The Obama Deception

[Thorgnor]

Why invest energy in something new to us when we have stock in this existing system?

I care to suppose that would require a shift in personal values.

Ding, ding, ding!

Right. I agree. But why does this require a grand conspiracy when the simple arguement that wealthy folks who have vested interests are doing what they can to maintain those interests, and if possible, expand them. Why say it's some Cabal called...? when it's reallt those rich guys in the really awesome big houses who throw the good parties in Dubai and stuff. They're not snake-headed aliens, they're rich dudes who see the world as a stark battle, and they want to give their progeny the best possible chance at being the one's who will always prosper... it's that simple... no illuminati, no mystical magical backroom conjuring, real collusion. The fact that they call themselves the "Bilderburg group" doesn't mean Jews are out to get you. The fact that experts get together is actually responsible for some of the most important theoretical advances in the contemporary world... we need shit like that. The fact that some converts to religions do things you think are opportunistic is political, and linking that to things like food regulations, when regulation can only ever oppress anyways, is silly. Not too mention it weakens both arguments. The proposed regulations are terrible, and they should be fought. Political opportunism by corporations and others should be fought. But linking them into one big conspiracy detracts from the reality that individual actors with individaul intersts really create these problems. "We" aren't working toegther any more than "they" are. imo

There used to be an annual boat trip where academics got together to collude and came up with terrible things like theories of networked community, the global village, and ways that they could advance urbanism to make a utopia. Set up by Doxiadis, a Greek architect, the group included such evil figures as McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller and Margaret Mead... evil. funny thing is, a whole lot of people bought into their philosophies, and things are beginning to look very much as they predicted. Anyone a fan of any of their work? Welcome to the collusion.

good morning everyone

[hamilton]

Now, the reason that the case against Chomsky should stand is that - though he's a linguist and not a scientist as we typically see it, he is a public critic of government and corporate interests yet ignores some of the most glaring examples of inequity and marginalization that affect the most people in the Western World.

That is completely illogical.

An analogy: Jambands Member X, who is an outspoken advocate of all things jambands, does not respond to a post regarding a rumour that Phish may be reforming. Therefore, I can infer that Jambands Member X must not only hate Phish, but is probably a huge supporter and proponent of 'N Sync? Uhhh.... no.

[SaggyBalls]

Phishtaper - it's still an enormous conflict of interest. A paycheck's still a paycheck no matter how the details are laid out.

"the studies to which I refer are peer-reviewed, scientific, randomized control trials, and systematic reviews."

Systematic and peer-review doesn't mean proven to be without bias, and though the process is the gold standard, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are not questionable aims to said research.

http://groups.google.com.eg/group/sci.med.nutrition/browse_thread/thread/35d7d4f611b530c3

http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-detailed-critiques-of-industry.html

To create absolute proof that there is something absolutely horrible is going on requires memos, secret tapes, banking records, and detailed analysis of correspondance.

It's much easier to require the accuser prove claims and believe process.

"Oh - there's a big study that says this is safe that the news is picking up on. No need to worry anymore."

Try drinking 1 oz of pure aspartame (formaldehyde) upon rising once a day for 2 years? You'll want to keep it in the fridge to stay sweet.

How about only consuming 'diet' versions of all available foods that you eat?

Try it.

Why not?

Thorgnor - yes we do need advances. Absolutely. Desperately.

"The fact that experts get together is actually responsible for some of the most important theoretical advances in the contemporary world... we need sh!t like that."

World political and economic leaders meeting in secret to plan together are not coming up with the advances we need. It is collusion and the fact that information regarding some of these issues have to be 'leaked' and are only covered by independent media speaks volumes about their importance.

"The fact that they call themselves the "Bilderburg group" doesn't mean Jews are out to get you.", " The fact that some converts to religions do things you think are opportunistic is political, and linking that to things like food regulations, when regulation can only ever oppress anyways, is silly. "

There are 2 sides to that coin. One is that nobody's talked about 'Jews' in this thread (nor is that relevant) and the other, which is 'wtf are you talking about'?

"But linking them into one big conspiracy detracts from the reality that individual actors with individual intersts really create these problems."

Linking issues together that are suitably linked does not create the problems if they were there in the first place. If you mean create them in a sense of philosophy/perception then...sure. I'll go with that. Doesn't mean that anyone's creating suffering by pointing this out, as we all have an element of control over our reactions and attitudes.

Individuals talking to other individuals that are working with many individuals to come together for benefit of their individual aims, yes - those individuals are individual actors.

That's not the same as what you are implying, nor is what you're implying correct. Lobbyists push regulation. Lobbyists are working for special interests - not special needs.

These powers are doing nothing to create abundance in the name of our collective aims, if only to ensure that their progeny don't have to experience struggle (outside of immense wealth).

Contrary to much opinion, regulation has the potential to empower people. The notion of oppression doesn't really apply to big business. The nature of the regulation and the way it works and is allowed to behave in a system is an essence of regulation that can be shaped to oppress.

hamilton - It's not completely illogical and it doesn't take long to find examples of Chomsky's selective criticism.

here's a great one.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseychomskyonjfkandvietnam1993.shtml

If we're working with your analogy, then it would be much more like said advocate denying that they have ever listened to Phish after going on tour, photographing the band backstage, then saying that 'a band like that would be amazing - I can only imagine what that's like to hear'.

I think that Chomsky has a lot of fantastic insight and articulates so much so very well that I don't mean to detract from the content of much of his work. It's led many people to feel empowered and has propped up a lot of individuals' self-worth in times of great confusion.

I also don't necessarily care about the supposed plot and the loose ends that seemingly tie up nicely with government conspiracy discussion.

To say that big business and greed are the cause of the majority of the world's strife and then conveniently omit tangible reasons for 'intellectual defense'...

Seems strange to me and is worth sharing.

[Thorgnor]

Lobbyists get paid to do their jobs no? They do this to get what they want, to feed their families etc, no?

Individual interests, systemic inequities. People get used, and many are happy to have a job, no?

Why would I tell you that I'm going to try and steal your stuff? Why would I publicize my secret meetings minutes if they were about me stealing stuff. When did the elites stop stealing stuff from the poor? Isn't this obvious? Why make the collusion seem so secret when it's right in front of our faces.

YT - Why do you always have to try and disagree when I'm actually the only one here who's trying to strengthen your arguments/points/opinions/whatever so that they are taken seriously? Did you read the part where I said I agreed? I was trying to point out that others are ignoring the real need to address the stuff you're pointing out by means even more basic than "ad homonum". I didn't say it creates the problem, I said it obscures the problems real causes, and the real ways that the actions of real people make this stuff happen. My point about collusion which you totally missed is also the point about politics that I've been trying to make, every relationship is both political and an act of collusion in the way that it manufactures common language and culture. So these rich dudes are only strengthening their own culture, and protecting their own language, imo.

Go ahead and call them "lobbyists" but they're actually Bob and Jenn down the block who always mow their lawn on Tuesday and always put the garbage out early in the morning... their just people... and they are the same people who get screwed in line at the licence offices and all over the place. These ultra-rich, backroom controllers still have lives, and they seperate themselves from us in order to perpetuate their idea that they are doing the right things.

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Even these elites aren't smart enough to really run the show on their own. They need clerk and secretaries, and bartenders, and caddies. As much as I don't think these guys are as smart as people give them credit for being, they are doing bad stauff and to link it all as if they pull strings behind people's backs in ways that are magical or mystifying destroys the possibility of telling your uncle who works in publ,ic service that it IS his fault that bullshit happens. My point is that the apparatus of oppression is no further than your buddy the cop, or the teacher who doesn't think they need anti-racist education because it's trying to ruin thier liberty, when their utmost concern should be the liberty of the kids.

I wouldn't want to necesarily say that they do what they do because they are trying to cause harm.

Feel free to call me a bad person if you think that's gonna advance your cause though.

now I'm truly ranting, sorry.

[phishtaper]

Systematic and peer-review doesn't mean proven to be without bias ...

nothing is without bias. noone is claiming that. there is bias in everything. the process is simply intended to make those biases explicit and transparent. (fwiw, "systematic review" is a method of synthesizing multiple studies; "peer-review" is a process of outside experts rigorously and critically evaluating particular research publications)

it doesn't necessarily mean that there are not questionable aims to said research.

well, i guess this is the bottom line difference in the way we look at things then. i do not just assume some sort of devious "questionable aims" in the literature. to do so would undermine the validity of the entire world of science itself.

[Schwa.]

any "Change Management" experts in the house

[SaggyBalls]

Oh Thorgnor you're not a bad person - but 'they're just doing their job' while kind is a huge waste of your kindness.

Forgive them - they know not what they do?

They know perfectly well what they're doing and why they're doing it - be it for money or control they don't deserve forgiveness for that without appropriate action.

"every relationship is both political and an act of collusion in the way that it manufactures common language and culture"

Collusion is working in secret, breaking laws and rules, for profit/benefit. Collusion is not something to be put on every political relationship that doesn't have a tape recorder or camera present.

It's not about the apparatus of oppression ir's the nature of the oppression that the apparatus is acting upon.

If it's your aunt's fault that something messed up tell her - since you would have anyway.

And phishtaper - it's not about automatically assuming devious 'questionable aims', but the truth has been bent in a devious way time and time again on this issue. "the process" deals with data as it is on paper - not how it's been twisted and its findings creatively worded.

Much of the issue with the study is certain ommissions about test subjects, the bias of researchers and industry peers.

"i do not just assume some sort of devious "questionable aims" in the literature. to do so would undermine the validity of the entire world of science itself. "

What about when the 'questionable aims' are shown the light of day? When biases and discrepencies are exposed does that make the entire world of science invalid? Does it not only invalidates the study in question.

Again, not that some mystic 'plot' is important but why are many of these important issues being entirely ignored by the public and the media?

[Kanada Kev]

[SaggyBalls]

"nano-thermite'?

"elevator modernization"?

This guy must be some sort of quack.

[Booche]

That's gonna go viral!

[SaggyBalls]

*cough*