On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:58:55 +0100, abelard <***@abelard.org>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Post by abelardOn Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:15:01 +0000, hummingbird
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdAre you suggesting bloggers *do* have armies of on-the-spot journos?
of course they do....look at the neat little mobile phones with
built in cameras to be seen at every demo....
1.That covers only a tiny few events, not the big issues most people
are interested in. Did you ever see a blogger in the Rose Garden
with a mobile camera? Thought not.
the fossil media are welcome to that!
But that tripe always gets pitched as the big issue of the day.
After all, sheep have come to accept that World HQ is in Washington
and they like to watch the Emperor speaking occasionally - even if
they can't understand what he's saying ;-)
not necessary...the horse's mouth....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050316-3.html
note also from this which i will probably expand upon....
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tithonus/498962.html
with this in part....
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29988/story.htm
let the fossils try to keep up....
Fine, you and some others might logon to these websites/blogs to see
what Bush has been saying and trawl through it for clues to analyse
and comment...but how many sheep do? They are largely happy to scan
mainstream TV News/tomorrow morning's paper to get the gist.
As said earlier, the way in which people such as yourself interpret
what is said by the Bushies clan is very subjective and depends on
where you sit politically. It becomes *one* interpretation.
There are others. These sites are not neutral. They can become a
politically charged luv-fest for true believers.
This all tells me that these websites/blogs have a very useful role
and fill a gap in the information supply network but not as a
replacement for mainstream and its sheep.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardbut the biggest circulation item in france is l'equipe.....most of the
sports media at least includes a few facts in among the garbage....
it's the daily slime that is my target....
That's fine. I have no problem with anybody attacking slime but
remember it's a subjective viewpoint.
all viewpoints are 'subjective'....that's why they are 'viewpoints'
or sommat....
OK. Expect support only from like-minded viewers.
Many other people are suffering from propaganda overload.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbird2. Some of those are there to take pix of police violence.
i smell a new blog in the making.....
It'll be your first blog won't it?
i'm effectively running a blog to my own design....
but as usual i tend to integrate and bespoke....
Why don't you separate out the commentary from the website and
set it up as a daily blog? At their basic level, blogs don't need
quite the same level of attention to layout/formatting etc...
Post by abelardPost by hummingbird.....if I exclude the auroran
sunset blogs which you have nought to do with!
i am certainly aware of it....you will note both picking data off the
other....i do that with at least half a doz of the more useful/
interesting blogs...
Begins to resemble a neo-con luv-fest. IIRC, the guy behind auroran
has something to do with your own website design...right?
Now here's an idea for a blog ...one that provides commentary
on two (or more) interpretations of events...people can then evaluate
and decide which they 'believe' is most realistic...Maybe you'd find
that too risky ;-)
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdMeaning that some bloggers produce good commentary. Fine. That
doesn't mean they are taking over mainstream. We have known for
decades that mainstream is tainted. It doesn't stop people reading
their output. You are not giving sufficient attention to the need
people have to read stuff which concordes with their conditioning.
Liberals read the Guardian, Tories read the Telegraph etc.
fine but such people don't make serious decisions any more than
those watching neighbours....
But they buy mainstream output.
ok...i get you now....but as said....that is not my target or concern....
Well if you're not targeting people who buy/read mainstream, who?
those who take decisions....those who intend to learn (and preferably act)
~ I can't see many politicians or other powerbrokers having the
time/inclination to become blog readers. The readership are others,
who have an interest in more analysis, but it still comes back to the
issue of many blogs being subjective and politically flavoured.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdAnd those who *do* make decisions, don't usually read blogs.
1)i don't believe it....and in as much as it is true this year....it won't
be next...
~ Do you think the powerbrokers will all be reading blogs next year?
Would they know where to find a private unlinked blog?
Post by abelardthe blogs are already ahead (or close to) of the parties in the
usa.....that gap is opening fast....
Are you referring to party activists doing the reading/writing?
they do both....
i know what i do is read widely where it matters....
politicians have cut outs....they don't tend to expose themselves....
'reporters' who think, use what i am doing......
reporters and politicians have different objectives and therefore profiles
OK, so it seems your output is directed at people within the political
ranks and those related to it by way of their profession etc.
Few of those are customers of mainstream, some are part of it.
Post by abelardi can be more 'blunt'.....i am set up in a manner that allows that....
some courts use a motley fool....
repeat...i am a monk.....
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardhow high is high.....see next
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardgo watch this
rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ap031205.rm
note the numbers involved....
Later...
as said, their are numbers in there....
OK I watched...powerlineblog.com is political commentary.
The two guys are also professional journos - not surprising;
many blogs and news websites are run by ex-journos.
Interesting but the video contains nothing to change my mind about
where blogs fit, in the information age. In fact, there was a BBC WS
programme today about the history of hip-hop/rap music and blogs
might go exactly the same way. ie - at what point do blogs with a
market potential and audience sell out to mainstream?
That's the usual route to riches.
there is very little set up costs.....
ISTM any person who dedicates 24x7 to running a blog and intends to
attract a wide audience has to a) secure an income or be financially
independent and b) pay the bandwidth costs of access (as with a
website). This increases the pressure to sell-out to mainstream when
the price is right. Then adverts and editorial control begin to creep
in and the blog ...whoosh...becomes mainstream.
Alternatively, he could finance the blog by being a subsidiary of an
existing political org but this amounts to much the same thing.
Ditto sponsorship.
Whatever, as soon as the blog ceases to be 100% indy, it becomes
flavoured by its backers. He who pays the piper...
Post by abelardanyone who tries to capture the blogs(etc) will leave a vacuum.....
Indeed. So we see a cycle. From start-up to takeover to start-up.
Post by abelardthey may capture pop groups one by one....then new innovative
ones will move in.....
Well, hip-hop sold out to mainstream and nothing much has replaced
it AFAIK. More recent noise is already backed by big money.
Post by abelardthis is the wild west....already i have a fairly large spread.....
it is always like this on the frontier....
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardi most certainly am also a participant.....
these are not contrary aims.....i don't mind silly views being proffered!
the market place is reasonably effective.....
as long as good people don't do nothing....
So, you want to be a blogger with a political message.
depends on what you call 'political'....
my message is primarily to teach people to think clearly.....
But your commentary carries a neo-con political message. Teaching
people to think will not mean they always see things through the same
prism as you do. Many don't, including some powerbrokers.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdFine, but don't
hide the agenda.
i'm hiding nothing....at times i do not speak...mainly because
i judge people not yet ready to hear...
ISTM that your message always seeks to explain, rationalise and
justify the neo-con agenda, whilst ignoring other interpretations
of events. You are pushing your agenda from behind a veil.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdThen there's the others already out there to consider.
Some have more access perhaps...
the access i require is to data....i have that.....
Much commentary is not carried on the Internet - eg media interviews.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdThere are always different *valid* views of an event.
Who can say which is more logical and correct than the other?
Sometimes it's obvious, often it's not.
1)if you dig sufficient data imv it is usually obvious
Sometimes. There's a lot of evidence out there that Bush is a fake
promoter of liberty and freedom, but many people reject this.
he is promoting liberty and freedom afaics....
Others think otherwise and can back up their views with more data
than you. Actions speak louder than words...and can't be denied.
Another big issue is whether Bush has the *right* (moral or legal) to
impose his preferred model onto other nations without them asking,
irrespective of whether his motives are good or evil. Without global
order, we drift towards anarchy.
If you want to argue that it comes down to who has the most powerful
weapons, then you win. But let's call it for what it is: imperialism.
Post by abelardit seems to me you are confused because
1)it is not all he does
2)you don't seem to get it that it is to the advantage of the west
to promote liberty and freedom....george understands that...at
least that is in his rhetoric...
I'm not confused at all. I don't start with lopsided opinions. I'm
waiting for evidence that what you say he is doing, is in fact
reality. Problem is, I don't see it. All I see are actions which
confirm my growing suspicions.
ISTM that it is you who are confused - you listen and read the
speeches of Bush & Co and believe what he says; ignoring that his
speeches are written by snake oil salesmen who are experts at
wrapping up his agenda into nice-looking, easily digestible pieces:
First: decide the policy aims.
Second: work out how to sell it to the media and sheep.
Third: implement.
Fourth: when rumbled, practise plausible denial.
You cannot deny that Bush is surrounded by a lot of neo-con people
with a zionist theology. Some are known followers of Strauss, who's
beliefs are quite well known. This has all been well investigated and
published. It's also relevant that many of his high-ranking players
are Jewish and some actually have v/close links to Israeli zionist
groups (Wolfo, Pearl and Feith for example).
Doesn't this tell you something about the agendas which materialise?
Post by abelardthe old dope peddler....he does well by doing good...lehrer....
Post by hummingbirdThere's plenty of evidence that Blair is a liar, others justify each
and every incident. Who to believe? >>> Only your own judgment
based upon experience.
1)why do i care if he lies if he does the right things....
"right things" is subjective.
Post by abelard2)how many votes will he get if he tells unvarnished truth....
Blair is bringing democracy into serious disrepute and actually adding
to social disorder/breakdown. Problems he's attempting to solve today
were largely caused by him yesterday (eg prevention of terrorism act).
People need leaders they can believe and trust. See this week's BBC
poll on what Brits think of their politicians. It's horrifying.
Howard's lot are no better. Liars with agendas, the lot of them.
Post by abelard3)i regard him as a pathological liar who has forgotten where he
put the truth....kids are sometimes like that.....why get high
blud pressure....
Aren't you really admitting that our system of democracy is becoming
dysfunctional and in growing danger of sclerosis or collapsing?
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelard2)ten people can obviously dig more data than one....and then that pool
of data is available to any who will analyse and use it.....
(ie the pool is more informed than the parts)
this is why i provoke the pool.....
There are blogs with many contributors, sometimes in different
countries. They usually share similar agendas.
and there are other who have different agendas....why worry....
1)the market will sort them out.....
2)i want a book shop with items on physics and on geology.....
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelard3)sane people change their position according to incoming data....
4)more data is constantly being added...so original positions may modify..
(again...sane people welcome this....not cling to an obviously
eroding position once it is obviously useless)
Constantly updated commentaries...moving with events.
sure....whereas most of the fossil media is trying to produce cornflakes..
a 'reliable' predictable product.....
the fossil media is very seldom interesting in informing....
Back to the fact that they have access to powerbrokers.
People like the output of the authorities on big issues.
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdPost by abelardnot for me....but i am excessively driven by curiosity.....
those who watch the soaps are about as relevant as the sheep in the field.
why would they concern me as they have little more effect than to
waste time/resources?
If you want to switch peoples' allegiances, you have to get inside
the heads of moronic sheep. They represent a majority since the
franchise was widened after Pankhurst!
the herds are easily driven hither and thither....
it is those that drive them i am addressing....
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdWhen people start to think, they have
to become responsible for their actions and that frightens people.
It means they can't blame others for cock-ups.
sure.....if you can't stand the heat.....
i don't see why any of this gives you problems....
Unless/until people think and become responsible for their actions and
destiny, they will demand ever more government involvement in our
lives.
if that is what they desire....put them in a field and tend the quality
of the grass....
i seek franchise by examination....
Post by hummingbirdI'm a moderate libertarian remember and I hate excessive govt.
why are you intolerant of sheep....
For obvious reasons: If people become more capable of running their
own lives and thinking for themselves, they will need less government.
Much government can then crawl back into the orifice it came from.
Problem is that we are heading down the road of more, not less.
How long before all websites, blogs and newsgroup banter must be
traceable to an individual?
Post by abelardPost by hummingbirdI wish to see a society where people instinctively know what is right
and wrong, what is acceptable and not, without govt prescribing to us,
because they usually get it wrong at great cost and inefficiency.
i am a monk.....not a politician....
At about the same time, Aristotle composed the work, now lost, On
Kingship, in which he clearly distinguishes the function of the
philosopher from that of the king. He alters Plato’s dictum – for the
better, it is said – by teaching that it is not merely unnecessary for a
king to be a philosopher, but even a disadvantage. Rather, a king should
take the advice of true philosophers; then he would fill his reign with
good deeds, not with good words.
....
Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too dull to
understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its teaching.
This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is fundamentally
the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common men believed what
it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But theologians should preach,
not teach, just as philosophers should teach, not preach. Theologians
should not attempt to demonstrate, because they cannot do it, and
philosophers must be careful not to get belief mixed up with what they
prove, because then they can no longer prove anything. Now, to preach
creation is just a handy way to make people feel that God is their Master,
which is true even though, as is well known by those who truly
philosophize, nothing of the sort ever happened. [Etienne Gilson, Being
and Some Philosophers, p. 52]
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardPost by hummingbirdYou are attempting to do something which is anathema to the soul of
a majority of people. That's why we have leaders - they can think
and take the blame.
i take the view that there are plenty who could do more if they were
better informed and less scared.....
First, you have to have a govt that knows when to back-off and knows
how to be a facilitator, not a nanny. British govts know little about
this ...they've never needed to, they're accustomed to running empire.
probably reasonable...and now those who understood their position
and were educated for it have been replaced by strivers and
barrowboys.....
And a bunch of salesmen and feminists.
Post by abelardthis is a time of great change.....most cannot either keep up or
adapt....
it is my purpose to educate them....
not to merely cuss them out....
Post by hummingbirdIf you treat people like idiots, they usually end up acting like one.
That's the history of socialism. Govts tend towards socialism because
that is what democracy amounts to. Any govt which cuts itself down
to size soon receives howls of anguish from voters demanding "more".
socialism is bad and very dangerous 'logic'...it is a mental/social
disease...
the sheep bleat and sometimes roar.....it is their nature....
you will only alter it by removing the mental diseases from the
memesphere.....
first you must identify the diseased memes...then you must craft cures....
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardsure...and there are 14 million baa lambs in new zealand.....
it is not numbers that count...it is intelligence and firepower.....
Post by hummingbirdPost by abelardsome sheep can learn....the rest are about as relevant as the
birds in the hedge rows....
Some can be taught. Others learn through their own desire.
fine...so why the worry/agonising?
this is a question!....
It's not clear who you are wanting to target...
If you want to make money or influence people, you have to target a
majority or large minority of people. But most are sheep. If you want
to influence the powerbrokers they have other sources off input too.
your question is probably misconstructed....
who does a medic 'target'?
i simple don't like living with open mental sewage flowing through the
cultural streets (memesphere)
i wish to build a sewage plant.....
the society needs sewage workers whether it understands that or no....
regards...
--
"Oh God: How much more suffering must I endure in this damn place"
John McCririck - Channel 4 Big Brother 17-Jan-2005.