reality open slather is not possible with the current human propensity for tribal identity and self interest. i.e. it is unlikely to be accepted before a fundamental change in Homo sapiens generally.

The real question then come down to achieving a LESS INhumane solution. Most social change happens slowly and the evolutionary change to our hard-wired (genetic) “human nature” is far, far slower.

I would suggest that such change would need to have a far stronger personal pay-off to engender it.

The first issue is to prevent ( in Australia)the boats and the associated loss of life and the merchants of death (the people smugglers).

In that perspective the question should be as the report suggests a suite of solutions.

Ask yourselves if you were a refugee in Indonesia your choices were paying out the very last of your money for a trip to a remote island with the probability of eventually getting status in Australia. OR spending the money only to be returned to a refugee camp in Asia with virtually NO chance at migrating to Aust . Wouldn't you see the futility in the latter?

Let's be clear the Malaysian 'solution' (sic)was fatally flawed because the Malaysian don't want them either and naturally want a net reduction. This of course acknowledges the appalling conditions that meet the refugees in the camps.

And there is the second half of the suite of actions.

Of course the best option is reduce the push factors in the refugees' country of origin.

And there we in the West run into our own misdeeds in our want (as opposed needs ) for these countries' resources... but that is another topic.

Therefore, this highlights my stance that the "debate" (sic) as it is being run are so ideological and superficial as to be nearly preaching to the converted a minority of voters regardless of how well presented.

The Games and other spin, hypocrisies, myths and  injustices ....

I'm vehemently against  nationalism generally but definitely  that which is deliberated commercial generated for the sole point of power and profit. ... I tend towards the comment by Samuel Johnson  "patriotism (nationalism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
 

I would argue that the whole thing is so commercially corrupted and based on so many false assumptions   as to be meaningless on nationalistic , good will,and or honest fair competition... nor are the medals objectively any more indicative than of prolonged effort
rather than the absolute best... Drugs/ corruption inevitably factor in commercially exploited sport.

I find it impossible to define my identity as the place where I live. Much less by someone else's sporting prowess and even less again by in a Government enforced  2 week marketing fest for those with the deepest pockets, MULTI NATIONAL corporations.( which national interest do they support? )

This sponsorship (sic) although "necessary" (?) has removed the Games from the
Provence of  competitor V competitor and made  a mockery of the stated national aims of encouraging participation in healthy activities.
However, it  makes the  case of “who spends the most to hone the skills of the genetically gifted  wins. That means we as tax payers  and the less well off make the sacrifices.
Further to this it entrenches  the commercial impetus to support specific sports  and the odd photogenic person for extraordinary wealth. In turn reducing the achievement of the others to that of minor supporting acts.....tissues, used one and discarded. Proof?  Ask the average punter who won gold in lessor sports last 'games' and you'll get a blank, they're not in ads.  Did the achievement from the lessor sport athletes take less dedication? Training?
The most distressing is the bias in all of this against the poorer nations, gender and the disabled.... What message is government money supporting here?

Remember too the fact that an oft mentioned lie becomes urban 'fact' (mythology) which influences people's emotional response  and judgement....priorities (prejudices and stereotyping). e.g we don't hear of competitors from Togo, Surinam or Burkina Faso, How many punters can  find them on a map ? How many can name ten countries of the 100 or so that don't compete in the games? Logic dictates that in these 100 or so countries there simply must be a bunch of even more genetically talented athletes. who's game enough to then state categorically there's not? or that there isn't a world beater among them?

Let's also mention the sport based migrations ? If you're a photogenic blond athlete or just a great athlete  then come on in but if you're Asian and say a teacher well or a bus driver, fisher person or 'just' a mum good luck and don't die while you wait.

What also ignored is that the lessor countries that do compete are becoming more and more excluded because of the costs involved. Then there is the  exclusion of  these third world struggling business benefiting from their much needed government's expenditure.
It is utter nonsense to assert that the games actually show the best, that excludes those who simply can't afford to such high training or to compete.

Frankly is has become an entertainment spectacular  and as such only serves to make  the emotionally nationalistic proud, however it fails any sensible objective test as a social objective of society, and should be user pays like all other discretionary entertainment.

MSM (corporations) whose primary client base is other corporations it doesn't surprise me that they want more money to be put into the training etc. That is apart from conflict/sensation sells if they can't have 'gold' to celebrate then ' someone' is at fault.

It should surprise no one that their answer is more money or force more children to play (exploitable)sport.

The need for all of the above is moot. There are far more people who exercise without  exploitable competitions than those who do .  We as a population are simply being conditioned   into over  consuming of food, indulgent comfort, ease of use  etc to the point of self destruction and obesity. I fail to see how this should be a government defined  ( tax paid) objective....
Another factor often over looked in the 'blame game' and fairness is that the inefficiency of all the paid bureaucrats and even higher paid executives in favoured sports .
 

By all commercial terms these Executives are paid to improve the outcome of their sport and if they don't they should share the fate of say unsuccessful football executives and coaches. Certainly not behind the scene conniving for extended terms of employment and reducing costs by commercial means of   'performance only bonuses' knowing full well all
they achieve is to punish/discourage the triers. As it is the actual athletes fund the greater part of their costs ( save the very very few).
Are you prepared to put your family into debt  so that “MULTI National corporations can make  fortunes and your family  get none of it? Not even reimbursement for expenses out laid much less for the effort/sacrifices?”. And if you're in a lessor sport........?

I have long pointed out that which was shown last night on ABC's "Gruen Sweat" http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/24934 there is a far better uses of national funds than These GAMES.
e.g. They showed that the money on one Athlete who came 7th  could have paid for life saving equipment to save many .  Are we to assume that the public is willing to sacrifice lives, literacy et al for the chance to make gold?  I for one object !

Hand the whole thing to commercial enterprise and let them run it in within the laws of freedom of speech    and (heaven forbid) a fairer playing field not demand idiotically preferential laws to protect 'their' assets ( this is clearly  selected Corporate welfare.).
Capitalism is based on exploitation and inequality of rewards  …..one only needs to look at Australia's Nobel prize winners … name three?  Let alone the the CSIRO scientists who invented Wi Fi  that is in use in all mobiles today  …..name one? Yet the same complaining sports fan is inclined to defund or ignore the CSIRO  learned observations. Where was their ticker tape parade? (surely their effort 'beats' that of an entertainer/athlete certainly in actual tangible worth).  To be fair Corporation sell the emotion not the facts or proportion See BP's ad (for the Games) on "Gruen Sweat". They emphasise alternative energy ( an extremely minor part of their business I suggest  for exploitable PR tokenism) and not a mention of anything the bulk of their  less (un)  spinable Business. Where's the greater public good in this hypercritical spin that justified government money and laws to protect it?

In short I contend the games  as they are, are  discriminatory run to  benefit  selected corporate interests and as such are the rightful Provence of  discretionary  spending therefore totally that of the commercial world.  Not  a diversionary Circuses and Bread 

(even they were privately run and funded) by Governments whose only interest alignment  is to gain popular (emotional) support rather than anything  more difficult i.e. constructive.

Two state solution is dead? Long live the 1 state Solution !

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.

So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.

Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelistine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]

Mussings on freedom Speech

If one has followed the the phone hacking scandal in the UK. it is clear that Murdoch knew about it and turned a blind eye to the culture of the abuse of power of his news papers. The papers bullied slandered and breached several laws over a long term. Merely paying bribes to govt officials/ police/ politicians et al is against the law. But they did that with impunity. Regardless of his having prior knowledge of the actual phone tapping, he isn't/wasn't so dumb as not to have realised that it was impossible to have an endless parade of 'victims' and targeting of those who opposed his interests didn't emanate from questionable source mining. Further to that he must have know that his special pleading and changing governments to a more compliant one was also clearly wandering into at best undemocratic at worst illegal territory.

Likewise his boast that he had pictures (presumably illegally gotten) . He was also well aware that such pictures need not be of any illegal activity just that they may sufficiently embarrassing to 'neutralise' the individuals (i.e. blackmail them..... which is illegal and as such he's a common thug).

His papers weren't acting the public interest of need to know and the noble ideal of freedom of speech it was simply manipulation of the unwary, ignorant and the pathological self interested , by pandering to the less admirable

The Sun and the News of the World have the right to freedom of speech to say what ever they want either true or untrue? Being real the chances of a successful court outcome was very much against anyone who opposed them.

In truth it was a happy set of circumstances and tactical blunders that the whole shit hit the fan.

I think it's interesting how Rupert reacted in the enquiry trying to manage the news by his irrelevant comment of “this being the most humiliating day in his life”.... and ? Additionally he also has a history of promising one thing then doing the other. He would have you believe he is just a business man and regards money as the determining factor of worth as a human being. But is it ? If profit was his only concern may of his papers would have closed years ago as unprofitable. He would be well aware of “opportunity cost” (what earnings the capital invested/losses would have made if invested elsewhere).

What it does show are marked symptoms of sociopathic tendencies... no conscience, promising one thing to governments then doing the opposite to satisfy his wants.. His life is typified by lust for power...

One is entitled to wonder what is still hidden in other countries and businesses … The leopards and spots thing?

If we take his example we can confirm the research data that may heads of Corporations display the same sociopathic tendencies. As your self is this what we need to our leaders to be? Totally self obsessed to the disregard of others often seeing those who don't see things their way as the enemy … and the end justifies the means.

Is this what we mean by Freedom of Speech? I hope not.

I rather think that Freedom of speech is conditional based on a test of who how and why (context) of what was said rather than the word(s).

If it isn't then our definition of the purpose of a society is wrong. And we by extension merely naked apes after all and Malthus was right our civilisations are no more than an adoration to the ultimate goal of the 1^st law .of thermodynamics …. we are driven by evolution for no point.

Personally I take the view that we are a more advanced species with a more advanced degree of comprehension of abstract thoughts like right and wrong. This gives us if we chose to use it to determine our own evolution. 

This is in answer to   Robert P. Murphy (economist) about AGW

the problem is where does one draw the line?
In the western world there is this monumental Myth that there is such a thing as free speech... there never was, isn't and couldn't be unless one is advocating a law of the jungle ...the Malthusian concept of the biggest, badest, most ruthless survives and all others don't... not for mine. The reality is that freedom of speech is has always will be conditional.
We live in a society and any definition of that concept includes sub concepts like co-operation, mutual benefit , harmony... *without * which it won't last. This doesn't mean sitting around in a love In etc. But it does mean a preponderance of the key positives. Arguments advocating extremes ( binary B/w) are simply silly.
And that leaves us with the first question, put another way, “ when is an idea (?) acceptable and when is it not?” A real conundrum particularly if one tries to codify it.
It's a bit like codifying good manners...*that * is always changing.

Personally it comes down to the intention of the 'speech' i.e. would a reasonable man/person see the speech as .....e.g. positive, neutral, or negative intentioned, in the context rather than the word(s).
e.g. is one is speaking factually/ reporting the Nazi ideas of racial supremacy that is neutral but to then go ahead and advocate that in what can be described as hate or inciting speech then it isn't.
There is a big difference between saying I don't believe in AGW because of A- B- C facts contradicting E-f-g but it's a different thing altogether deliberately (wantonly) lying or miss leading for profit, particularly given the consequences for all societies. My view here is that this man's nonsense is negative and is Intentionally designed to advantage a minority AT THE COST OF ALL SOCIETIES. There, it is hate speech. My assessment is largely based on the fact that he does know better ...he has a PhD and therefore knows how to reasonably put an argument. HE chose not to therefore guilty of incitement to do harm.
The key here is that to the average man he is a learned person and therefore his words should be given preferential weighting. He Knew this as did his employers, he has conveniently/ deliberately done is abuse this weighting. If for example Hispanic Pundit or I had written the diatribe it would have been (rightfully) ignored. Again the Key is context.
Even a PhD and NOBEL laureate in Biochemistry recently in a speech prefaced it with a clear acknowledged that he wasn't an expert in the field and would confine his comments to what was known and the consensus. Keep in mind that the whole doubt raising bluster was concocted by 3 aging physicists to help Big Tobacco .
If someone wants intellectual respect they should earn it and maintain it not sell it to the highest bidder.
I would argue he and his ilk has degraded education.

Opinions don't equal facts

While all opinions have the right to be held, it is demonstrably an utter nonsense to claim they are all are equal in credibility, gravatos or real value. The problem I have with Most of the Media commentators is that they are NOT SCIENTISTS much less Specialists and do NOT use Scientific methods i.e. look at the facts and goe where THEY lead. Rather they tend to use what is know as Motivated Reasoning ( i.e. start with a conclusion and pick/seek evidence that supports their predetermined emotionally based opinion) and techniques to discount inconvenient facts. One thing the general public, arm-chair experts,non practising scientific researchers in the discussed specialization and the media generally is that they all are there for other purposes than COMPLETE and ACCURATE INFORMATION. The commercial media is about supporting their business model, to make profit (the point of any commercial business) then there are the proselytes those whose role it to gain converts to a political party, ideology or religion. All of there have the mindset to gain followers. In order to achieve these ends they lie (by omission) or spin (distort the real known facts) NB opinions ARE NOT FACTS. As someone who was involved (albeit peripherally )with complex research (involving multiple disciplines) then, seeing what journalists and personalities said/wrote, I was constantly dismayed how distorted their utterances were. By stripping the context and conditions/caveats out for simplicity (general readability/interest provocation) and allowing their sensationalising or bias to permeate the resultant opinions were distorted at best, misleading if not inconsistent with the factual observed results or downright rubbish at worst. Likewise both the real extrapolated conclusions and those of the commentator were rarely consistent. Put it simply I've read extensively on brain science, neuro-psychology and surgery, but for me to then to preform surgery or challenge an expert in the field would be ludicrous. 10+ years of intense training, years of hands on experience, tops any of the above commentariat hands down. Lets get real the days of the polymath the alleged genius of old are LONG gone. The science knowledge involved in some areas today is so involved, complex sophisticated and specialised that it is impossible for a general science qualification like mine (some 26years old) to be even half way sufficient to second guess with areas of research etc of today. Simply put most of these specialisations and researched knowledge, even information techniques/ tools didn't exist when I gained my qualifications. One simply can't be up to the mark in all fields/specialisations. (Moore's Law turbo-ed and on speed) One recent Science Nobel laureate (tongue firmly in his cheek) stated in a speech that because of his award he was qualified to talk on any scientific topic (paused for and got laughter). The relevance here is that the specialist knowledge is so fine and nuanced that it's true import can't be accurately 'dumbed down' for the inexperienced to dispute intelligently/meaningfully. Much Academic debate over presented papers is on methodologies and statistical analysis and their significances. The commentariat generally hasn't or can't be engaged at this level. So what hope the average man understanding the significance or relevance of say a dissenting paper. In short they tend to see thing in black or white perspective WHICH IT ISN'T. I have no problem with opinions HOWEVER, I do object strenuously when that OPINION is proselyted as an Absolute truth. P.S. I never claim Authority on anything but myself. I simply add information. The emotion(belief) is up to the reader.

Why Do we deny the truth

Leon Festinger a celebrated Stanford University psychologist wrote "A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." Believe it or not The good professor was referring to his now taught, famous Psychological 1950's Case Study (into a doomsday sect and an alien saviour for the believers of the time known as the Seekers)1 2, so it's hardly new or cutting edge stuff. When their prophecy of the Earth's destruction failed to happen on cue the believers were at first shaken. (The important bit) they began to “justify” the lack of action in terms of because THEIR faith the 'beings upstairs' had decided to spare the earth from destruction . There is one more interesting change that took place, instead continuing their previous keeping to themselves as Festinger put it “ their sense of urgency was enormous”. Whether it was despite or Because of the total failure of what they believed they became far more strident in their views and proselyted aggressively to the point they became social martyrs to their cause. Sound familiar? It should because the similarities with belief structures like Adventism, Scientology, Mormonism, Jonestown “Heaven’s Gate”, Waco's Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo or Anthropomorphic Climate Change (AGW) et al the principals remain the same. All the above have clear evidence of what is known motivated reasoning a product of modern Neuroscience research. The sociologist Andrew Perrin of the University of North Carolina stated that was essentially about starting with a conclusion that one hoped to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion. Sadly this 'Motivated Reasoning ( read 'motivated JUSTIFICATION') isn't restricted to esoteric issues. The same principal can be seen in everything from 911, racism to vaccines. Neither is it restricted to the intellectually unsophisticated, the uneducated or the plain old 'dumb' (what ever that is). The Political Scientist Arthur Lupia (University of Michigan) has explained it in terms of the subliminal instinct ' fight-or-flight'. This doesn't only apply to predators but also to data i.e. we have a natural predilection more readily accept that information that we are comfortable with and reject that which we don't. The short hand definition for the mechanism is often defined as Conformational Reasoning. This mechanism also helps to explains why people of a particular belief, tribe, village town , country ethnicity etc in terms of the adage 'birds of a feather stick together'. This goes to explain many of their choices like which news paper, TV station , team etc. It is certain that all the above BANK (in both senses of the word) this. They all choose and modify their opinions cater to that demographic... to make them think in terms of We (as in ownership of, defined by). It is important to note that I said predilection not a hard wired absolute. Behavioural psychologist scientists and neuroscientists have developed very strong evidence that our genetics also add to the mix as do variables like Conditioning (nurture ), and circumstances. What also needs to be understood is that Science or reality abhors Absolutes. In other words there are as many variations in the mix as there are people, there simply isn't one size fits all. Science is predicated on statistics (aggregation) of many people and circumstances and can only give a MASS trend or Probability . These are or should be described as a percentage that is from greater than zero and less than 100%, or implicit in any defining conclusions to do other wise is both bad science or BS. In the context of the topic this means one can say that there is a high probability that the above applies to a majority of deniers but it is less sound to define ALL DENIERS . What isn't covered in this blog are those who deliberately use the above factors and the skills of the propagandist, con artists, PR, party politicians and some Businesses et al for selfish personal gain... these I call (professional) denialists .