KacyRay

As a skeptic, I am skeptical about everything, Cathy. It isn't personal at all... like I said, I would be very happy to come away from this learning that you are exactly who you claim to be. And as I promised, I will take you at your word until and unless I find reason not to. I see no advantage in nitpicking everything you say, looking for reasons not to believe you. No one understands as well as I do how difficult it can be to put together pieces of memories from years past. Hell, I sometimes have a tough time remembering what I did yesterday. Now, I know you probably think that a skeptic is someone who doesn't believe anything... that isn't true by any means. A skeptic is simply someone who scales all of their beliefs to the amount of evidence available (for any given proposition). That means that, as a skeptic, I will accept your proposition (that you are Frank's niece) to the same degree of evidence I have available (which, right now, is only your word and the recollections you've shared with us here). That doesn't mean I don't believe you. It just means that my belief is scaled to the evidence available. Again, it isn't personal - it's the same approach I take to anything anyone proposes to me. So for now, as far as I'm concerned, you are Frank's long-lost niece. And I would like to help you sort through the social quagmire that your Aunt Alice's life has turned into, if I can help in any way. For now, all I can do is implore you not to take anybody's word about what Barbara Branden allegedly said about your Uncle Frank. Please... read it for yourself. That's all I ask.

Sorry, I just don't see doomsday in the tealeaves like you, Dennis. What I do see, and what I like seeing, are laws such as DADT being struck down, the drag war slowly vanishing, theocrats being marginalized, conspiracy theorists and Limbaugh-level pundits being relegated to the “discount rack” of the national conversation, abortion remaining available, etc… I’d rather be impoverished than imprisoned. I like vices being legal. I like freedom to live my life how I choose. When I hear you make your case, I hear one thing and one thing only – you’re afraid of your wallet being encroached upon. And while I share that fear, I have to tell you it concerns me a whole lot less than when I hear theocrats on the radio saying that gay folks should be imprisoned. If there’s one consistency I’ve noticed about those on the hard right as against those on the hard left, it’s that the former are generally very concerned about themselves, whereas the latter tend to understand that a right taken from one of us is a right taken from all of us. It’s the reason that my sympathies changed some time back. Dennis, if you’re wondering why 46 cents of every dollar is borrowed or printed, it might have a whole lot more to do with 2 unfunded wars being waged over the last decade than with the creeping onset of socialism. You do remember the Bush years, right? I remember that’s when the housing market crashed (just after I bought my first house), that’s when the biggest recession of my lifetime happened, and gas prices shot skyward. Those are real, tangible things I remember happening – things that affected me directly. Was it the onset of socialism that caused them, or that blazing irresponsibility of a political faction that was more concerned with making sure those scary Dems don’t take power than with electing someone who had their head screwed on straight? (I voted for Perot in 96, btw). No, it isn’t religion I’m concerned with – it’s theocracy. And if, during a recovering economy, you’re more worried about the big bad socialist monster that isn’t anywhere close to our door than the theocrats that have already infiltrated our culture, then I have to wonder how your priorities got to where they are. But again, here we have the “monster just outside the door” alarmism that seems so appealing to far-right wingers. It’s no wonder you love Beck so much… he’s an endless resource of the fear you seem to thrive on. The good news is that, while you’re busy being afraid of the big, bad anti-christ-Obama-socialist-boogeyman… the rest of us are just sitting back smiling, watching as the value of our houses rise, deficits go down, wars come to an end, unemployment rates fall, mortgage rates drop, freedom expands to new demographics, and guys like Beck get relegated to the discount rack. You like fear? You go with it brother. May it serve you well.

SB - if you're point is that, despite their lunacy, Beck and Palin are somehow doing us a favor because they're on an anti-big-government crusade then I, once again, have to wonder what planet you're living on here. To assert that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, or any of those hard-right-wingers are against big government requires a feat of evasion so powerful that I have to wonder if your fingers can even be dislodged from your ears at this point. Beck, who routinely has revisionist theocrats like David Barton on his show, would be very happy to turn the USA into the United States of Jesus. So would Palin. They are not encouraging an uprising against big government. They are encouraging an uprising of government. I only wish you could spend a week in the world they would love to create for you. I'd love to hear what you had to say then. If you wonder why I spend more time vilifying them than I do those on the other side of the aisle, it's only because every time I've explained it to you, you shrug it off as liberal propaganda from a liberal propagandist. Apparently your definition of "propaganda" is "Any statement, demonstration, or material supporting a position with which you (SB) do not agree" "But would you rather live in his world or a warped progressive commune of a country in which bureaucrats decide how much grain should cost and how much doctors should be paid?" Neither. But I fear Beck's world a whole lot more. If you don't, then you can have it. Let him beat back collectivism on that most basic level, he's doing a good job. What in the world makes you think Beck is beating back collectivism? He's a collectivist on the most basic, sinister level. He would turn this country into a theocracy in a heartbeat if he could. Although I'm sure you think that would be find as long as you could spend your money, you might wake up to a surprise when you're getting arrested in your bedroom one night when the internet cops found porn on your laptop. Try spending all that untaxed money while you're in prison for trying to live as a free human being.

Cathy, The one thing I would hate for you to come away from all of this with is the belief that Barbara Branden bears ill-will toward Frank O'Conner, or has in any way spoken ill of him. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just read her book a couple months ago, and I can tell you that her description of Frank is one of a likable, friendly, warm human being who handled a very unconventional situation the best way he knew how. At no time was he spoken badly about. If I could, I'd gladly give you my copy of the book so that you could read it for yourself. She did not smear him. She didn't smear Ms. Rand either, but that's a different conversation. Disclaimer: I don't speak for Barbara Branden. My above statement is my own conclusion that I've drawn from reading her words in her bio, as well as her words on this forum.

Thanks Stephen. MSK - I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.

Yesterday I was running on the treadmill, and I was thinking about my habit of trying to ensure I don't look down at the clock ticking down too long. I play music, I cover it with a towel... different methods that I use in order to ensure I *do not* know exactly how much time I have to spend running on that damn thing. I don't know why, but the thought of Rand on a treadmill popped into my mind (just stay with me on this one, please...), and I was thinking about her position that she could deal with any reality, as long as she knew and understood it, and that evasion was always wrong. Yet when i run, I don't want to know how much time is left. I prefer to be kept guessing. It made me wonder if she would watch the clock count down every grueling second... of if she, like most folks, prefer to shut off their minds and deliberately distract themselves in order to make it bearable. Of course, this applies to other things as well. Sometimes the fact is, people prefer not to know exactly what they're facing. I've seen times on this ship where one person says "Hey man, we're almost two months in... just 6 left!" and someone else will say "Come on! I don't wanna head about how much time is left.. it just makes it feel worse!" I remember when I was younger, I used to set my clocks 15 minutes fast and deliberately *force* myself to (just about) forget that I had done so... and that was the best method I could come up with to get to work on time. [Note: I could not pull this off today even if I needed to... thankfully I no longer need to.] So here's my point - I've found it useful to deliberately *blank out* information that serves no functional purpose and, in fact, only serves to distract and make a tough situation tougher. Now, would Rand have agreed that this is a rational act? Did she ever comment on anything like that? I hold that it is perfectly rational to blot unhelpful information from one's consciousness. But this would seem to run contrary to Objectivist thought... I'm not sure Rand would have considered any information "unhelpful".

I think that Jones is running a very successful propaganda campaign, the seeds of which find their way into many other sources. Propaganda and cheap shots? It is not propaganda to point out propaganda - in fact it's informative. I'll tell you that, until about 6-8 months ago, I didn't know who Alex Jones was. Until not long ago, I didn't know about the infowars website. I've met some kooky conspiracy theorists before, but I didn't realize how engrained in our culture it is. I have no interest in discussing anything that isn't of general interest to the group I'm having a conversation with, so no... my purpose was not to propagate or take cheap shots. I sure don't think it's a cheap shot to cast light on the ways and methods of such a sinister misinformation campaign, but if this is old news, then alright... my mistake. I'll tell you what struck me most about that article (and the reason I quoted it) is the statement "This is why the mainstream media is failing to hold an audience and experiencing dwindling statistics while alternative news sources that capture the pulse of ongoing investigation manage to come out on top." I thought that statement, and the irony found in the fact that it was in support of an outright falsehood, had some applicability, particularly in light of our friend dennis saying that "it does not impress when you cut yourself off from information" (not an exact quote). And I thought it was a useful illustration of what some people consider "information". Read my OP again and you'll see that this was the point I was driving at.

Heh... well... I'm not so sure everyone knows that. But, okay...

Interesting story, MSK. Thanks for laying it all out. PZ Myers is a tool. The blogosphere would be better off if he never wrote another word. I wonder if the husband ever came to his senses and went back to his kids?

There's an article on CNN about the body of a college student that was found - a student who has been missing since mid-March. The student is Sunil Tripathi. You might recognize that name as the name of someone who was falsely accused of the Boston Marathon bombings. Look at this article on Alex Jones' website "infowars"... where his crack team of 4chan super-sleuths identifies this missing college kid Sunil Tripathi as the culprit. "“The fact that Sunil Tripathi’s information was able to be dug up so quickly by 4Chan’s community and posted hours before the police even managed to engage Sunil in Watertown shows the lightning fast capabilities of alternative news and the internet at large,” writes Anthony Gucciardi. “This is why the mainstream media is failing to hold an audience and experiencing dwindling statistics while alternative news sources that capture the pulse of ongoing investigation manage to come out on top.”" Notice that the article is still up almost a week after the true bombers have been identified, a day after this falsely accused kid has been found dead, with no retraction and no indication that this information has been shown to be false or updated? Just another example of the standard of "information" these people have, and how little respect they have for the truth or for other human beings.

Pfft... spoil sport! Next you'll be wanting evidence for god. What fun is that?

This right here is you asserting that one should never apply a rational filter to one's mind. I'd be willing to bet you don't actually live by this policy.

Okay. I guess we shall see, right? If it turns out to be true... roger that. Score one for Beck. But if it doesn't, what will you say? Will you selectively disregard it as a mere "near miss" and go on to believe the next package of fear he tries to sell you? Or will you insist that it was, in fact, a hit... but one that was covered up by the government? What rationale will you employ?

Dennis, I don't consider it "cutting myself off from information" when I decline to listen to Beck. I consider it cutting myself off from fearmongering. What you're suggesting is that one should not apply a rational filter to one's mind.

We shall see. Media defectors... at least that's one prediction that can be tested. My prediction is that ... these are two guys who were influenced by some jihadist. The older of the two was heavily influenced by the Muslim extremist, the younger brother was influenced primarily by his older brother. They were amateurs pulling an amateur operations. That's why they got caught so fast. That's why they behaved the way they did after the bombing. That's why no one is claiming connection. When an event like this takes place - one in which, in order to get to the facts, all stones must be turned over - there is a complete likelihood that some of the stones that were turned over are going to have the spotlight shined on them. "Ah, why were they questioning THAT Saudi individual?" Well, because they didn't know what to look for, so they were looking at *everything*. It's also almost inevitable that, while questioning anyone and everyone about this bombing, they were going to turn up an individual or two that maybe had some other dirt under their rug. This seems all but inevitable. Occams razor. There's nothing about this that requires the unnecessary multiplication of entities.

Heh... ok. We can leave it at "Something real big is gonna happen.. not sure what or when... but it's gonna happen, by god!" I was reading on some other site that there's clip floating around of Beck saying that if the administration didn't come clean on this by Monday (which was a few days ago) that he was going to reveal the truth. Of course, the video was complete with the dramatic pauses of silence that Beck has worked into his radio persona. The implication being, of course, that Glenn Beck had some incriminating evidence on how the administration has handled this case (or was involved in it) and rather than revealing this information vital to our national security, he was just going to hold onto it - presumable because it makes good radio entertainment. Perhaps dennis remembers Beck saying that last week. I don't know. Believe me, I miss being able to watch streaming video. Back home I spend more time watching streaming video than I do watching TV.

Kacy, I never held you responsible for anything. And I don't really care if you take this story seriously (that is, until you do). Besides, Glenn Beck is a fool, right? Are we still playing bury the substance with "Glenn Beck sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," (and so on)? Michael "I never held you responsible for anything." - Oh, I know... but when you say "Go on. Show us Glenn Beck is a fool", it's only courteous for me, if I decline to do so, to explain why I've declined. And the answer is... because "iss not my yob" (but also because it would be technically difficult for me to do so from here). But to be clear... I don't think Beck is stupid, or a fool... I think he's an alarmist who sells fear and makes a good living off doing so. "Are we still playing bury the substance with "Glenn Beck sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," (and so on)?" That was never my intent... but I did want to make clear that I feel that, when someone cries wolf enough times, it becomes irrational to believe them anymore (whether or not they are telling the truth). In other words, if this grand, unnamed conspiracy that everyone has been alluding to (yet no one has described) is actually taking place - it won't make Beck any less of an alarmist. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Let's just do this... let's see how it plays out and all I'll ask you to tell me is this: How long will *nothing* have to happen before you will admit "Hey, you're right... nothing happened"? Can you at least give me that much? A month? Six months? A year? The end of the Obama Administration? Otherwise, we are in the exact situation I've described, where something is perpetually about to happen. That's entirely arbitrary and irrational, and it's exactly the state that the fear-pedlars want you to be in.

MSK, Glenn Beck has been around for a long time... When i say I can't get streaming video, I mean here on the ship. I've been deployed since February 11th. When I stop at liberty ports (which happens once a month if we're lucky), I could potentially get streaming video if I find a wifi, but the odds of me spending my liberty port time watching political videos or even discussing them is slim to none. I'm also the assistant senior shore patrol officer, so I actually have a job to do even when we visit ports. So when I talk about my experience regarding Beck, I'm talking about what I've known about him over the years. I've seen his chalkboards, his conspiracy theories, his "expose's" of the menacing wolf that's always waiting just outside the door. I've heard him tell us all of the impending doom that awaits us all upon Obama's election (and reelection), and how in just a few short months, we wouldn't even be able to recognize the USA anymore. Glenn Beck's stock-in-trade is fear. He cries and panics and implores us all to do the same. I equate people who believe Glenn Beck's alarmism to people who believe the rapture is imminent. But as to your offer for me to show you how foolish Beck is, I'd just point out two things... 1- You're switching the burden of proof. dennis (and yourself at this point) have asserted that Glenn Beck has some sort of inside scoop about the administration. Dennis said "I like that Beck is sitting on a bunch more information and intends to let it drip drip drip according to how the Obama administration reacts. He has warned journalists this will blow up in their faces if they don't get involved. He has warned government officials this will cause some to lose their jobs and things will only get worse if they don't do the right thing." "blow up in their face" is pretty vague. "some will lose their jobs" is vague as well (when, exactly? And for what?) And what does "do the right thing" mean? You see how all of this is just demagoguery and vague platitudes? Nothing specific... all just "a bunch more information"... really? Reminds me of Trumps "big big news!!!' that was nothing more than a challenge to Obama. Or his private investigation into Obama's birth certificate coming up with "huge findings" that to this day still haven't been revealed. Yet there are still people who take Trump seriously. So no.. it's not my responsibility to demonstrate that Beck misses the mark. When you positively claim that he has something solid, it's on you to back that up. 2- Your challenge for me to do so actually gnaws at me because, if I had an internet connection with full capabilities and no filters, I know for a fact I could dig in a find an unending supply of Beck's dire predictions that have never come to fruition. So again... maybe I'll revisit this thread in the future when I can do that and present some of what I'm thinking of. But for now, I'll have to be content with pointing out that nothing of substance has been presented here. "Oooh... something BIG is about to happen! Glenn Beck says so! Just wait... it'll happen any moment now.. just before Jesus returns!" God, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that, I'd be a rich man.

I don't recall any information being presented that merited any real consideration. I remember it was all conjecture and speculation mixed with half-truths. I also remember that the discussion took place while the entire incident was still under investigation. So SB, why don't you tell us... what will Beck spring on us? What's really happening here? I see that you have your convenient "out" whenever you need it... if something happens, you can claim that guys like Beck predicted it, if nothing happens, it means the regime "got away with it" again. How convenient. It's the perfect formula for alarmists and conspiracy lovers to never have to be accountable for being flat-out wrong. Meanwhile, I look outside, and the sun is still shining. Everything is just fine... regardless of how awful you try to convince me things are. Oh, I know... the world will come to an end tomorrow. You should mount that sign on your wall, since it's true every single day.

You're absolutely right. I could not have said it better myself. I have nothing good to say about PZ Myers. And if you are on board with his far-left feminist cult - or if you just accept it uncritically - then you have some serious soul searching to do. How can anyone who respects Ayn Rand respect someone like PZ Myers? The two are as different as night and day.

Notice, I'm not offering information. I'm demonstrating that no useful information has been offered... nothing but alarmism and hysterics. And I'm offering anyone the chance to offer useful information. "Glenn Beck" says something is not useful information. He's an alarmist who has been predicting doomsday for years. To him, tomorrow is always the day it's going to happen.

But Michael, Kacy gets his info from ThinkProgress and RightWingWatch. Are you suggesting such sources are not objective??? Say it isn't so! Ah, Serapis Ad Hom Bey... good to see you're making valuable contributions to the discussion as usual.

MSK, I can't watch streaming video. It's one of the major inconveniences I suffer being out here. If you're suggesting I'm offering Media Matters talking points.. that would be difficult since I don't have any direct knowledge of what those are. I'm speaking of my own personal experience and knowledge of Beck. Are you not going to offer any specifics on what Beck is going to do? Nothing falsifiable? I mean, dennis has been making it sound like something huge is about to go down, and Obama is pretty close to having his regimen crumble out from under him, and you seem to concur. So I'm asking a reasonable question - what exactly is about to happen? What do you see in the foreseeable future here? I'm not asking you to write a book... I'm just asking for something verifiable. With all the speculation going around, and as credible as you find Beck to be... that's not an unreasonable question.

Kacy, Do I honestly believe the WH folks take Glenn seriously? Yup. You sound like you live in a bubble where some local folks supply the narrative and say the whole world thinks that way. You should get out more. Michael Heh... I hope you're joking. (I assume you know that I'm deployed on a ship in a war zone right now and that I attend an operations/intelligence brief 7 days a week) Look, here's what I'll offer... make a verifiable, falsifiable claim. Tell us all how this is going to play out. Make a prediction that can be verified or falsified. What exactly is going to happen? I'd extend this offer to dennis or anyone else who thinks that Glenn Beck has some earth-shattering information up his ass that will have a cataclysmic affect on the Obama administration. And please, I don't want anything like "Doh... Beck is gonna bring the administration to its knees!" or some such meaningless platitude. Offer something measurable - something verifiable. Offer up something that, in the coming months, we can look back on and determine who was right and who was foolish. I'm more than willing to revisit this and find out. But you have to make a real prediction - not an arbitrary claim or a meaningless, undefined platitude. What, exactly, do you think Beck is going to spring on the administration, and what impact, specifically, do you think it will have? And when? (Give us a delimited period of time, after which we can verify if you were right).

From the article: A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212, 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing on April 15TheBlaze received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national — identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi — as the story gained traction on April 18.Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill on April 18, saying the inquiry was “so full of misstatements and misapprehension that it’s just not worthy of an answer.”An ICE official said April 18 that a different Saudi national is in custody, but that he is “in no way” connected to the bombings.Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano on April 22New info provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered on the evening of April 17 to disassociate him from the initial chargesSources say April 22 that the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Mass. A DHS official told TheBlaze Alharbi properly transferred his student visa to a school in Massachusetts.TheBlaze sources reveal April 22 that Alharbi was put on a terror watchlist after the bombing, and Napolitano confirmed on April 23 that he was briefly on a “watchlist”Or... A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212, 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing on April 15TheBlaze received word (from whom?)Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill on April 18, saying the inquiry was “so full of misstatements and misapprehension that it’s just not worthy of an answer.”An ICE official said (what ICE official?)Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano on April 22New info provided to TheBlaze (from whom?)Sources say (what sources?)TheBlaze sources reveal (what sources?)Now, there's some crack journalism! I wonder if that source is... Glenn Beck? Alex Jones? Aunt Jamaima? I can imagine that Napolitano has enough on her plate with actual, real-world issues that she has no time or patience for questions regarding conspiracy theories.