Fake News

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

The nexus is when you acknowledge, “this is what I already thought, and this presentation of somebody else’s thoughts agrees with what I already thought. And so does this article or news caster. So now I am truly right and vindicated. Now I am certain. Now I can prove I am right.

Peter,

What you just described is called the "bandwagon effect" and "social proof" in persuasion.

But there's a looooooooooooooooot more going on underneath. I can provide you with a crapload of books that go into this.

Here is one that was recently published and I just finished it: How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain by Lisa Feldman Barrett.

This is a hard book to get through because, although it is written for the general public, Dr. Barrett alternates between breathtaking descriptions of how the neuroscience works under the hood (including one of the best descriptions of concepts I have read to date) and views that are outright weird. She is what I call a Postmodern scientist. (Most of what Postmodernists do is deconstruct and make mashups.)

She drank the Kool Aid that man has no volition and makes his own reality through words. However, she alternates with this view at times and contradicts it because it gets so ridiculous, the scientist in her cannot abide. So she kicks it down the road, basically saying we will have wait and see (but with the insinuation that we will discover in the end that volition is an illusion). Then, at times, she turns it all upside down and talks about individual responsibility. Getting through her preaching parts is a slog and, to a reader like me, similar to listening to fingernails scratching across a blackboard.

But the insights she provides are deep and convincing enough to prove the efficacy of propaganda and constant repetition for undermining rational thought. And speaking of repetition, she presents a lot of repeatable science.

Dr. Barrett proposes a "theory of constructed emotions" as opposed to the "classical view," which she claims is intellectual and scientific poison. However, it never occurred to her to ask what if both exist? (This is my view so far. And she actually does entertain this idea when speaking about infants, although she doesn't use those words. Adults, to her, somehow lose their inherent emotions as they grow. Why? Easy. Just because.  )

I don't want to bash her, though. I have enormous respect for what she has achieved. My own thinking deepened immeasurably due to this book. But I want to go through it one more time (taking notes) before I do a report on it.

That's just one book. 

When one asks, "How do you know?", believe me, there are very good answers if one decides to stop and examine this for real. Despite being one who loves Rand and her work, a layman's understanding of philosophy is not enough for certainty on many issues (especially covert persuasion), although it can be enough to get on with the business of living a meaningful life.

As for those who don't want to look further, they must live with their certainties when they have them. Those certainties, when not validated with personal experience, are usually traditional, mythological, cultural, or worse, engineered from the outside. In most all cases, such certainty comes with an emotional wallop and a lot of hostility for contrary views.  

Nothing replaces objective knowledge for feeling good about your mind and convictions, though.

Nothing.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Politically, here is another reason to doubt reports that the Kremlin favored Trump over Clinton:

WikiLeaks Says CIA Hid Their Hack Attacks As Efforts By Russians, Others

But but but...

The CIA wouldn't lie, would it?

Not under Obama would the CIA ever lie, would it?

Not to the American people or the American press, would it?

Not about Donald Trump, would it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More fake news from Wapo:

A live stream of Shia LaBeouf chanting was disrupted by Nazi-themed dancing. Then things got weird.

Most of the facts are correct, but you will not see a single mention of the Godzilla-sized elephant in the room.

The Wapo article keeps saying no one fully understands what is driving the 4chan folks other than juvenile antics and virulent racism--although, according to Wapo, they are not really racist, but they really are. And it keeps getting back to no one understands.

Almost anyone messing with social media understands. The 4chan folks are Generation Z. They are younger than the millennial snowflakes and are vastly supportive of President Trump. Their support has thrown people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, etc. into the ratings stratosphere--so much so that these folks (and others) are kicking the ass of the mainstream media audience-wise. That's right. More than CNN, MSNBC, even more than Fox.

Now why would the presumable kids and younger siblings of progressive snowflake millennials swing alt-right and go apeshit about it? 

Well... maybe they are sick and tired of all the phoney-baloney virtue signalling, attempts at shaming over nothing, and all those control freak attitudes aimed their way. (Believe it or not, this started with Gamergate and the attempt by radical feminists to shame video-gamers into admitting they were sexist pigs, and set up "inclusive" government-enforced regulations for video-gaming.)

It's hard to make kids at raging hormones time feel guilty. They don't feel guilty. They feel horny. And they want to be who they are without being forced into a straight-jacket.

That, to me, says it better than any academic socio-economic theory based on deconstructed ambivalence of expression.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote about brain Doctor Lisa Feldman Barrett.: But the insights she provides are deep and convincing enough to prove the efficacy of propaganda and constant repetition for undermining rational thought. And speaking of repetition, she presents a lot of repeatable science. end quote

And Michael mentions, “covert persuasion.” Oddly my brain began to think of other examples as I read your letter. Covert persuasion could be a woman’s perfume. Constant repetition? Reminds me of the Stones. Except for the word “trip” in the following song, which can be taken literally or in a 1965, stupid, illegal way, these lyrics are nifty. Notice the currency is in dollars. Thanks for the video. Shia LaBeouf may be having a drug induced 19th Century Nervous Breakdown.

Peter

19th Nervous Breakdown by The Rolling Stones

You're the kind of person you meet at certain dismal dull affairs.
Center of a crowd, talking much too loud running up and down the stairs.
Well, it seems to me that you have seen too much in too few years.
And though you've tried you just can't hide your eyes are edged with tears.

You better stop, look around,
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.

When you were a child you were treated kind
But you were never brought up right.
You were always spoiled with a thousand toys but still you cried all night.
Your mother who neglected you owes a million dollars tax.
And your father's still perfecting ways of making sealing wax.

You better stop, look around,
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.

Oh, who's to blame, that girl's just insane.
Well nothing I do don't seem to work,
It only seems to make matters worse. Oh please.

You were still in school when you had that fool who really messed your mind.
And after that you turned your back on treating people kind.
On our first trip I tried so hard to rearrange your mind.
But after a while I realized you were disarranging mine.

You better stop, look around,
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.

Oh, who's to blame, that girl's just insane.
Well nothing I do don't seem to work,
It only seems to make matters worse. Oh please.

When you were a child you were treated kind
But you were never brought up right.
You were always spoiled with a thousand toys but still you cried all night.
Your mother who neglected you owes a million dollars tax.
And your father's still perfecting ways of making sealing wax.

You better stop, look around,
Here it comes
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown.

Songwriters: KEITH RICHARDS, MICK JAGGER

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

Covert persuasion could be a woman’s perfume.

Peter,

You better believe it. The olfactory sense is the most primitive sense (meaning the oldest) we have outside of touch. It's clutches are deep in our psyche and the effects are visceral, not conceptual. Not even emotional.

Some effects are learned, but some are not. For instance, everybody automatically gags when they smell a rotting corpse.

But wed a strong lusty emotion to a specific fragrance (through an experience) and you become putty when you smell it on a lover thereafter. And you don't even realize it.

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

You better believe it. The olfactory sense is the most primitive sense (meaning the oldest) we have outside of touch. It's clutches are deep in our psyche and the effects are visceral, not conceptual. Not even emotional.

Some effects are learned, but some are not. For instance, everybody automatically gags when they smell a rotting corpse.

But wed a strong lusty emotion to a specific fragrance (through an experience) and you become putty when you smell it on a lover thereafter. And you don't even realize it.

 

Michael

Lucky you.  You can still smell.  I can barely detect odors. 

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

You better believe it. The olfactory sense is the most primitive sense (meaning the oldest) we have outside of touch. It's clutches are deep in our psyche and the effects are visceral, not conceptual. Not even emotional.

Some effects are learned, but some are not. For instance, everybody automatically gags when they smell a rotting corpse.

But wed a strong lusty emotion to a specific fragrance (through an experience) and you become putty when you smell it on a lover thereafter. And you don't even realize it.

 

Michael

On Star Trek Voyager today several crew members share a “holodeck experience,” and the simulation is never shut off. Instead of a ship’s environment they are on a warm, sunny planet, and the crewmembers talk to the same people who are really programs, though some have their own adventures. Unfortunately, Ensign Kim appears to fall in love with a beautiful and realistic holodeck woman and seeks the Vulcan Tuvok’s logical methods to get her out of his mind. But oh oh, she prefers the Vulcan Tuvok. Would this be called “catfishing” if you know she is not real? I must say, on a long voyage the holodeck can make the ship seem less cooped up. In a way OL is similar to a holodeck experience.

 

In yesterday’s letter Robert Tracinski makes the point that the characters in the StarTrek universe are the same as us, and never improved or augmented except for the villainous Borg. But then he discusses several ways people have and will change in the future.

 

Odd. I am having trouble copying it but here are some excerpts from Tracinski”s article.

_{Bionics and Prosthetics . . .  robotic exoskeletons, which don't replace the normal human body but give it extra strength and in some cases extra dexterity. They are already being used to help the paralyzed walk or as a robotic glove to help those with limited strength or range of motion in their hands. And exoskeletons are beginning to be used in industrial applications and in the military, which sees a lot of value in a system that could help a soldier travel farther and faster and carry heavier loads with less fatigue.}

_{Brain-Computer Interfaces}

_{As Elon Musk explains it, "We're already cyborgs. Your phone and your computer are extensions of you, but the interface is through finger movements or speech, which are very slow." The prospect is to augment our thinking more swiftly and directly by connecting it to the cloud and even to the Internet.}

_{Neurotechnology. This is the most speculative technology of all, because we still know so little about how the human brain works, which limits our ability to affect that function in a beneficial way.}

_{Current efforts, particular under Bryan Johnson's Kernel, are focusing on "neuroprosthetics" to enhance memory by breaking the code for the storage and retrieval of memories in a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which can then be augmented by an implant.}

_{Notice that neuroprosthetics are following the same path as mechanical prosthetics: they are being proposed first as an attempt to restore normal functioning to the impaired. Which makes sense. If it is morally and practically questionable to remove a healthy limb in favor of an enhanced bionic replacement, think how much more questionable it would be to intervene in a healthy brain in pursuit of some speculative new enhancement . . . ..}

_{The Questions: What are the side-effects and potential long-term consequences of altering our brain functions with implants? Consider one of the reasons steroids are banned in most sports. When one player begins taking steroids, this can enhance his performance so dramatically that everyone else feels the need to take them to remain competitive--but then everyone ends up experiencing the side effects, both immediately and in the long term. So one reason for banning steroids is to keep athletes from ruining their bodies in an attempt to keep up with their enhanced rivals.}

_{Nootropics. We are all familiar--some of us more so than others--with psychotropic drugs that affect mood and perception. Nootropic drugs (from nous, the Greek word for "mind") are drugs that affect and in theory enhance the process of thinking. The term was coined in 1972 by a Romanian chemist who sought drugs that would enhance learning and memory.}

_{Let's sum up: The Promise: Super-smarts, like that pill in the movie Limitless (which is, in fact, based on a real drug).}

_{The Questions: What's the catch? What are the side effects? And how big is the benefit, really? Is this just "brain training" all over again--a fad that thrives on anecdotal evidence but doesn't have much actual data to show its effectiveness? One writer's experiment with Nuvigil, the real-life inspiration for Limitless, gives us an idea. He reported noticeably increased mental function--combined with extreme physical lethargy and difficulty sleeping, so that he found he didn't miss the drug when he stopped taking it.}

_{Gene Editing. Back in the 1980s, we first starting hearing a lot about the promise of genetic engineering and gene therapy, the idea of being able to edit human genetic code and propagate the new code throughout the body. Reports at the time indicated that it might take another ten to fifteen years before the technology was practical. It turned out to be more like 30 years--but it's finally here, thanks to CRISPR . . . . But the wider possibility for augmentation is obvious. Humanity is the product of a multi-billion-year experiment in testing out genetic variations. We can survey our species and find people with genes that make them taller, smarter, faster, stronger, and so on--and not just by a little bit. There are people in the world who are genetic outliers, born with a capacity for truly extraordinary performance. If we can identify those extraordinary genetic endowments and figure out how to patch them in to our existing genetic code, giving us these enhanced qualities. It is not clear whether it will be possible to do that by changing an adult's existing DNA. The technology is likely to be applied first to human embryos, creating "designer babies" at the behest of ambitious parents who want their children to be ready to excel from the womb. If we won't do it, the Chinese probably will . . . .}  

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

_{If we can identify those extraordinary genetic endowments and figure out how to patch them in to our existing genetic code, giving us these enhanced qualities. It is not clear whether it will be possible to do that by changing an adult's existing DNA. The technology is likely to be applied first to human embryos, creating "designer babies" at the behest of ambitious parents who want their children to be ready to excel from the womb. If we won't do it, the Chinese probably will . . . .}  

Fiddling with genes is dicey at best.  Consider:  A Massachusetts man interbred catepillars with Chinese silk-worms in order to breed a bigger silk producing bug.  What he created was the Gypsy Moth  which killed off the Chestnut tree in North America.  Yet another interbred the  African Bee with the European Honey Bee in order to make a great big bee that could produce lots of honey.  What he got was the Killer Bee which makes little honey and is very damaging. 

We don't know half as much about the human genome as we think we know.  I would bet that any attempt to improve the human breed by  genetic manipulation will not only fail  but will produce  some rather unpleasant results.  

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: We don't know half as much about the human genome as we think we know. I would bet that any attempt to improve the human breed by genetic manipulation will not only fail but will produce some rather unpleasant results. end quote  

I agree. That is why we need to start with obvious defects or genetic handicaps and fix those among the living with gene tinkering. It is safer to not reproduce if a bad gene might be passed on, though I am no fan of Eugenics. Recently there was an article about aviator Charles Limburger (cheese) “mating” with three ladies of the prewar Third Reich to produce a superior blood line. The laughable flaw in that plan is that if you exterminate the people from the gene pool with an average of a 17 point superiority in IQ that is hardly an improvement.

Peter 

[BaalChatzaf]

9 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: We don't know half as much about the human genome as we think we know. I would bet that any attempt to improve the human breed by genetic manipulation will not only fail but will produce some rather unpleasant results. end quote  

I agree. That is why we need to start with obvious defects or genetic handicaps and fix those among the living with gene tinkering. It is safer to not reproduce if a bad gene might be passed on, though I am no fan of Eugenics. Recently there was an article about aviator Charles Limburger (cheese) “mating” with three ladies of the prewar Third Reich to produce a superior blood line. The laughable flaw in that plan is that if you exterminate the people from the gene pool with an average of a 17 point superiority in IQ that is hardly an improvement.

Peter 

During the Middle Ages, the brightest young Catholic boys  were  sent to become priests and therefore to celibacy.  In the same time period the brightest young Jewish boys became Torah scholars and Rabbis and had their pick of the daughters of rich men (who were no doubt brighter than average).  Such marriages produced bright children which is why Jews had a 10 point IQ  lead  over the the Christians  several hundred years later.  The Jews of Europe accidentally promoted a eugenics program  to produce intelligent people which the Catholics practiced a dysgenics program  to  filter out the best and brightest from the germ plasm stream. Since no one knew about genes way back then  it  was a happy accident for the Jews and a less than happy outcome for the Catholics.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This speaks for itself and is great fake news fun.

Here is Captain Janks' YouTube site.

Great fake news fun in spades

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You need to make a small stretch of the imagination to resonate with my thought here, but this video of Groucho Marx is exactly how I feel watching the mainstream news these days.

In case there is any doubt, I identify with Groucho and find the mainstream news to be like the eccentric, Albert Hall.

Except the MSM folks are malicious and lying their asses off with wide-eyed straight faces while Mr. Hall is merely simple-minded. But the emotional vibes re weirdness I feel is about the same in both cases.

Michael

[Peter]

I remember watching Groucho's "You Bet Your Life," as a kid and laughing my head off. Some of his innuendos were over my head but that sequence with a bug eyed Albert Hall I would have gotten.

My dad used to watch those old variety shows like Red Skelton and say things like, 'Just look at that babes shoulders!" When I was a teen I figured it out that he was talking code to my mom to describe bosoms and cleavage.

Peter  

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

I remember watching Groucho's "You Bet Your Life," as a kid and laughing my head off. Some of his innuendos were over my head but that sequence with a bug eyed Albert Hall I would have gotten.

My dad used to watch those old variety shows like Red Skelton and say things like, 'Just look at that babes shoulders!" When I was a teen I figured it out that he was talking code to my mom to describe bosoms and cleavage.

Peter  

You said the magic woid!  Shoulders.  Now a duck comes down with a $50  bill in its beak -- your prize.  When Grouch was MC of "You Bet Your Life"  $50 was a lot of money.  About  what $600 dollars is today. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't forget that this is a thread about Fake News.

I only mention this because I am posting a story by Mark Twain below and the relevance will have to speak for itself.

Fake News-wise, Mark Twain was a man well before his time. 

If you are interested in Ayn Rand's literary techniques, notice that this story ends with two "why you suck" speeches. This means "why you suck" frames a speech about technical substance at a climax. Twain's are hilarious and he pulls the old substance switcheroonie with a bite at the end, but the template is still the same.

Note, in terms of literary technique, this is different than a "why you suck" taunt. The speech is a dismissal, a declaration of victory, and the taunt is a call to fight.

Rand used this template a lot, culminating in the granddaddy of all "why you suck" speeches, Galt's radio speech.

 

Enjoy.

Quote

How I Edited an Agricultural Paper

by Mark Twain

I did not take temporary editorship of an agricultural paper without misgivings. Neither would a landsman take command of a ship without misgivings. But I was in circumstances that made the salary an object. The regular editor of the paper was going off for a holiday, and I accepted the terms he offered, and took his place.

The sensation of being at work again was luxurious, and I wrought all the week with unflagging pleasure. We went to press, and I waited a day with some solicitude to see whether my effort was going to attract any notice. As I left the office, towards sundown, a group of men and boys at the foot of the stairs dispersed with one impulse, and gave me passageway, and I heard one or two of them say, "That's him!" I was naturally pleased by this incident. The next morning I found a similar group at the foot of the stairs, and scattering couples and individuals standing here and there in the street, and over the way, watching me with interest. The group separated and fell back as I approached, and I heard a man say, "Look at his eye!" I pretended not to observe the notice I was attracting, but secretly I was pleased with it, and was purposing to write an account of it to my aunt. I went up the short flight of stairs, and heard cheery voices and a ringing laugh as I drew near the door, which I opened, and caught a glimpse of two young rural-looking men, whose faces blanched and lengthened when they saw me, and then they both plunged through the window with a great crash. I was surprised.

In about half an hour an old gentleman, with a flowing beard and a fine but rather austere face, entered, and sat down at my invitation. He seemed to have something on his mind. He took off his hat and set it on the floor, and got out of it a red silk handkerchief and a copy of our paper.

He put the paper on his lap, and while he polished his spectacles with his handkerchief, he said, "Are you the new editor?"

I said I was.

"Have you ever edited an agricultural paper before?"

"No," I said; "this is my first attempt."

"Very likely. Have you had any experience in agriculture practically?"

"No; I believe I have not."

"Some instinct told me so," said the old gentleman, putting on his spectacles, and looking over them at me with asperity, while he folded his paper into a convenient shape. "I wish to read you what must have made me have that instinct. It was this editorial. Listen, and see if it was you that wrote it:

An illustration for the story How I Edited an Agricultural Paper by the author Mark Twain"Turnips should never be pulled, it injures them. It is much better to send a boy up and let him shake the tree."

"Now, what do you think of that—for I really suppose you wrote it?"

"Think of it? Why, I think it is good. I think it is sense. I have no doubt that every year millions and millions of bushels of turnips are spoiled in this township alone by being pulled in a half-ripe condition, when, if they had sent a boy up to shake the tree—"

"Shake your grandmother! Turnips don't grow on trees!"

"Oh, they don't, don't they! Well, who said they did? The language was intended to be figurative, wholly figurative. Anybody that knows anything will know that I meant that the boy should shake the vine."

Then this old person got up and tore his paper all into small shreds, and stamped on them, and broke several things with his cane, and said I did not know as much as a cow; and then went out and banged the door after him, and, in short, acted in such a way that I fancied he was displeased about something. But not knowing what the trouble was, I could not be any help to him.

Pretty soon after this a long cadaverous creature, with lanky locks hanging down to his shoulders, and a week's stubble bristling from the hills and valleys of his face, darted within the door, and halted, motionless, with finger on lip, and head and body bent in listening attitude. No sound was heard. Still he listened. No sound. Then he turned the key in the door, and came elaborately tiptoeing towards me till he was within long reaching distance of me, when he stopped and, after scanning my face with intense interest for a while, drew a folded copy of our paper from his bosom, and said:An illustration for the story How I Edited an Agricultural Paper by the author Mark Twain

"There, you wrote that. Read it to me—quick! Relieve me. I suffer."

I read as follows; and as the sentences fell from my lips I could see the relief come, I could see the drawn muscles relax, and the anxiety go out of the face, and rest and peace steal over the features like the merciful moonlight over a desolate landscape:

"The guano is a fine bird, but great care is necessary in rearing it. It should not be imported earlier than June or later than September. In the winter it should be kept in a warm place, where it can hatch out its young.

"It is evident that we are to have a backward season for grain. Therefore it will be well for the farmer to begin setting out his corn-stalks and planting his buckwheat-cakes in July instead of August.

"Concerning the pumpkin.—This berry is a favorite with the natives of the interior of New England, who prefer it to the gooseberry for the making of fruit-cake, and who likewise give it the preference over the raspberry for feeding cows, as being more filling and fully as satisfying. The pumpkin is the only esculent of the orange family that will thrive in the North, except the gourd and one or two varieties of the squash. But the custom of planting it in the front yard with the shrubbery is fast going out of vogue, for it is now generally conceded that the pumpkin as a shade tree is a failure.

"Now, as the warm weather approaches, and the ganders begin to spawn"—

The excited listener sprang towards me to shake hands, and said:

"There, there—that will do. I know I am all right now, because you have read it just as I did, word for word. But, stranger, when I first read it this morning, I said to myself, I never, never believed it before, notwithstanding my friends kept me under watch so strict, but now I believe I am crazy; and with that I fetched a howl that you might have heard two miles, and started out to kill somebody—because, you know, I knew it would come to that sooner or later, and so I might as well begin. I read one of them paragraphs over again, so as to be certain, and then I burned my house down and started. I have crippled several people, and have got one fellow up a tree, where I can get him if I want him. But I thought I would call in here as I passed along and make the thing perfectly certain; and now it is certain, and I tell you it is lucky for the chap that is in the tree. I should have killed him sure, as I went back. Good-bye, sir, good-bye; you have taken a great load off my mind. My reason has stood the strain of one of your agricultural articles, and I know that nothing can ever unseat it now. Good-bye, sir."

I felt a little uncomfortable about the cripplings and arsons this person had been entertaining himself with, for I could not help feeling remotely accessory to them. But these thoughts were quickly banished, for the regular editor walked in! [I thought to myself, Now if you had gone to Egypt, as I recommended you to, I might have had a chance to get my hand in; but you wouldn't do it, and here you are. I sort of expected you.]

The editor was looking sad and perplexed and dejected.

He surveyed the wreck which that old rioter and these two young farmers had made, and then said: "This is a sad business—a very sad business. There is the mucilage-bottle broken, and six panes of glass, and a spittoon, and two candlesticks. But that is not the worst. The reputation of the paper is injured—and permanently, I fear. True, there never was such a call for the paper before, and it never sold such a large edition or soared to such celebrity; but does one want to be famous for lunacy, and prosper upon the infirmities of his mind? My friend, as I am an honest man, the street out here is full of people, and others are roosting on the fences, waiting to get a glimpse of you, because they think you are crazy. And well they might after reading your editorials. They are a disgrace to journalism. Why, what put it into your head that you could edit a paper of this nature? You do not seem to know the first rudiments of agriculture. You speak of a furrow and a harrow as being the same thing; you talk of the moulting season for cows; and you recommend the domestication of the polecat on account of its playfulness and its excellence as a ratter! Your remark that clams will lie quiet if music be played to them was superfluous—entirely superfluous. Nothing disturbs clams. Clams always lie quiet. Clams care nothing whatever about music. Ah, heavens and earth, friend! if you had made the acquiring of ignorance the study of your life, you could not have graduated with higher honor than you could to-day. I never saw anything like it. Your observation that the horse-chestnut as an article of commerce is steadily gaining in favor, is simply calculated to destroy this journal. I want you to throw up your situation and go. I want no more holiday—I could not enjoy it if I had it. Certainly not with you in my chair. I would always stand in dread of what you might be going to recommend next. It makes me lose all patience every time I think of your discussing oyster-beds under the head of 'Landscape Gardening.' I want you to go. Nothing on earth could persuade me to take another holiday. Oh! why didn't you tell me you didn't know anything about agriculture?"

"Tell you, you cornstalk, you cabbage, you son of a cauliflower? It's the first time I ever heard such an unfeeling remark. I tell you I have been in the editorial business going on fourteen years, and it is the first time I ever heard of a man's having to know anything in order to edit a newspaper. You turnip! Who write the dramatic critiques for the second-rate papers? Why, a parcel of promoted shoemakers and apprentice apothecaries, who know just as much about good acting as I do about good farming and no more. Who review the books? People who never wrote one. Who do up the heavy leaders on finance? Parties who have had the largest opportunities for knowing nothing about it. Who criticise the Indian campaigns? Gentlemen who do not know a warwhoop from a wigwam, and who never have had to run a foot-race with a tomahawk, or pluck arrows out of the several members of their families to build the evening campfire with. Who write the temperance appeals, and clamor about the flowing bowl? Folks who will never draw another sober breath till they do it in the grave. Who edit the agricultural papers, you—yam? Men, as a general thing, who fail in the poetry line, yellow-colored novel line, sensation-drama line, city-editor line, and finally fall back on agriculture as a temporary reprieve from the poor-house. You try to tell me anything about the newspaper business! Sir, I have been through it from Alpha to Omaha, and I tell you that the less a man knows the bigger the noise he makes and the higher the salary he commands. Heaven knows if I had but been ignorant instead of cultivated, and impudent instead of diffident, I could have made a name for myself in this cold selfish world. I take my leave, sir. Since I have been treated as you have treated me, I am perfectly willing to go. But I have done my duty. I have fulfilled my contract as far as I was permitted to do it. I said I could make your paper of interest to all classes—and I have. I said I could run your circulation up to twenty thousand copies, and if I had had two more weeks I'd have done it. And I'd have given you the best class of readers that ever an agricultural paper had—not a farmer in it, nor a solitary individual who could tell a watermelon-tree from a peach-vine to save his life. You are the loser by this rupture, not me, Pie-plant. Adios."

I then left.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yup.

Fake news galore (and I mean most of the mainstream anti-Trump media, not Tucker).

Some choice comments by Tucker:

Quote

His critics in the media often say that Donald Trump is diminishing the American presidency... But it is also true that in covering Trump the way they have, many journalists and have degraded and humiliated themselves.

. . .

Many journalists believe it’s literally impossible to be unfair to Donald Trump or the people who work for him. Extremism in the pursuit of Trump is no vice. That’s the view in newsrooms, and you hear it in conversations all around Washington, a city that voted 91 percent for Hillary Clinton last fall. 

Media figures, adults, smart people who have been around, have perspective -- or did have perspective. They’ve succumbed to Trump hatred that is so intense, it has destroyed their judgment and in some cases affected their character.

. . .

The speaker isn't offering analysis, he is preaching to those who are already converted. His listeners already know that Donald Trump is evil, and they don't want details, they want a sermon. And sermons are mostly what they're getting these days...

We don't allow reporters to cover their spouses or kids. Why don't we? Because they wouldn't be able to see clearly. Their emotions would cloud their judgement. Their love would get in the way of fair coverage. Hate has the same effect on people. It distorts their view of reality. In the end it blinds you completely. And that's where the media are now. Stumbling around in a sightless rage, screaming.

Once again, yup.

Fake news.

A lot of it in the form of sermons presented as news...

(I prefer Mark Twain these days.  )

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

oopsies! Real news rearing its ugly head: "We were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

oopsies! Real news rearing its ugly head: "We were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you."

Wolf,

I have a feeling this one is going to get a little more attention.

Drudge is linking to the same article.

I wonder if the Russians did it...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then there's this:

Wikileaks publishes documents showing how Google helped Al-Qaeda in Syria

Imagine all the fake news that has been generated from this crap.

I wonder if it's included in Google's news feed algorithms, also.

I mean, why not? "Don't do evil" are only words.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder if the Russians did it...

I'm not the only one who wonders.

Dems will start claiming that Seth Rich was working on behalf of Russia. Just watch. #SethRich

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 16, 2017

The meme below also came from PJW.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And there's this.

4 Unanswered Questions Surrounding Murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich

Good questions, too.

My favorite is this:

Quote

3. Why are the left-wing and mainstream media ignoring the case?

The murder of Seth Rich has been a hot topic among conservative, libertarian, and alternative news outlets since the incident took place last year, however the left-wing and mainstream media has largely ignored the case, only mentioning the staffer’s name during conspiracy articles about Russian hacking.

A quick Google search of “Seth Rich” will return dozens of news articles on the subject from sources such as Fox News, The Washington Examiner, and Heat Street, but few from outlets such as CNN or MSNBC. The Washington Post did publish a story related to Rich Wednesday afternoon but focused on Rich’s parents’ claim that reports of him contacting WikiLeaks were without evidence.

Those articles which do appear on left-wing sites all feature headlines which immediately brand questions surrounding his death as “conspiracy theories” and seek to deter investigations.

The Washington Post published an article in August 2016 titled “Trump allies, WikiLeaks and Russia are pushing a nonsensical conspiracy theory about the DNC hacks,” while The Huffington Post‘s coverage of Rich’s murder last year consisted of stories such as “Donald Trump Has A History Of Linking His Political Opponents To People’s Deaths,” and “Conspiracy Theorists Won’t Stop Accusing The Clintons Of Murder.”

CNN published one single story on Seth Rich’s death last year– a straight news article on the murder with a quote from former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The majority of left-wing sites have also completely ignored the recent reports that Rich was the source of “thousands of internal emails” leaked to WikiLeaks before his death, despite the fact that they worked consistently to refute these claims beforehand.

btw - What happened to all the media outrage about Comey's firing?  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a passage from Atlas Shrugged on Fake News.

My bold.

Quote

She knew, the moment she entered the anteroom of her office, that something had happened. She saw the unnatural stillness, with the faces of her staff turned to her as if her entrance were the moment they had all waited for, hoped for and dreaded.

Eddie Willers rose to his feet and started toward the door of her office, as if knowing that she would understand and follow. She had seen his face. No matter what it was, she thought, she wished it had not hurt him quite so badly.

"The State Science Institute," he said quietly, when they were alone in her office, "has issued a statement warning people against the use of Rearden Metal." He added, "It was on the radio. It's in the afternoon papers."

"What did they say?"

"Dagny, they didn't say it!… They haven't really said it, yet it's there—and it isn't. That's what's monstrous about it."

His effort was focused on keeping his voice quiet; he could not control his words. The words were forced out of him by the unbelieving, bewildered indignation of a child screaming in denial at his first encounter with evil.

"What did they say, Eddie?"

"They… You'd have to read it." He pointed to the newspaper he had left on her desk. "They haven't said that Rearden Metal is bad. They haven't said that it's unsafe. What they've done is …" His hands spread and dropped in a gesture of futility.

She saw at a glance what they had done. She saw the sentences: "It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted.… The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted.… Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out... Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties would be of value."

"We can't fight it. It can't be answered," Eddie was saying slowly. "We can't demand a retraction. We can't show them our tests or prove anything. They've said nothing. They haven't said a thing that could be refuted and embarrass them professionally. It's the job of a coward. You'd expect it from some con-man or blackmailer. But, Dagny! It's the State Science Institute!"

When I look at today's news, especially about President Trump, all I see is this.

Oh... and unnamed sources...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

From AS:  She saw at a glance what they had done. She saw the sentences: "It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted.… The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted.… Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out... Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties .....

 

Right.   However any metal  can be subjected to stresses under which the metal will fail.  However if the conditions of failure  of never met in the intended use, then the caveats have  little or no application.   When material is tested for strength and safety  it is common engineering practice to make the testing conditions at least ten times more extreme than the reasonably expected conditions under which the material is to be used. However the right questions must be asked.

I have in mind the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in 1940.  It turns out that the bridge was an air foil and the winds blowing through the Tacoma Narrows gap was just the right speed to lift the bridge then drop it which lead to a series of vibrations who frequency was the resonating frequency of the bridge. At the time aerodynamic effects were not considered significant relevant to the issue of bridge safety.  So it is literally the case that "certain questions in regard to its behavior or not to be ruled out....".  It was unfortunate that the bridge shook itself to pieces.  Fortunately no one was killed.  You can be sure that resonance testing is one of the tests that structures are subjected to these days.  Fortunately computer modeling is sufficiently reliable that buildings, bridges and other structure with characteristic resonance frequencies are thoroughly test  (or should be thoroughly test)  in this regard. 

When an item for public use is tested in the design and construction phase  we come to expect that the range of possibilities test will include some extreme conditions.  We -cannot- prove that an structure or device is safe under -all- conditions but we can assure  that the item has been tested under a wide enough range of conditions to assure its probable safety in the condition envelope in which it will be used.  

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

So you would use fake news to combat any errors you perceive?

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going to put this in the Trump thread, but I kinda like it here in Fake News, given the recent fake news attacks.

The title of the article which is truncated in the Facebook post embed is: Donald Trump: ‘I Didn’t Get Elected to Serve the Washington Media’

I agree and I repeat.

BOOM.

Standing strong.

Michael