Candidates of Chance

So what?? Big yawn! You guys get paid for this? What a sweet gig, indeed. Are the assignment editors at Time journalism grads, or did they just write a blog in high school?

When you get paid, do you feel like you earned the money, or is it more like "I can't believe they pay me to do this."

I hope in 10-15 years you look back on how you squandered your opportunities to be a real journalism professional. Journalism is supposed to be a profession.

You have good writing skills MS, but you lack integrity and intellectual curiosity.

I was thinking "what an unusually balanced story from Michael," and then remembered Weisskopf was on the story, too. Sigh

Andy from MA:
Character is destiny in the white house, as we've seen. This would have been like saying that the Jennifer Flowers story was irrelevant, which I'm sure we all did.

When a fellow poker player says of Barack: If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I'll sleep good at night," I couldn't help thinking that if John McCain runs his presidency the way he gambles we'd all be in deep trouble. Neither of these men would be where they are right now if they weren't willing to take risks, but McCain's record, from the Academy to his flying to his gambling, (to his throttling a Columbian official) shows a recklessness that would not serve this country well.

oops - my bad. should have been "throttling a Nicaraguan official"

KathyR, I agree with you about "character", but I already know that McCain is a "shoot from the hip" reckless opportunist, based on the way he behaves in public, and his politcal record with Keating etc., etc.

If I were a Time assignment editor, I would manage my reporting resources differently, perhaps assigning one to find out what type of influence Phil Gramm has in McCain's campaign.

Then assigning another resource to find out why McCain in involved with a business leader who alledgedly makes illegal contributions to a organization the U.S. calls "terroist" in Colombia.

That's how I was would manage my reporting resources.

I guess that is why I am angry and frustrated about most of the editorial staff at Time.

MS is just a symptom of that. Now that I have had my first cup of coffee, all is temporarily right with world.

This has really reached as far as anyone can reach. To associate gambling styles with how someone is going to govern once they attain office.

No doubt that entering a political election is a gamble, but that is where it all ends. The real gamble is on the American voter.

In Obama's case, the gamble is an unknown. Someone that has created a persona, and we are to believe that is what he will truly be when voted into office. This is the real crap shoot.

Obama has no record to speak of, "just words". If you are betting on a thoroughbred, and you want to increase your odds of winning you read the daily race results. If you are a bettor of chance, you choose the jockey with the pretty colors.

We know John McCain's record, its filled with 20+ years of various votes. In Obama's case the only real thing we know about him is the 20+ years he sat in a church pew listening to Jeremiah Wright preach hate.

Andy - glad to hear the world is looking better after a little coffee; I know the feeling.

All of us who aren't trolls want more reporting about substantive issues, but I notice we don't always pay attention with our comments (see, for example, the relative paucity of comments on AMC's story yesterday about the backlog of whistle-blower cases). But as we've also noted many times, the readers of dead-tree Time might be a different demographic, and I think this story is both interesting and provides clues to governing style- in a way that's accessible to the folks in the doctor's office.

(And although Michael and Michael don't mention it, I wonder how this story plays with the Evangelical crowd.)

Most of us make our electoral decisions on more than issues. For me, it's also important that I can put up with this person on the teevee in the living room for 4 years, for example.

Hope the rest of your day remains bright.

Michael,

I have to laugh because the Politico ran this hard hitting piece yesterday about Cindy McCain and how her fortune is an asset and a liability for John McCain.

I read the story looking for any evidence of how it was important to the average American.

I came away with something I didn't really know. Rich people spend a lot money on houses, clothes, credit cards and spoiling their children and I don't have to pick up an entertainment weekly to find that out.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11477.html

Posted by KathyR | July 3, 2008 8:31 AM
"All of us who aren't trolls..."

That ladies and gentlemen is the JOKE of the day! Thanks Kathy!

KathyR, your point is well taken about the relative lack of interest in war profiteering.

Interestingly enough, Harry Truman's chairing a Senate committee in WWII exposed much of that; to which Army Chief of Staff George Marshall told Truman that his committee work was worth several Army divisions.

Truman's work influenced party leaders to make him FDRs running mate in 1944.

Where is the leadership in Congress on that? Plus it's not a partisan issue either.

(And although Michael and Michael don't mention it, I wonder how this story plays with the Evangelical crowd.)

Kathy,

Doesn't a lot that crowd play bingo? Or is bingo even considered gambling? I don't know. But I don't think this is a real story to begin with because neither appear to be reckless gamblers. It shows me what they like to do for entertainment and that's it.

I guess I'm in the minority here but I found the story interesting and as a dilettante gambler myself, I agree with the premise that the choice of games in indicative of their personalities.

A successful poker player is not really a gambler; he/she is analyzing and playing the strengths and weaknesses of the other players. The element of chance in an individual hand just defines the playing field that the analysis takes place on. What's vital to understand about poker is that a good player can win no matter what cards are dealt.

Craps is a pure game of chance. There are better and worse bets to place defined by the odds but whether you win or not is based entirely on luck. And in a casino, the odds are always in favor of the house. The player might get ahead in the short run based on lucky rolls but the house will statistically always win over the long haul.

So tell me Swamplanders, what type of person would you like to lead your country?

Someone who likes to analyze the situation and the players involved in order to master the situation.

Or would you prefer someone who hopes that chance will allow him to win even though he knows in the long run it won't?

So as I said, good article. I didn't know these facts about the candidates and I think they are relevant insights.

"Time, Inc." we rolled the dice on this blog and sadly we've come up craps.

Posted by GySgt213 | July 3, 2008 8:55 AM
Doesn't a lot that crowd play bingo? Or is bingo even considered gambling?

Just in case you want to try out some bingo, GySgt...here are some "rule" you need to know before going.

The 10 commandments of Bingo

1. Thou shall not sit in thy neighbors lucky seat.
2. Thou shall not stare at thy neighbors card.
3. Thou shall not take the Callers name in vain.
4. Thou shall not call false "Bingo".
5. Thou shall not wish bad luck on thy neighbor.
6. Thou shall not threaten to kill the "Caller".
7. Thou shall not steal thy husband`s money for Bingo.
8. Thou shall not brag about how much thou hast won.
9. Thou shall not whine about how much thou hast lost.
10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor`s winnings.

We get junk journalism like this because we accept junk journalism like this.

I think it's more than a stretch to suggest a candidate's recreational gambling tendencies indicate anything about how he/she would approach serous public policy matters. The fact that McCain has multi-thousands he can waste on games of chance contradicts the Republican echo chamber's "ordinary guy-vs.-elitist" nonsense, but otherwise this piece is just another in the endless distractions that leave no room for serious coverage. It's better suited for "People" than for any version of Time.

Obama's card playing covered in WP in 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html

McCain's dice playing covered in New Yorker 2005.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=2

I noticed in that story that you quote McCain's aides, but not Obama's, Michael. Sounds like the idea for the story and the angle originated with McCain, am I right?

Rusty,

That's amazing they have commandments for Bingo. Sounds like a rough game if you don't know them.

This illustrates just what I don't like about Obama: plodding, risk averse, a front runner essentially. That's now what we need right now. We need someone who's not afraid to bluff.

This illustrates just what I don't like about Obama: plodding, risk averse, a front runner essentially. That's now what we need right now. We need someone who's not afraid to bluff.

Posted by DougJ | July 3, 2008 9:42 AM

Oh yeah, we need a gambling bluffer with his finger on the nuke button!

That's now what we need right now. We need someone who's not afraid to bluff.

DougJ is already on record as supporting torturing people and then blithely beleiving everything they tell you, so I would hesitate to trust his skills at risk analysis in other areas as well.

But thanks for playing......

Actually, I think the most important takeaway from that story is the fact that Obama earned the respect of his downstate collegues.

If you're at all familiiar with Illinois politics then you know that that's no easy task.

Andy - speak of being risk-averse: I cant figure out why there's been so little attention in Congress to the genuine scandals of this administration (though I'll give my own sen, Pat Leahy, credit for trying with the AG). The Dems seem to be allergic to seeming to be "investigating."

GySgt: I might be showing my ignorance here, but I think the Bingo thing is largely a Catholic thing. In fact, the parish hall used to be the site of the local bingo game, but I don't think that's so true anymore. Does Bingo still happen? I'd sort of forgotten about it.

Kathy,

You may be right. I honestly have no idea. I know it was still big when I was living in LA. But I don't know who was putting the stuff on because I didn't pay that close attention.

I think Kathy is right and that Bingo is largely a Catholic parish thing. It was in the town in which I grew up. Many Protestant denominations have anti-gambling positions or at the least, don't encourage it. I think the evangelical position is usually on the anti- side of that line.

I guess this is still bad news for Democrats.

So no word from Michael yet on where he got the idea for this latest piece of inanity?

I don't think the gambling in itself is a major story, because I'm not convinced by the argument that people will govern like they gamble. But... a few thousand at a time? I think that's the big story.

"All of us who aren't trolls want more reporting about substantive issues, but I notice we don't always pay attention with our comments (see, for example, the relative paucity of comments on AMC's story yesterday about the backlog of whistle-blower cases)." - Kathy, I think one of the reasons there are sometimes fewer comments on the substantive posts is that there is often very little to discuss. These issues - like prosecuting war profiteering - are so clear. But when it's an issue like health care, there were a lot of comments. There was also a lot of interest in the FISA policy. And I'm not sure that the number of comments is always an indicator of the amount of interest in a story. I only posted one small comment on AMC's story, but it's the story I remember most from yesterday.

Also, I agree that bingo is mostly a Catholic game.

Is this the same Michael Weisskopf who alleged in the pages of Pravda on the Potomac that Christians in the United States were "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command"? If so, is there a single person at Time magazine who is not of an identical mind as Weisskopf?

RustyDog thinks Obama is the Antichrist.

Amazing, texte. And the libs claim there's no bias. At this point, Fox and WSJ are the only fair sources of media info in the whole country?

Amazing, just amazing.

If so, is there a single person at Time magazine who is not of an identical mind as Weisskopf?

No, they're all hiding under your bed waiting for you to fall asleep so they can convert you to Islam by chanting "you are getting bitter - you are getting bitter" in your ear.

Can we recruit some better Right wingers please?

Thay can't ALL be this stupid....

I just noticed that Mike referred to the "newstand isuue" of Time, as opposed to the "dead tree version", that most others speak of.

I think Mike is too good for the Internet.

Sounds like McCain has a problem. Could this explain the $500,000 monthly credit card bills? I still cannot fathom how one could spend this much in one month.

Paul Dirks -- Isn't "better right winger" an oxymoron?

Naphta was right about you, Settembrini--you just don't get how the world works.

Red snapper --

He may be "too good" for the internet, but he isn't going to win the Pulitzer Prize or receive Sigma Delta Chi for this story.

I'm confused as to who the elitist is. Is it the guy who plays dollar poker hands in a colleague's basement or the guy who plays high roller craps in private rooms in Vegas casinos? I don't begrudge McCain his money; after all he earned it the old-fashioned way (he married it). I do think it's disingenuous, though, to say Obama is the elite country club guy when it's so obviously the other way around.

Florida wrote: "So no word from Michael yet on where he got the idea for this latest piece of inanity?"

He's onto his next assignment: Which candidate squeezes the toothpaste tube from the end to the front, or squeezes indiscriminately and while's he's in the bathroom he'll write about how the toilet paper is hung (over the roll or under the roll).

Enquiring minds want to know...oops wrong publication.

Kathy R--

At the risk of drawing a target on my back with fellow posters, the reason the "serious" stories don't get as many posts is because nobody can come and show off how important they are by complaining that the bloggers don't do their jobs as journalists.

Insulting Michael, Joe Klein, AMC et al with snappy one-liners doesn't make you smarter than they are, people.

Since we're talking chance and odds, what are the odds Michael writes a substantive piece this electin cycle? Or touches on McCain's contributors' ties to terrorist orgs? I'm thinking those odds are around 8 buhjillion to one.

Florida you're under estimating.

Lulu Lulu - I won't speak for KathyR, but I don't get sarcastic and snarky because I'm more important or smarter than they are.

I worked in commercial broadcasting in the 70s and 80s and studied journalism as an undergrad.

There was a high level of professionalism and ethics that was expected of me during that time, that has eroded over the years by the current crop of editors and reporters.

When I ran radio stations during that time I took seriously the role of commerical broadcaster as a "public trust".

Since the massive deregulation of the industry and the revolving door of reporters and political staff (Stephanopulos, Matthews, etc.)the ethics of and professionalism of reporters and editors has be diluted.

I get angry and frustrated because these people know better. And yet, they behave the way they do.

It's wonderful that you were once a professional in the field, Andy from MA, and that you have high ethical expectations of those doing the job now.

However, the six posts you put up before responding to my first post don't make you look like a former journalist, they make you look like a childish troll. Remember your second year of college, when a friend took a class on World Religion and suddenly thought he knew everything about the world from that one class and got really defensive and angry and show-offy whenever anyone tried to debate what he was saying? That's how you come across on this board. And not just you...quite a few others around here whose purpose seems to be to insult the bloggers.

And I should amend that...there's a difference between a troll (which I generally ignore as a rule) and someone who seems to come here and constantly say either "how is this news?" or the backhanded-compliment style "thanks for actually doing your jobs as journalists." Politicians and media people aren't the only ones who use rhetoric to get their points across.

Lulu:

I don't care how important anybody thinks I am; I do care about the importance of professional, objective reporting. I welcome responsible and accurate stories that cut against my political preferences because they add to the value of pubic discourse. I abhor sloppy, lazy writing that distorts reality or merely pretends to be objective, because it misinforms the public and adversely affects democracy.

You may have heard we're in an information age. The importance of accuracy and objectivity are magnified, and I have little patience with those who only purport to offer both under the name of a major medium. IMO it's the biased and/or inaccurate coverage that displays an overriding concern with self-importance.

I agree 100%, FlownOver. What I don't agree with is the aggressively hostile tone that people use when they disagree. If you have a point, state your point. Don't make it personal, don't try to be wisecracky and clever because no one's going to hire you (the general YOU, not you personally, FlownOver) to write for a new version of The West Wing based on blog responses. It's the people who come and act rudely just so they can pat themselves on the back for how snarky and sarcastic they are that erode the discourse on the blog that I'd otherwise enjoy, whether I agree or not.

Are we really talking about this?

And is the article really 2 pages long?

Seriously?

This is it?

Next up:

Obama's and McCain's bathroom reading material!

Followed by a groundbreaking story about what music each listens too!

And THEN!!!! Wait for it! We have an exclusive -- photocopies of each's March Madness pools! And we'll tell you then which one won!

Fair and balanced, right?

But the story we won't bring you is... why we get paid so well for such drivel!

If Time has gotten this stupid, I can't even imagine what People has become.

Michael, how about something that could conceivable actually matter?

Like maybe a story on what it means that Rove is involved in McCain's campaign, and whether this new campaign leader is just a Rove plant, or whether he is independent.

I mean, I get tired of all this campaign blarney, but at least that above has some import for our nation. We had Rove in charge for 6 years, and shouldn't we be informed if he's now doing his Machiavelli thing with yet another presidential candidate?

And for those of us who gamble, maybe that'll make us put money on the opponent... because just about everything Rove touches turns to merde. Or do you still think he's a "genius"?

Memo to Time magazine: Charlotte has hit a 123 year low temperature.

www.charlotte.com/news/story/695929.html

How long will it take for some earth worshipping fool to blame the frigid temperatures on the "global warming" hoax?

Lulu,
LuLu

When the Washington bureau chief of Time says in his blog that "there's nothing to see here, more on" on the first reports of U.S. attorney scandal. The reports prove to be a significant legal issue on firing people for no purpose other than replace them with politcal appointees pushing a politcal agenda.

I can't help but question the motives of the editorial staff of Time or the personal relationships journalist establish with politicians, the so-called "good journalists"...We can agree to disagree on my approach to this, and I assume that we do disagree.

I thought McCain was rolling the dice with Iraq.

How long will it take for some earth worshipping fool to blame the frigid temperatures on the "global warming" hoax?
Posted by texte | July 3, 2008 1:24 PM

Global Warming Al Gore is typing as fast as he can with the revisions. Please patient.

Texte/Rusty,

Please pardon this injection of Fact into your Stupid, but weather != climate.

Sorry Texte/Rusty:
1)Off topic. (See those words at the top of the page, read those. Then comment.)
2)The temperture of one day's is weather, cliamte is different. You being stupid doesn't make Climate Change impossible, it just makes you stupid. (Please educate yourself and see this)

Luckily most of copy pasta the Rusy and Co. post here is so out of date it just takes a few moments to debunk it.

Its ok Spotweld and Cubiclewarrior, we know the demonuts also believe in Fahrenheit 9/11, the docudrama by Michael Moore.

It is understandable that you need fairytales to believe in since the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were debunked years ago.

But, soon with a President Obama, his "change" will bring more fairytales for you to feed upon. Like he is going to eliminate lobbyist from his campaign and eventual Presidency.

I also heard he is going to increase your taxes so he can fund a super one payer Healthcare program. Pretty soon with that kind of healthcare system you can plan on giving 50% of your money to the government.

That will make 4 dollar a gallon gasoline seem like penny candy.

After 4 years of an Obama Administration we will not need to worry about Global Warming anyways. All the industries in the United States will have shut down by then once our economy implodes upon itself.

Do you know how to hitch up a buggy?

Lulu that's pretty excellent irony.
4 comments complaining about comments from other commenters not commenting "on topic".

Ugghhh...

Slow news day at the Swamp, huh?

Well, I have a few suggestions for stories to occupy the intrepid news-seekers that write here:

-You can discuss how IAEA head, Al-Baradei, said that he'd quit if Iran is attacked seeing how the agency is convinced Iran poses no immediate threat, they would have to expel the IAEA insectors to start a nuclear weapons program, it would take at least 6 months to a year before that program could produce a weapon and that an attack would "turn the Middle East into a ball of fire".
-Or interview Scott Ritter, who feels an attack is imminent, despite his insistence that there is "no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program" and the assertion that Iran is not forthcoming to IAEA inspectors is "CIA instigated tripe".
-Perhaps update the readers on the status of the pending security agreement to replace the expiring UN mandate allowing us to operate in Iraq. You can ask the Presidential candidates if they think the measure should be subject to congressional approval.

Well, back to beating my head against the wall...

pippen, you're late to the party. We already had the March Madness picks discussion.

I will just be grateful if one of the Swampers posts something of substance before the holiday.

Memo to Time magazine: Charlotte has hit a 123 year low temperature.

It was a cool spring in many places. That ought to debunk the global warming myth once and for all.

C'mon folks. Why would Time want to investigate serious matters? There are already too many things seriously wrong - gas prices; the never-ending war in Iraq; ObL still on the loose; the near-daily piece-by-piece destruction of our Constitution by those elected and entrusted to run our government; the immeasurable stupidity of R-wingnuts; etc. Why bring more "doom and gloom" into the forefront?

I, for one, applaud Time & Co for trying to distract us from the horrible negativity that is reality. Thanks, guys...

Doug, I'm curious: of the cars you own, are any of them up on cinder blocks? Do your friends make comments about how you remind them of the "Banjo Boy" from Deliverance?

Oh, and re: Bingo. It may have started out as a Catholic game, but it's high-stakes, big-money business here on the "rez."

"Charlotte has hit a 123 year low temperature."

So if some other place hits a 123-year high temperature, you'll believe in climate change?

That approach will cause a lot of mental whiplash.

btw, did you know there is this interesting field of study called "statistics"?

Amazing Rusty. You're pointed out as totally wrong on your "coldest day proved Climate Change wrong" and the only way you can think to react is to spin out onto another totally different topic. Did anyone mention 9/11 or the World Trade Center? Nope.

Stay scared Rusty. Stay fearful. It's the people who aren't afraid of change that end up the winners in this world. Keep yourself in that nice safe bunker Rusty, you won't get hurt that way.

texte and Rustydog:

Global warming does not result in a rise in temperature everywhere by the amount the global temperature rises. In fact, only a couple of degrees in temperature rise will wreak havoc in the climate. As climatologists have been telling us for a long time, global warming will result in more extremes in weather. That means some places will experience higher temperatures (or longer heat waves), and some places will experience lower temperatures (or longer cold snaps), and hurricanes and tornadoes will become stronger.

Weather is prompted by the dynamics of heat in the atmosphere and the ocean, and the more heat there is the more differential there is between the highs and the lows, which heightens the amplitude of the systems that redistribute the heat.

You are showing an acute lack of knowledge on this subject, and while there is nothing wrong with that in itself, you do nothing to help your argument (if that matters to you) by speaking from ignorance.

The Science Daily web site is a reliable, well-respected (if that matters to you) source for information about science of all sorts. Here's a link to their global warming stories. Or use the Google.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

"Charlotte has hit a 123 year low temperature."

So if some other place hits a 123-year high temperature, you'll believe in climate change?

Posted by ArtPepper | July 3, 2008 3:21 PM

Interesting. When there is a single record high at some place on the planet, the activists/lobbyists/advocates at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, al McClatchy, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, et al., predictably declare said record high to be "evidence" of so-called "global warming", but when there is a record low then said activists are predictably silent.

To answer your question: Yes, I believe in "climate change". It's caused by the big hot thing called the sun. It is not caused by Karl Rove, Fox News, SUVs, lawn mowers, Halliburton, Diebold, Blackwater, Katherine Harris, Scooter Libby, oil companies or the United States military, though.

Switching from McCain fluffery to outright inanity...well played Michael Scherer, well played.

I'm not even going to read what I assume is an unreadable piece of garbage. Tell me if I was wrong.

I'm gathering that it's a take on the 'who we want to have a beer with'/'who would pull over to fix your flat' kind of bullsh!t our MSM does best. And I have to assume there's a reference to Obama gambling like a girl, or something in there that proves what a real man McCain is, and that somehow this indicates that he is better prepared to fight the terrists.

What are yall gonna do for America Day?
I'm gonna do the same thing RustyPoodle and all the wingnuts here are gonna do....I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE WAR AND NOT ENLIST! YIPPPEE!!!!!!

WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!
WE'RE #1!

Hiya Texte, laying down the stupid nice and thick today. Let's see if we can clean your mess out of the carpet.

When there is a single record high at some place on the planet, the activists/lobbyists/advocates at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, al McClatchy, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, et al., predictably declare said record high to be "evidence" of so-called "global warming"..

Except they don't. Generally they point to the repeated and consistancant re-occurance of record highs as possible evidence. But that requires a lot more words and generally ends up somewhere beyond the first paragraph. And if you read beyond the first pargraph you'd get all educated and have no time to build those nify straw men. Don't worry, Texte, no one will miss then.

Yes, I believe in "climate change". It's caused by the big hot thing called the sun.

And again, we have an example of mindless repetition of the same soundbyte. As with Rusty, it's already been debunked.

It is not caused by Karl Rove, Fox News, SUVs, lawn mowers, Halliburton, Diebold, Blackwater, Katherine Harris, Scooter Libby, oil companies or the United States military, though

And now it's the biggest straw man of it all. Keep shooting at those pretend paper targets Texte, reality is just too scary for you.

Michael Scherer needs to try harder! He has some serious competition.

Oh that's the stuff tri....

excerpts:
"John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist....McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said. Later Sidoti asked McCain if he'd like a full body massage...with happy ending of course!"

Ok, I added the massage part, but I'm pretty sure it happened and just went unreported.

Global warming does not result in a rise in temperature everywhere by the amount the global temperature rises.

Then what the hell does it actually mean? Anything? Or is it like relativism, deconstructionism, feminism, Marxism? Or is it shape without form, shade without colour?

If anyone's still reading...Pnnto, where exactly in any of my posts did I say anything about off-topic?

omfg, dougieJ! thank you.

The other morons hadn't got more than a mild chuckle out of me, but you had me rolling on the floor with divisive guffahs. Even a couple snorts.

Except the come-down is somewhat less funny. That's the reality of it; a lot of Americans still haven't even educated themselves enough to understand the basic premise. And yet, they are happy to speak out against it. And not even realizing they're speaking out against something stupid, that wasn't the claim.

No, indeed, those dirty hippies are not claiming that 2C of global warming means it got 2C warmer everywhere. I'll leave it to you to go and read for 5 minutes any of the sites that would explain it to you. If you can't do that, you won't try to the parse the words I put down.

So I'll try to limit myself to laughing at you.

LuLululululu -

You're right, you didn't actually complain about the content, but rather the tone.

The confusion was caused by their giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about content, and that would be the logically reasonable sort of underlying complaint.

I myself didn't give you any such benefit, and immediately thought two things:
* You were focusing on tone instead of content, which is aristocratic and stupid.
* Your psychoanalysis of the people tearing down the bloggers/"journalists" in the swamp is a reasonable theory, but only a long shot; the simpler intentionality would be based on their having taken offense at the low target intellect of the articles, day in and day out. These are supposed to be professionals. The commenters, however, are not supposed to be professionals, just regular people. So you have much less reasonable cause to be offended. I specify "reasonable" because, as these posts are mostly not addressed to you but to the group, it's silly to put so much emphasis on tone. And that implies that you are more deserving of your own psychological analysis than that target(s).

But that's typical; your own shortcomings are the ones you're most familiar with.

And enough trashing on you, some genuine advice; you'll get an even bigger ego boost if you attack the content, instead of the tone, because then the return dialogue will like and kind, and you'll at least have a chance to distinguish yourself.

Kathy R had mentioned in a post that while the "fake-news" stories get a lot of responses, the "real-news" stories do not. I responded that the reason for this is that people will come to the "fake-news" stories and respond over and over and over taking potshots at the Swampland people but when it comes to the "real-news" stories they respond once or they have nothing to say. You can check--in the posts considered fake-news you can see the same people posting the exact same idea every twenty minutes, only worded slightly differently to make themselves sound impressive.

Politics is not my thing--I'm not good at it. I come here so I can learn more about it, and I've used the response feature on the blog to ask questions about things I don't understand. It's annoying, however, to read through 55 posts written by fewer than ten people trying to out-insult the others to find a legitimate nugget of information or content.

If you disagree with the person who posted the blog, if you think they are doing something wrong, that's fine. I wouldn't think of trying to stop you from saying so--that's the purpose of this response feature. But yes, it's when people post their witticisms over and over that reduce the blog to less than useless...people who read are going to be less likely to take you seriously and pay attention to what you are saying if you use this supersarcastic look-at-me-I'm-so-brilliant tone, and people who might have something interesting to add will be less likely to jump into what's become a free-for-all insult-fest. Plus, the more responses there are the less likely anyone will be to read them. Those who post may not be professionals, but it's not so much to ask that they actually try to ADD to the discussion rather than contribute to its devolution.

I don't do this for an ego-boost, thanks; I have plenty of other places to go when I need that. Aristocratic, sure--I have a habit of being elitist, I'll own it. But as someone who does NOT know a lot about politics, I know I'd appreciate fewer smugly attacking responses and I can't imagine I'm the only one.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter

عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار