Uplink Activity Report - 12/10/2008 12:42pm - 110 changes

[CorpITGuy]

Yeah, can't have too many christian channels. Still waiting for one small homo-friendly network but that probably will not be until hell freezes over!

Have you seen HGTV lately?

 

[kstuart]

Have you seen HGTV lately?

Bravo comes to mind (available in HD !).

All of those Christian channels make their programming available for free, many of them are added as federally mandated Public Interest channels (which do not have to be religious, there is "Colors TV" ethnic channel and "Free Speech TV" which is left-of-center TV.)

 

[Fitzie]

And HBO and Sho with some of their recent programming.

 

[waltinvt]

The word "political" does not mean "about Republicans and Democrats", it means "about the affairs of state" or more simply, about people influencing each other to obtain control.

In current society, political DOES mean about Republicans & Democrats, both in the context of my post and your own analogy. What part of "Republicans & Democrats are about people influencing each other to obtain control" do you not agree with?

PS Like most people, it seems you get your news from only source.

Actually I get my news from a mix of sources and nowhere near as much from FNC as you may think.

Competition has nothing to do with it, when every company in an industry gets funds.

Huh?

But at least your are consistent, the above is still your same rant about "everyone was angels in the past, but now they are all being corrupted and becoming devils".

Unless you're talking about old "Pit" threads, give some examples where I've said that or similar. I suppose the couple times I quoted Charlie looking into the camera and telling us he'd never allow pornography on Dish Network (circa 1997) and then making it available 6 months late could fall into that catagory.

Of course, anyone who thinks that, must have a poor knowledge of history, no experience with human nature, and a lack of grounding in metaphysics.

Why do you have to tinkle all over my posts so often? Again, be specific. How about some examples of my "poor knowledge of history" lack of experience with human nature" ? Oh, ok I admit, those few times I stuck up for you and your right to discourse over some piddling thing I can't even remember now might, in retrospect, might be considered a temporary lapse of judgment about human nature - yours!

Just for kicks, what specifically about my post do you take issue with or is it just that my opinions in general aggravate you?

BTW, this little spar should not be taken as me being unappreciative of the help and information you provide this forum but I'll admit, your style does sometimes give me pause.

 

[kstuart]

Sorry, I could have been a little clearer by adding the word "only":

The word "political" does not ONLY mean "about Republicans and Democrats", it means "about the affairs of state" or more simply, about people influencing each other to obtain control.

thereby meaning that just because you are not talking within the context of an election, does not mean that the conversation is not "political".

For example, all statements by all government officials and all media pundits about the so-called "bailouts", are "political".

One might note that the Senator for the state containing the Toyota plant was seen frequently on TV, giving all sorts of ideological reasons not to loan money to GM/Ford/Chrysler, but his state did not apply any of that analogy to the billions of breaks they gave Toyota with taxpayer money.

That is "politics".

PS The "people used to be ethical and moral, and now they are not" concept is something that I have heard you apply to situations a couple of times before - not constantly - maybe every year or so, you get outraged ( quite rightfully ) about someone's bad behavior, and then state that things are getting worse in that respect. In reality, our age of the Internet and 24-hour News Channels brings every pimple into view, and the sort of people who got away with selling Senate seats in the 1950's, would nowadays end up more in the spotlight...

 

[Fitzie]

kstuart wrote "One might note that the Senator for the state containing the Toyota plant was seen frequently on TV, giving all sorts of ideological reasons not to loan money to GM/Ford/Chrysler, but his state did not apply any of that analogy to the billions of breaks they gave Toyota with taxpayer money."

It is hard to determine what state and what senator you are referring to since it is my understanding that Toyota (and Honda, Hyundai, etc.) has plants in more than one state, and so far as I know all those have received incentives from the states in which they are located. If you are referring to Kentucky, which has a Toyota plant in Georgetown, KY, and to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. (R.) from KY you are probably aware that Sen. McConnell was not instrumental in bringing Toyota to KY.; that feat was accomplished by the then Democratic Governor and her democratic allies. A difference between that situation and the auto industry bailout (or as some Democratic senators were saying, the "bridge loan" program), is that very little taxpayer money was spent on bringing Toyota to Ky; Toyota was given tax breaks for an extended period of time, but not at the expense of taxpayer money collected from other sources. The Toyota experience has been very pleasant for central Kentucky, with several thousands of jobs created paying very competitive wages for the area. Toyota has also been an exemplary neighbor in the community, showing interest in the schools and local infrastructure.

A political difficulty that Sen. McConnell (who is from Louisville) has is that Ford has plants in the Louisville area employing several thousands of workers. He can't be seen to be too negative, so it was fortunate that Ford has said it doesn't want any loans anyway. For whatever reason, union workers in KY (i.e., workers at Ford and similar plants) supported McConnell's opponent very heavily, and the targeted effort of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to unseat the Senate Minority Leader, Mr. McConnell. McConnell's very accurate campaign claim (and $19 million in campaign expenditures) that he had brought over $500 million in federal money to Ky helped him carry the day by a fairly comfortable 106,000 vote margin. (The amount of money spent by McConnell's opponent, a multi-millionaire, in conjunction with the millions poured in by the Dem. Sen. Campaign Comm., was enormous and obviously a boon to the economy of the state. I have not yet seen an accounting of the total amount spent on the Democratic side, so I cannot state the actual amount.)

This has marginal relevance, if any, to this thread. However, I would note that FCC Chairman Martin, a republican, is expected to be gone shortly after Pres. elect Obama is sworn in, and the Democrats will then enjoy a 3-2 advantage on the Commission. I did not much enjoy Martin's stay as Chairman, as I felt he let his personal beliefs interfere with rational public policy with regard to broadcasting, including satellite TV. Whether the Democratic majority to come will reflect the interests of consumers has yet to be determined, of course.

Best regards,
Fitzie

 

[digiblur]

EPG guide data channels are supposed to be NA. Not much to see there.

 

[waltinvt]

Sorry, I could have been a little clearer by adding the word "only":

thereby meaning that just because you are not talking within the context of an election, does not mean that the conversation is not "political".

Ok, that I agree with.

For example, all statements by all government officials and all media pundits about the so-called "bailouts", are "political".

But that I don't agree with. While the odds today are more highly in favor of it being politically motivated, it isn't always, which is why morally and ethically motivated statements can get overlooked or misconstrued.

Then there's the other side of the coin when a person or entity that has been labeled morally or ethically controversial by some takes a position that IS morally or ethically motivated but it gets cast aside as political. A good example may be Ford, which has clearly taken a favorable position on homosexuality, yet announces regarding the bailout that it might not need government funds and will attempt to forgo them.

The important thing and the point I'm trying to make is that seeing the objective truth in any given act or statement has become more difficult for many because the traditionally accepted guidelines used to quantify the state of anything have become so subjectively corrupt by political correctness that anyone can make a case for anything and the masses can't discern the difference.

I'm not saying (or at least not intending to) that people are worse but that their ability to see objectively and judge responsibly is worse.

One might note that the Senator for the state containing the Toyota plant was seen frequently on TV, giving all sorts of ideological reasons not to loan money to GM/Ford/Chrysler, but his state did not apply any of that analogy to the billions of breaks they gave Toyota with taxpayer money.

That is "politics".

I don't think we have an argument there, although I don't know the specifics of the situation you speak nor even the state(s) involved.

PS The "people used to be ethical and moral, and now they are not" concept is something that I have heard you apply to situations a couple of times before - not constantly - maybe every year or so, you get outraged ( quite rightfully ) about someone's bad behavior, and then state that things are getting worse in that respect. In reality, our age of the Internet and 24-hour News Channels brings every pimple into view, and the sort of people who got away with selling Senate seats in the 1950's, would nowadays end up more in the spotlight...

While I can't dispute that corruption in politics is far from a new concept - Chicago being a convenient current example - I'll stick to my position that the state of moral and ethically inspired accountability and responsibility today is vastly worse than even a generation ago but I'm not sure that I've been all that out-spoken about it in the general forums here. Possibly more so recently since we no longer have anyplace dedicated to such topics but not to the extent you claim. In any event you're correct. I do believe things are worse - much worse and not likely to get better anytime soon. Your attempt to dissuade, at least me of that, is far from convincing.

 

[kstuart]

The important thing and the point I'm trying to make is that seeing the objective truth in any given act or statement has become more difficult for many because the traditionally accepted guidelines used to quantify the state of anything have become so subjectively corrupt by political correctness that anyone can make a case for anything and the masses can't discern the difference.

I think this is where we disagree.

The most fundamental aspect of human society is:

Those who don't know the answer to a question, also do not know which proposed answer is correct.

Example :

You are walking in a business district, and you realize that you have an appointment at 2 pm, but you forgot your watch. Two men are about to pass you, and you ask for the time. One looks at his watch and says " 1:50 pm " and the other looks at his and says " 2:05 pm ". Are you late ? Which is correct ?

You might guess that the man with the expensive suit and expensive watch might have the more accurate time, but on the other hand, my wife's expensive dress watch is always wrong, while I have had $10 watches that are within a second.

In society, it is not unusual for people to believe the "fanciest" person. A recent study showed that only 25% of the recommendations made by medical doctors have any basis in science whatsoever.

I think that confusing "traditionally accepted guidelines" and "objective truth" is dangerous (as well as unfounded). Traditionally accepted guidelines are arbitrary conventions designed to make social interaction go more smoothly. We drive on the right side of the road, and then everyone knows where to drive to avoid crashing into everyone else. But there is no "objective truth" to that. People are not "evil" in the England because they drive on the left side of the road.

 

[waltinvt]

I think this is where we disagree.

The most fundamental aspect of human society is:

Those who don't know the answer to a question, also do not know which proposed answer is correct.

Example :

You are walking in a business district, and you realize that you have an appointment at 2 pm, but you forgot your watch. Two men are about to pass you, and you ask for the time. One looks at his watch and says " 1:50 pm " and the other looks at his and says " 2:05 pm ". Are you late ? Which is correct ?

You might guess that the man with the expensive suit and expensive watch might have the more accurate time, but on the other hand, my wife's expensive dress watch is always wrong, while I have had $10 watches that are within a second.

In society, it is not unusual for people to believe the "fanciest" person. A recent study showed that only 25% of the recommendations made by medical doctors have any basis in science whatsoever.

I think that confusing "traditionally accepted guidelines" and "objective truth" is dangerous (as well as unfounded). Traditionally accepted guidelines are arbitrary conventions designed to make social interaction go more smoothly. We drive on the right side of the road, and then everyone knows where to drive to avoid crashing into everyone else. But there is no "objective truth" to that. People are not "evil" in the England because they drive on the left side of the road.

First off, where are you getting this "good-evil" label business? I haven't used it in the context of this discussion and certainly don't profess or think that just because someone has lost the ability to think objectively, they are somehow evil, anymore than one who applies objective reasoning is necessarily "good". Besides, the whole concept of good & evil is far beyond the scope of this discussion and would undoubtedly unleash the wrath of hungry mods upon us.

Some of what you're saying is actually making my point for me and I couldn't agree more that confusing and accepting traditionally accepted guidelines at the expense of ignoring objective reasoning would indeed be dangerous.

Contrary to what you assumed "I" might do in your above analogy, I submit that the objective truth is that the correct time is whatever it actually is and everything else is subjective, especially how the person chooses to interpolate which answer is correct but the correct procedure for a man NOT confusing the two would be to weigh the variance in the answers and if not within acceptable parameters to fill his need (avoid being late), then compare by asking a 3rd person for the time or assume the more constricting answer is correct and act accordingly.

A more profound analogy (one of my favorites because we can see for ourselves the difference and subsequent impact), is when 99.99% of people using the "traditionally accepted guidelines" assumed the world was flat. The objective truth of course was that it was not flat and obviously some of that .01% must have applied what you describe as the more "dangerous" thought process and thus here we are.

 

[kstuart]

A more profound analogy (one of my favorites because we can see for ourselves the difference and subsequent impact), is when 99.99% of people using the "traditionally accepted guidelines" assumed the world was flat. The objective truth of course was that it was not flat and obviously some of that .01% must have applied what you describe as the more "dangerous" thought process and thus here we are.

It is a perfect analogy, and where is why.

The idea that "people used to think the earth was flat" started with a 19th Century novel, that was hugely popular at the time. The novel included primitive people who thought the earth was flat.

In actuality, there is no actual evidence that most ancient people thought the earth was flat. We do have surprisingly old maps indicating a curved Earth.

So, the idea that "people used to think the earth was flat" is kind of a thought virus passed from one person to another.

Like the example of the person without a watch, people have no way of knowing the answer - we cannot go back 20,000 years ago - so they believe credible things they are told. ( By the way, your strategy of "asking a third person" is a good one, but there is still the possibility that the two that agree are both wrong. )

Another bigger example is the commonly held beliefs " eating fat is bad for your health " and " eating fat makes you fat ". The actual origin of these ideas is not based in any scientific studies whatsoever. Instead, it came from a 1970's Senate Subcommittee that was trying to come up with dietary guidelines ( for misguided altruistic reasons ), and found itself in the middle of a war between lobbyists from various agricultural industries. Rather than abandoning the idea of the guidelines ( which would have been the correct course of action ), instead they altered the guidelines to please the lobbyists (surprise, surprise), and came up with the "evils of fat".

( By the way, the lack of scientific evidence was discovered by medical researcher Dr. Diana Schwarzbein, and the origin of the "bad fat" concept was revealed by science journalist Gary Taubes in the New York Times Magazine article a few years back called "The Big Fat Lie", and expanded upon in his recent book. )

Despite all this being exposed, people still think that primitives thought the earth was flat, and every media person still talks about "cutiing your fat intake". The flat earth myth is trivial, but the dietary one is certainly not, and trillions of dollars rest on the fact that the media accept whatever the medical establishment tells them, and ignore Taubes' impeccably researched and documented article and book.

 

[waltinvt]

<Snip>...
The idea that "people used to think the earth was flat" started with a 19th Century novel, that was hugely popular at the time. The novel included primitive people who thought the earth was flat.

In actuality, there is no actual evidence that most ancient people thought the earth was flat. We do have surprisingly old maps indicating a curved Earth.

So, the idea that "people used to think the earth was flat" is kind of a thought virus passed from one person to another.

Perhaps it's more accurate to describe the consensus of the time as a lack of understanding gravity and the belief that one could not travel "around" the world without reaching an "end" or falling off. In either case it must have inhibited world exploration for a period of time.

Like the example of the person without a watch, people have no way of knowing the answer - we cannot go back 20,000 years ago - so they believe credible things they are told.

Ah, that would explain the current popularity of unproven theories such as evolution & global warming.

( By the way, your strategy of "asking a third person" is a good one, but there is still the possibility that the two that agree are both wrong. )

True but rarely is there a guarantee - in the end most decisions are based on odds.

Another bigger example is the commonly held beliefs " eating fat is bad for your health " and " eating fat makes you fat ". The actual origin of these ideas is not based in any scientific studies whatsoever. Instead, it came from a 1970's Senate Subcommittee that was trying to come up with dietary guidelines ( for misguided altruistic reasons ), and found itself in the middle of a war between lobbyists from various agricultural industries. Rather than abandoning the idea of the guidelines ( which would have been the correct course of action ), instead they altered the guidelines to please the lobbyists (surprise, surprise), and came up with the "evils of fat".

No argument here and I believe this is just one small example of the huge hidden cancer that has eaten away at our democratic process for decades.

( By the way, the lack of scientific evidence was discovered by medical researcher Dr. Diana Schwarzbein, and the origin of the "bad fat" concept was revealed by science journalist Gary Taubes in the New York Times Magazine article a few years back called "The Big Fat Lie", and expanded upon in his recent book. )

How do you know all this stuff?

Despite all this being exposed, people still think that primitives thought the earth was flat, and every media person still talks about "cutiing your fat intake". The flat earth myth is trivial, but the dietary one is certainly not, and trillions of dollars rest on the fact that the media accept whatever the medical establishment tells them, and ignore Taubes' impeccably researched and documented article and book.

Well whether they thought it was flat or just that it could not circumvented, I guess you're right, as I still think world exploration (and therefore history) was effected to some degree by the common, erroneous belief and that IMO makes it more than "trivial".

Actually, I'm not sure we disagree in concept - historically the masses were often being duped and today is no different except since it's both government and media it's far more difficult to swim against the current.

There are explanations for how and why this is happening but I suspect we're already pushing the tolerance of the powers with this thread and I'm impressed it's been allowed this long. Thank you for a respectful and interesting debate Ken.

 

[JohnH]

It don't pop to the top every time you post.