Meet the "Invisible" Enemy

Good point, and I believe you have demonstrated a good way to address the issue. Raymond B www.voteswagon.com

kat - They don't seem to have a problem with airing DNC propaganda. Wonder what would happen if... Nah. More people are paying attention to it here than would do so on the six o'clock news. And go for it, kat. Shoot me an e-m when it's up.

Note where Bill got the info, Alan. The CENTCOM website. The info is out there, but the MSM doesn't want to use it.

I think it should be framed as a leak from Canada... But what say you of the failure of the framing of the war as a war of the people as opposed to the military? Would the press (MSM is so 2004) be able to crap on it if the administration had rolled out the war on terror as a war by the nation? I would be quite willing to accept a "no, you fool" on this if the idea is I have no clue how the US population woud take the idea as total war on terror.

Heh...Let me add here that one of the problems may not be a question of overt disinformation by the MSM, but one of subconscious. There are a few things that we can deduce from history and the reaction of the media. First, by nature of being an open media that decides what it does or does not print, say, or show, it has been assailed by many people trying to get them to show their point of view. They are like the beautiful woman with millions of suitors each of them offering her diamonds, money or a life of adventure if only it will come with that suitor for awhile. Of course, the suitor had no intention of loving her, but only desired to screw her brains out and discard her. In response, the beautiful woman begins to develop a hard personality, supported by the scars on the heart and psyche of all the times she'd been taken in before. She is overly wary of any suitor with pretty overtures bearing gifts (information) that approaches her and frequently lashes out first so she will hurt them first and protect herself. Yet, because of her very nature, she cannot help but be driven into the arms of the uncaring suitor who now just sees her as an ugly prostitute, calls her an ugly prostitute in her presence but always weadles his way back into her graces with flattery and shiny presents (pictures of explosions and beheaded innocents - raw) and some how she begins to believe that the "honesty" of this suitor, his behavior and his "gifts" equates to a "real" relationship because it fits her own image of herself. The whole time, the suitor still didn't care and still only planned to screw her brains out and discard her when he is done. It's a classic case of the abused girlfriend/spouse whose lack of self esteem always leads her to subconsciously seek out abusive relationships. And don't get her self aggrandizement of being "the elite" and "arbiter of the only truth" mixed up with good self esteem. It's the lie they must tell themselves so they can still pretend to be the beautiful woman. Like many beautiful women who have aged not so gracefully, she still primps in front of the mirror and sees herself as that young goddess from 200 years ago, who began by upholding truth and freedom and the benefits of a free press, but soon began to believe her own press which is why she took so long to recognize how many times she was being used. And in her youth, she routinely left her suitors lying in the dust with their hearts broken, each one of her conquests and rejections in a picture, video or piece of paper, like trophies she keeps and looks at to remind herself that once she was young and spry and capable of ruling her world. Now, she routinely dies her hair, goes on diets and gets plastic surgery so that she can maintain the illusion of youth and beauty when all the while she is just a cynical old prostitute and no make over can stop the aging process or reverse her ugly cynical heart.

Castle Argghhh! - your one-stop shop for organizational psychoanalysis!

Gee, Kat - I may have to start charging by the line...

Well, I've got articles submitted for publication that ain't been accepted (nor declined) but I ain't making any money at this pundit thing. But you write better'n I do. And you've put more words here today than I have...

Geez--go back to work after playing e-mail catch and look what happens... *blink* *blink* Erudition! Rampant erudition! Alan and kat and John, oh my! A-hem. Okay, I'm better now. Alan, CENTral COMmand is the basis for the acronym. The link graphic is on the right sidebar labeled "Stories from the Front." There's good news in there, too, plus a lot of things worth pondering...

D-oh!

Yes, Alan, I am. I am saying that there is an in between, but nobody really represents an "in between" or centrist idea because, for some reason we as humans regularly seek polarized designated labels that most closely represent our ideas, even if we may not totally agree with every single idea. Honestly, centrist ideas are simply taking the truths of both sides and coming up with a third truth. The trick is in figuring out if any of these truths are the absolute. I'm saying we never find that out because truth almost always comes under interpretation of the person seeing it who applies their previous experiences to create the story of "truth". Take for instance, political parties. Are political parties, where two are the major parties, an actual product of our chosen government or because we chose the type of government, the political parties are actually our constructions, not simply the outcome of a system. We tend to gravitate towards those who are like minded yet we know that they all can't agree or believe as we do. So, yes, I am saying that, while many a journalist will have individual ideas, they didn't drift into journalism at an organization like the NYT or CNN because they are simply a system of journalism but because those organizations most closely produce or resemble in thought their own perceived identity group. I mean that to be, not simply "journalist" but liberal (in what ever way you want to identify that). And, similarly, when these organizations (or any organization or corporation) hire journalists, they vet them for more than how well they construct a sentence, use punctuation or actually site verifiable sources, but the content of their writing and whether it matches whatever written or implied "standards and beliefs" that the organization tends to think of as its "identity". And, of course we know that when people drift to and relate with largely those that have similar beliefs, it tends to re-enforce their own beliefs instead of changing or expanding them. With few exceptions, those that do join, fully aware that they are different and with the intent of being the rebel in the group and they join for just that reason (because they like to be the rebel and challenge; that's a personality trait of certain individuals and not necessarily common either). Paradoxically, because the organization has said that it is "objective" and "fair" it believes that by hiring this rebel to be one of two or three opposition voices within their midst, they can some how avoid "group think" and polarization. My point is, it's too late, they are already polarized. Now that I've gone all the way around the question of "truth as an absolute", let me use an example and then apply the polarized model: A plane crashed. 154 people are killed. Those two things are absolute truths and there is little you can do to change them. It's when we get to the questions of "how and why" that perception begins to be the narrative of the truth. One witness says he saw a huge explosion in the sky right before the plane plunged to earth. A second witness says that he saw no explosion, the plane simply plunged straight to earth. Now, who is right? You could ask many other witnesses if they are available and likely you will get many different answers with some agreeing with witness one and others agreeing with witness two. Is the truth then dependent on how many more people agree with witness one as opposed to witness two? Or is it something that we cannot know because we do not have a video that records the entire flight of the plane (which even then I would contend that some people would still hold on to their own narrative as the truth regardless of what was physically presented and knowable, but that is another issue - or, it proves my point). Why did the plane crash? An investigation proves that two bolts holding the engine on are sheered off in a manner that indicates stress that may have caused the engine to break off and the plane to lose stability. But, the next question of "how did this happen" again becomes a matter of narrative as some people begin to insist that it was faulty maintenance and others insist that there was a manufacturing flaw. In short, the truth begins to be obscured as the narrative of how and why is constructed. Applying now the polarized model, which I believe reflects current media trends, people begin to apply their own perceptions based on which story they believe to be more accurate based on their own experiences or even lack of. Depending on who tells the story the most or the loudest (applying a bit of Goebbel's excellent insight into human nature and truth) or the group that an outside person most identifies with, that perceived truth becomes "the" truth. Since I feel that I have demonstrated that media organizations represent polarized groups of people (that includes Fox as well as CNN), I believe that the same concept of perceived truth becoming "the" truth to the whole is applicable. As consumers, in a free market with many choices, we naturally gravitate towards one of these polarized media organizations (whether we want to believe that is what we are doing or not, when someone says that they trust one of these organizations above any other, it isn't because the organization represents the absolute truth but because it best reflects the consumers perception). Today, because there are so many choices, the ratings and revenues of these organizations indicate which one most closely resembles the consumers' perceived truth, though many others may just watch it because they like to feel controversial and seeing an opinion different than theirs is controversial (ie, the rebel personality). However, at one point, the number of media organizations (specifically television, but including certain press) that could reach masses of consumers was more restricted or limited. Such as the three alphabet networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. Which meant that the consumers had little choice but to consume the news and perceived truths of organizations that were already polarized organizations (I mean that to say that the organizations themselves had attracted certain types of people, not that the organizations were different from one another-much). In other words, when one polarized group controls the information flow, it doesn't necessarily mean that what they say is the "absolute" truth, but it does mean that the narrative of their truth becomes the only truth available and that filters down to eventually homogenize the watchers and readers who then regurgitate it as "the" truth. Using my example, if witness one who saw the explosion before the plane crash is the only witness interviewed and presented and nobody interviews witness two, then which narrative becomes the story or the "truth" of the crash? And, if you the consumer never know about witness two, how do you know it isn't the truth? You don't. Some suspect there is another "truth", but unless they have a way to find it, it is only a suspicion. And that, Alan, is why we come to this place and many places like it because the one large polarized group known as the "media" no longer controls the information or narrative of the truth. Now we can interact with many, though we often do as I said human nature eventually leads us to, which is to polarize and read those that are most like us. Only those who do have a rebelious personality seek out other information, whether to have their ideas challenged or simply for the thrill of the challenge or because, some where deep inside we know that truth is perception and we need more information to fill out and develop our own "truth". I believe that is why we see "polls" that reflect what seems to be paradoxes in opinion on such things as the war in Iraq. People think its not going good, but that we should stay. This doesn't mean that they want it to keep going the same way, staying just to continue to lose. It means that they believe there is more to the "truth" of why and what we should do in Iraq besides the two narratives of whether we are winning or losing there. conversely, we see polls that also say that the news does no reflect all of the truth about Iraq, so we know that people have learned that the truth is perceived narrative and not to trust it unless they physically see it with their own eyes. They can't because the polarized presentation of the news which can't seem to leave their own polarized narrative and give their consumers what they want, ie, information that is outside the paradigm of the "truth" as they believe it. It just wouldn't be ethical to present something that wasn't the truth, don't you know. ;) Which is also why so many of these organizations are falling into economic problems and very bad ratings. Finally, in case you think that I am telling you there is no absolute truth or we can never know it, let me confuse you some more by saying that there is absolute truth and we know it. From my example, the absolute truth is, a plane crashed and 154 people died. That is the only absolute truth. Or is it?

So why does Canada has three main political parties in this election cramming the center, each trying to be more moderately generous than the next, each respecting the issues of all? And what does obeying the opposition mean?

I'll go further: Alan, so what you are saying is that there is no polarization of politics or group think in Canada because these parties recognize some "middle" that is currently up for grabs? Now, I know you think we don't pay much attention to Canadian politics (ok, I don't much, but I do have the peripheral), but I have an idea that you are either trying to pull the wool over my eyes or doing it to yourself. Polarization does not have to come in two flavors only. The only things that can be assured of as only polarizing to two sides are the north and south poles and two magnets somebody is trying to force together. The three main parties in Canada are: Green Extra Left Liberal Left Conservative Right Now, just to make sure I wasn't talking out of my..er..you know, I looked up all three parties platforms on the net to insure I knew what they were currently putting on their agendas. Green extra left basically believes in the same socialist agenda of the liberal left except they have the environment as a large part of their platform. Is completely anti-war and doesn't even want to be in Afghanistan. Advocates bigger government. Attacking accountability of libs Liberal Left has a socialist agenda, does include comments on the environment, but is more cautious. They are anti-war except that Martin understands his minimal obligations for protection of North America means he has to contribute something to the effort in Afghanistan because the US was attacked. Frankly, they'd probably prefer not to be there, but have some concept of reality. Maintain government at current size but some how improve services. Not mentioning the scandal. Both advocate tougher gun control laws and neither are particularly concerned about immigration as a problem (libs actually advocate increased immigration). The conservative party is pro-gun, pro-strong military (without actually saying anything about the Iraq war, trying to dress pretty for the voters), pro-tax cut, pro-free choice in child care and possibly, ever so slightly advocating for less government interference in medicine and other things currently under government control that is effecting development of industries. Favors free trade. Small government. Does this sound like a non-polarized political atmosphere? So, who are these "centrists" that all parties are hoping to pick up? Well, the liberal party which has been in charge of Canada for eons has been rocked with one corruption scandal after the other. Government spending has increased without noticable improvement in services and your budget sucks (welcome to the club). Not to mention that immigration is up for the third year in a row. Basically, the corruption scandals are peeling off a chunk of voters from the liberal party. They still believe in most things the libs do but their choices are conservative and far left. Since the Canadian population is polarized largely to the liberal left, it has kept them in power for years and probably means that, with the choices out there, people are going to vote the libs back in. Conservatives and green can only hope to increase their seats from peeled off voters. The only other voters that are up for grabs are the new minorities from immigration, up 4% as an identifiable "minority" than 2000 (ie, now 13% and was 9% of population). Tend to be more conservative in personal relations but can be counted on to want government hand outs to continue. So, these may not be as influenced to move away from the libs either. So, the only parties moving "center" are the greens and the conservatives and the only thing up for grabs are people who are p.o'ed about the corrupt government and the center these parties are moving to is not really a center at all because their core platform didn't really change, they are just talking more about the mistakes of the libs. Polarized. To the left. to the right. but mostly left

No wedge issues? What's the "accountability" thing on NDP and Conservative websites then? Second, while I agree that the conservative party is not going to commit political suicide by attempting to completely erase all the social services, their own website lists freedom of choice for child care (example) which would be the baby step of hands off government and the big step is that they are recommending less regulation in the business sector also hands off government. Now, they might not be advocating it to the degree of the American republican party, but it does exist. The fact is, nobody is trying to move to the center. that's some media baloney. the NDP and the tories sense blood in the water where the libs cut themselves open on corruption scandal and think they can peel off some voters while the libs are protecting their votes. That's not centrist either. That's good politicking. Kind of like calling Hillary Clinton, the mother of attempted universal healthcare and a few other things, a centrist.

Alan First, in saying there are no idealists and then giving me an example that you believe is the vision of Canada, you just contradicted yourself and proved that you are an idealist. It likes what is fair and tolerates a small amount of graft. Second, you said there is no polarized politics or groups and then gave me several examples of polarized groups: Some parties in the Maritimes of the more conservative nature were against the recognizing and honouring of aboriginal fishing rights back in say 2001.[snip] When the evangelicals and rightist do gooders showed up to get a good shunning going, On top of that, your description of Canadians, if true, indicates that they are one big homogenized group with one giant group think going on, indicating Canada itself is the polarization having attracted like minded people. Which, despite your idealic description of the demographic, I completely disbelieve because my experience with people is that they do not all wake up in the morning singing the dawning of Aquarias (ie, let the love shine in). Further, if it was such a homogenous society, there would be one party and not three which tells me that each of these parties do offer something different from the other and that, yes, their voters gravitate, polarize, whatever you want to call it, to these groups for a reason. And, I take it that you vote liberal because you believe that the liberal party put "accountability" on their agenda because they believe it was the right thing to do when, if it had been, that sort of problem would have already received attention by the party in power, instead, it is an issue by necessity that they must put on if they are going to keep voters who might otherwise decide to vote green or tory. You are an idealist. ;)

I guess it is hard to discuss this with ferners like yourselves. Just think of Canada as the MSM, democrats, courts, etc and the colours will resolve back to simple and primary ones.

Mainly Snowy Mountains?

Oh, and Alan - it's 'furriners'. Ferners work in greenhouses.

It's actually spelled "frnrs" (it's a Bosnian word). Furriners work on mink ranches.

m99 - Nicely thought out and expressed. The global concept also works well as a sine curve, allowing for varying degrees of--oh, call it committment--expressed as x-y points within.

I would suggest that no nation, Canada and US included, has its poles located on exactly opposite sides of the globe. Hence when they triangulate to a truth they only get an approximation that may or may not apply beyond the boundaries of their culture. So maybe Canada just has too many reference points in the northleftern hemisphere.

PS..I am only a smart as the people I hang out with. ;)

kat, i'd prefer to be called a moron. It was not a typo, it was a chosen name. The topic at hand is almost exactly why moron was chosen. The "truth" is beyond my ability to comprehend. But there is hope. There are at least 98 other morons. Maybe they can help. Maybe a few hundred morons can put their heads together and achieve the lofty status of "slightly retarded". A few thousand you say? Well, we could become downright average. A billion? Why shucks mam, we'd be brighter than einstein.

Regardless, Moron, you've given us a different viewpoint - and we've managed to *not* sink to moonbattery nor attract any. Another reason not to be a *big* blogger.

Hi Kat. DC just reminded me that I failed to check the "here' in your comment - so, I am just reading in at the moment. Fun discussion and to see the Canadian political scene sliced and diced is interesting. Absolute truth - I kind of lost the quest way back when and while I love the depth of your argumentation and balance Kat, I currently see this line of reasoning as one of the problems rather than a solution. You are right, the plane crashed and a certain number of people were killed. All the rest is spin for sure, but the critical problem is that the MSM effectively pursues these peripheral and tangential aspects as a substitute for taking responsibility for the few plain facts. In fact my conclusion is that the MSM essential agenda is to deliberately cloud the meaningful so as to blind us to the responsibility we have in our democracies to seek, as Sharansky says, the moral clarity we need to avoid the trap of relativism and tolerance. Classically in Canada we are so fanatically PC and understanding (and multilingual and multicultural),that we are this close to letting the drip, drip of the separatist drumbeat wear us down to the point where we are letting the "country" melt away. This result is the inevitable one for a government and a people who seem unable to muster up the courage to ever say no. The best current international example of this malaise is the Tunis Internet extravaganza on the control over the core servers and naming protocols. Instead of saying straight up to the dictatorships and repressive regimes that were pushing for less US control (as the USA did), my wonderful government true to its inability to ever say No, decided that, well, lets create a committee to talk about the issues. Pardon me? What an utter abdication of our moral clarity. To leave the door open is simply to leave yourself insecure and it wins no points from anyone. This, however unfortunately, is our classic method of capitulation - with the hallmark being the time it takes to finally lie back and enjoy the violation. After all in the 1960's at the beginning of the Quebec separatist agenda, they had a list of demands with about thirty 'must have' items on it. Well, guess what - virtually all of these have been given over to the Separatists in the last three decades or so and lo and behold, it is not enough, they still want to separate. A country that values everyone’s values, values nothing. cn