Fake News

[caroljane]

7 minutes ago, Peter said:

TDS is an eye problem, and not the web abbreviation for  "Trump Derangement Syndrome." I wish you well Carol. I think I chronicled my experiences with an eye doctor named Meeks who did my eye surgery. (I am 20/15 in one eye now, but my other eye is 20/200 and I can't read out of that eye and I can barely watch TV with just that eye. Ugh. Tripping over your own feet going down stairs is no fun.     

Oh how I know , luckily I have no stairs . I don't have my new measurements yet but my general sight is already so amazingly good,  had not realized I was so blind before. I feel like I could take in a drive-in movie with small subtitles, if driveins still existed.

[william.scherk]

This brief excerpt from the recording comes via Politico ...

Edited July 25, 2018 by william.scherk
Corrected source link

[caroljane]

55 minutes ago, Peter said:

Carol wrote: "Chump change."   Irresistibly brings to mind the old joke, of which the punchline is, "We already know what you are. Now we're just negotiating about the price." end quote

Fox is replaying the Cohen-Trump tapes, over and over again. Some are saying Trump said, ‘DO NOT PAY CASH. Check.”

The problems? You can only “gift” someone $15,000 per year and you need to fill out forms. If you are paid, a huge sum for “work” of whatever sort, again there are accounting issues and income tax issues.

The Judge on Fox is saying, there is possibly fraud if the testimony/interview from a Trump lady friend was supposed to be published in the National Enquirer, but then they did not, then the written or verbal agreement is fraud, but not big F fraud. Peter  

But if the cheque came from a charity it would get a tax deduction, right? So if it came from the Trump Foundation, there should be no problem. 

[Jonathan]

If the check came from a company, including one established solely for the purpose of buying the publishing rights to a story, it would be completely legal.

J

[Peter]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

If the check came from a company, including one established solely for the purpose of buying the publishing rights to a story, it would be completely legal.

J

It is great getting a variety of opinions. Thanks to everyone. The Playmate Missus is very nice looking. Sure it's the Presidents personal life, and I have mentioned that the Pres's relationship with Melania is their business, though it seems "European" to me, and not 'Murican.  I thought the moderators and all of us would appreciate the following. I deleted some spaces and one misspelling. Peter

From: Kirez Korgan To: aynrand@wetheliving.com Subject: Re: AYN: Selfish ethics and moderatorship Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:19:52 -0600 (MDT) Please excuse the terseness of this message... What I love most in life is being with people who are good, intelligent people that I can respect. For me this is the best qualifier for any work I do: I want to work with good people. I seem to be motivated most by participating in projects that I believe in, which reflect my view of what's most valuable in life, and which are joined by other people who feel a similar passion. When I got involved in Objectivism, the knowledge and insights of the philosophy eclipsed all other concerns in my life. But soon enough, my concern for social values bore more weight in my mind. I wanted to spend my life interacting with the best people out there. What if there were a pursuit that offered me both? Both the pursuit of knowledge and the development of philosophy... AND interacting with the best people out there, particularly minds who were bent on the same pursuit that I was?

I'd rather make this argument elsewhere, but my conclusion will have to suffice: I think 'communication' is essential to science and the development of human knowledge and civilization. One of the distinctive characteristics of the Enlightenment was the development of communication between scholars in different regions, and the innovations and discoveries that resulted of these men who 'stood upon the shoulders of giants...' i.e., who achieved what they did because they had available to them the work of other great thinkers.

The axis period of Greece -- the birth of western philosophy -- was such because of the Lyceum. We would know nothing of Aristotle's thoughts, except that he had an audience to whom he communicated them, and for this purpose, he wrote notes. The Enlightenment scholars emerged as bright lights spotting the continent of Europe. But civilization had progressed -- movable type, patterns of trade and thus of communication -- so that they could now share their thoughts with each other and be aware of the work of other like-minded scholars. Like-minded pioneers, visionaries, rebels. This new development -- a burgeoning community for the trade of ideas – was like it's own aristocracy; a new culture that arose as a super stratum of western civilization upon the wealth of the industrial revolution. Across national boundaries, across language barriers, eventually across the seas --- it has been called "The Republic of Letters."

I think I know the excitement that Enlightenment intellectuals must have felt, to have the opportunity and privilege to interact with other intellectuals in spite of disperse geographic origins. I grew up in rural Arizona, and spent most of my youth longing for intellectual rapport, longing to find *someone*, *anyone* who could share their thoughts and knowledge with me. (This eventually led me to pack up and go out searching as soon as I was barely old enough... 15, in my case.)

And communication has come a long way. Television, radio, the telephone, the economics of publication... each successive development has enabled less expensive means to express oneself to others and to sample, search or consume what others had to express. You know where this is building to, right? Is it clear that 7 years after the availability of Mosaic, the first web browser, that the internet has even begun to be taken for granted? Much of the excitement that surrounded its origin seems to have faded.

Sadly. I remember the initial excitement, though. WHAT, we screamed, could be possible with this amazing new infrastructure for communication?

I think in the years that I've been involved with wetheliving I've seen plenty of people feel this excitement, and they're 100% right. Amazing things are possible -- for the development of knowledge, for the expression of ideas and the cross-pollination of philosophies -- because of the internet. At any rate, my grandiosity about the place of the internet in the history of science and civilization -- is sincere. I think the internet is powerful stuff. I feel amazingly grateful, not simply to have experienced this new means for self-education and communication --- but to experience it as an Objectivist. In the space of a few years, I acquired two powers, two technologies perhaps, that seem to me to dwarf every other power previously developed by mankind: the philosophic tools of Objectivism, and the internet.

I suppose I should come down from the clouds, and back to the matter of whether it could be selfish to be a moderator. "Those who fight for the future, live in it today." --- this is approximately a popular quote among us, right? Wetheliving started because I wanted a list to attract the best minds in Objectivism and gather them into a single channel to communicate with each other. That was Objectivism-L@cornell.edu.

Because of wetheliving, I have lived in a community unlike any other that has ever existed in the history of the world... for years. It has been a wonderful blessing to get to watch people come around, sharing the excitement I had felt to find the philosophy of Objectivism and to be able to talk with tons of other people about it, including people smarter than I could find anywhere around me in school. I've had the benefit of a special position, as a moderator. I've gotten to help a lot of people, and that has always been fun. I've gotten to see the conflicts from behind the scenes, and that has been educational and... well, fun. I've also gotten to have a positive impact on many of those conflicts. I've received a lot of respect and gratitude, and yes, I've loved it.

The position of moderator forces you to see things differently – more broadly. This has been a powerful  educational tool for me. Frequently it acted as a pressure to be more objective.

In all cases... did I ever get an education in Objectivism! And... the Objectivist movement. When I was a moderator, I was immersed in wealth on a daily basis. I swam in it. Glory! Up close and personal, I tasted the fine texture of the development of an ideological community. I *watched* people transform themselves and their understanding of the world. I've met my best friends through wetheliving. They've changed my life for the better. I've created a community in Boston, because of wetheliving. That community rocks! Because of being a moderator, I've had a great social circle at any Objectivist event. I already know most of the people. When I travel, I always have people I can stop and visit.

Because I care about valuable discussions, I've been very concerned to see how I could improve them -- and as a moderator I've had that power and the means to exercise it. (I learned a lot and changed my ideas about social organizations, and discussions, as a result of my experience.) I've been in the position of seeing that I had improved other people's lives. I feel like I'm leaving several things out, but this was supposed to be brief.

I've never had to think twice about whether it was a 'sacrifice' to be a moderator for wetheliving. Sure it's been rough, time-consuming, demanding. And I certainly got burned out, several times, although I think this has less to do with being a moderator, or wetheliving, or Objectivism, and it's almost entirely due to my own personality and personal development. For my involvement as a whole... it's been a wonderful time. It has been among the most worthwhile things I have done with my life. In retrospect... if I had to choose between going to college, and getting involved with Objectivism on the internet -- I would choose being a moderator every time. Kirez

[william.scherk]

Las Vegas shooting: Isis claims responsibility for deadliest gun massacre in modern US history

[william.scherk]

I downloaded the Cohen-Trump tape from CNN, removing the Cuomo whoopee from beginning and end:

[Jonathan]

He clearly says "Don't pay in cash."

[william.scherk]

This isn't helping.

 

[KorbenDallas]

First time hearing the tape, never read a transcript and didn't know what the context was.  First listen I heard, "I'll pay with cash."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This isn't helping.

William,

I agree, that is, for Cohen's many other clients.

They're probably wondering whether he recorded their privileged conversations, too, and is now going to rat them out to the press or whatever.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This isn't helping.

 

William,

Is this one more helpful?

 

 

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... Cohen's many other clients.

They're probably wondering whether he recorded their privileged conversations, too, and is now going to rat them out to the press or whatever.

You can't make this one up.

Chris Cuomo, who sanctimoniously aired the tape Cohen secretly made of a privileged attorney-client conversation he had with President Trump, just got the surprise of his life.

Cohon secretly recorded his conversation with Cuomo! Now Cuomo is rumored to be all pissed and stuff. Right at the beginning of the conversation, Cohen assured Cuomo he wasn't recording the conversation.

        

From Fox:

Michael Cohen secretly recorded conversation with CNN's Cuomo, telling him he paid Stormy 'on my own'

Man, are these fake news people, who are chasing their own tails like little puppies, entertaining.

The following is even more entertaining. From BizPacReview:

Who can trust this guy? CNN’s Cuomo burned by Cohen after breaking ‘big story’ of Trump tapes

From the article:

Quote

According to The Washington Post, the lawyer had “more than 100 recordings” in his possession, many of them with reporters questioning him about Trump.

Tapes that are now in the hands of federal prosecutors.

More from The Post:

The government has seized more than 100 recordings that Cohen made of his conversations with people discussing matters that could relate to Trump and his businesses and with Trump himself talking, according to two people familiar with the recordings. Cohen appeared to make some recordings with an iPhone — without telling anyone he was taping them.

A significant portion of the recordings is Cohen surreptitiously recording reporters who met with or questioned Cohen about Trump during the campaign and after Trump’s election, the people said.

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said that his client “had the habit of using his phone to record conversations instead of taking notes.”

And while he failed to tell the other parties involved in the conversations, Davis said Cohen “didn’t intend to be deceptive.”

Cohen didn't mean to be deceptive? Well that's going to warm a lot of hearts.

How many fake news reporters are going, "gulp..." right now?

   

After all, their off-the-record conversations are now legally in the hands of federal prosecutors--and they, themselves, help set this whole situation up. I hope they didn't say anything that could be used for... you know...

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

If this is true, Hmmmm.  If it isn't, it serves as indication Fake News can make enticing headlines:

It's a new-ish chip-equipped ball that can information to a cellphone (via Near-Field Communication) ... designed to fit to an app that provides feedback on trajectory, speed, angle, etc, if I grasp the details: https://www.adidas.ca/en/micoach-smart-ball/G83963.html

Edited July 26, 2018 by william.scherk
Less than meets the eye ...

[caroljane]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You can't make this one up.

Chris Cuomo, who sanctimoniously aired the tape Cohen secretly made of a privileged attorney-client conversation he had with President Trump, just got the surprise of his life.

Cohon secretly recorded his conversation with Cuomo! Now Cuomo is rumored to be all pissed and stuff. Right at the beginning of the conversation, Cohen assured Cuomo he wasn't recording the conversation.

I agree with you that the media are wasting their time on the Bimbo Coverups, becauae they are not really news to anyone,  Trump supporters,  even the evangelicals, have long ceased to care about these Bimbogates, the kind of low-rent sleaze that nearly got Clinton impeached.

And unl;ess US law is a lot different from ours, evidence obtained through illegal broadcasting of attorney-client privileged information can never be used in legal proceedings, so whatever Trump said or intended, he could not be prosecuted for anything.

So not much to see here for any of us folks.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

If this is true, Hmmmm.  If it isn't, it serves as indication Fake News can make enticing headlines:

William,

Enticing headlines. Only that. 100% guaranteed.

Don't you think the secret service or military experts are going to be all over that?

They've already taken it apart and put it back together 20 times. You can rest assured of that.

Just as long as it wasn't Comey or Brennan or folks like those jerks doing the tech evaluations, there is zero problem.

That thing is the latest sports gadget and nothing more. It's like Putin giving President Trump a wristwatch or something.

It's a chip in a ball you kick, so that incongruity calls attention to people who are out of focus or skimming. Goose the words right and, voilà, you have instant clickbait.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I agree with you...

Carol,

I did a little formatting help on your post. If you want something changed, let me know.

As to your words I quoted in this post, they are not relevant to my message.

I just like the sound of them.

 

Michael

[caroljane]

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I did a little formatting help on your post. If you want something changed, let me know.

As to your words I quoted in this post, they are not relevant to my message.

I just like the sound of them.

 

Michael

LOL. As to the other Compliment topic I inadvertently  set off-- what to say? Gentlemen: As you were!?

One of these days these words are gonna gush all over you....

.....so I hope, as they have before.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/26/2018 at 8:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Is this one more helpful?

 



 

   

Drudge just keeps nailing it and is funnier than late night comedians these days.

LOL...

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Finally a glass of water in the desert:

Facebook Says It Has Identified A Political Influence Campaign Aimed At Creating Left-wing ‘resistance’

Too little, too late, but at least it's something.

Imagine if these crappy social media companies wanted to be fair and balanced. Hell, they wouldn't even have legal woes and wouldn't be crappy.

I think Obama wrecked them by giving these young nerds a taste of government power and it went to their heads. And they fucked up the Middle East while they were at it.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Last night I tuned into MPR again for a while. They were covering the release of the body cam vids of the Thurman Blevins shooting. They briefly summarized the facts, and then took time for reaction/analysis/commentary. The only opinion that they aired was that of Justin Terrell of the Council of Minnesotans of African Heritage.

His view was not that Blevins was to blame for having been armed, having fired his weapon which resulted in the police being called, nor for running once the officers showed up, nor for refusing to comply with their commands, nor for pointing his pistol toward one of the officers. No. Terrell's view was that the officers were to blame for approaching the armed suspect aggressively. They apparently should have pulled up to him and gently addressed him as one might speak in polite company during, say, a church picnic. Yeah, fine, that's his view, and he's entitled to it.

However, that is the only view that MPR presented.

Bias by omission. Slant. Activism.

Later, I flipped back again, and they were reporting the opinion that the cause of the California fires was man-made global warming. Again, no other opinion offered. No point-counterpoint. This is the one opinion that we're presenting, and that's it. We share the opinion, so we see it as fact, so there's no need to consider anything else. But we're not biased at all.

J

 

[Jonathan]

Btw, the Minnesota Left's official Narrative™ is now what Terrell said on MPR above: The officers should have gently and politely "started a conversation" with the armed suspect about his drunkenness and his having shot his pistol. He'd be alive if they hadn't been aggressive. It's all their fault. And it's because they're racists.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/31/2018 at 5:50 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Finally a glass of water in the desert:

Facebook Says It Has Identified A Political Influence Campaign Aimed At Creating Left-wing ‘resistance’

Too little, too late, but at least it's something.

I'm probably wrong here.

The motive is probably not a true effort to clean up Facebook.

The general opinion outside the anti-Trump glob-bubble is that this is a measure to sneak in an attempt to get it accepted in the public that muh Russians really really really really are influencing the elections. To try to make that message take outside the bubble, Facebook needs to do some damage control and start by being "objective." (Fair and balanced, you know.  )

Then, when disaster hits them all upside the head in the midterms, they can keep hollering, "Muh Russians... muh Russians did it..."

God knows why they want to keep doing this, but they do. And I'll take it.

They also can claim they can be believed this time around because they didn't favor the Dems. I mean... look at the whopping 32 profiles they deleted back in July that were anti-Trump.

 

That sounds more like the truth.

So apologies for giving Facebook a break...

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

Let's discuss journalism via examples.

Here's a piece from today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6019537/Ivanka-breaks-fathers-immigration-policy-family-separations.html

It starts out with the headline and bulleted points...

Ivanka breaks with her father's immigration policy saying separating illegal immigrant families at the border was a 'low point' because she is 'vehemently against' it

• Government has been separating children from men and women who illegally bring them across the border because it's illegal to house kids in adult jails
• Ivanka Trump la slong been opposed to the four-month-old policy but has spoken publicly about it only once
• On Thursday she declared that seeing desperate parents and inconsolable children was 'a low point' in her White House tenure
• 'I am very vehemently against family separation and the separation of parents and children' 
• Ivanka's mother, the president's first wife Ivanka, came to the U.S. from Commuinist Czechoslovakia, but entered the country legally

...and then it goes into the article.

Read it, and see if you can identify and separate reporting of fact from the presentation of the writer's opinions, feelings or interpretations. Are any of the statements untrue, misleading, or unsupported by the facts?

Try to set aside your own feelings, biases and ideological preferences. Put on your editor's hat, try your hardest to be objective and truthful, and analyze the piece. Should it be edited? Should anything be rewritten or stripped from the article?

J

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To try to make that message take outside the bubble, Facebook needs to do some damage control and start by being "objective." (Fair and balanced, you know.  )

And in the future, when Ted Cruz grills Zuck and/or company on Communications Decency Act Section 230 immunity, and on multiple famous examples of Facebook's censorship of conservative views (examples which Zuck even admits were inappropriate and unfounded, and that he's taking serious steps to look into), and on no one's being able to name a single example of censorship of leftist views or antics, now there's one example! There's something to cite! So, see, everything is even now, and completely fair and neutral!

J