Tag Archives | Lies
Via The Daily Dot.
You’re probably an “internet kook”. Heck, we all probably are, at least according to a list created by Dale Jensen. Jensen claims to have identified eight signs that may indicate that a writer is an “internet kook”. While I have the sneaking suspicion that the purpose of such lists is to make it easier to dismiss troubling ideas wholesale as the work of a “kook”, I’m sure that there will be others who disagree with me. And you know what? They’re kooks. I can tell by looking at this list…
1) “Don’t believe me? Do your own research.”
According to Jensen this is such a telltale phrase that it’s the first item on his list for identifying when someone is over-invested and using a sensible directive to justify irrational beliefs. It’s especially likely, Jensen says, if they repeat the phrase or apply it to a subject for which research is impossible, like the existence of God.
RT America’s new show Breaking the Set with Abby Martin to hit the air starting September 4th. Don’t miss it!
There are way too many rules set in society that prop up the establishment – an establishment that works to divide and conquer the people. Breaking the Set is a show cutting through that pre-established narrative which tells the people what to think and what to care about.
Tune in from 6-6:30 EST M-F on your local cable station or watch live at RT.com/usa
Subscribe to Breaking the Set’s channel here: http://www.youtube.com/breakingtheset
Chris Mooney writes at AlterNet:
Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.
And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.
No less than President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it’s an “education problem.”
But the facts, the scientific data, say otherwise.
Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange confronts twelve mainstream media pundits and elite politicians about the secretive and elusive Bilderberg Group. The media members are willfully ignorant about the mere existence of the Bilderberg Group, and the politicians that have attended the meetings skirt the issue: they either run away or evading Luke’s questions.
Here are the twelve confrontations below:
Tony Blair Lies to Parliament about Bilderberg
Remember how the Bush era had pivotal, history-altering characters with names like “Brownie” and “Curveball”? The latter comes clean and has no regrets, via the Independent:
A man who helped to make the case for invading Iraq – starting a nine-year war costing more than 100,000 lives and hundreds of billions of pounds – will come clean in his first British television interview tomorrow. “Curveball”, the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up.
When it is put to him, “We went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie”, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi simply replies: “Yes.”
His lies were presented as “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence” by Colin Powell when making the case for war at the UN Security Council in February 2003, after US officials “sexed up” Mr Janabi’s drawings of mobile biological weapons labs, admits General Powell’s former chief of staff.
Mr. Janabi tries to defend his actions: “My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq.”
Several specific regions of our brains are activated in a two-part process when we are exposed to deceptive advertising, according to new research conducted by a North Carolina State University professor. The work opens the door to further research that could help us understand how brain injury and aging may affect our susceptibility to fraud or misleading marketing.
The study utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to capture images of the brain while study participants were shown a series of print advertisements. The fMRI images allowed researchers to determine how consumers’ brains respond to potentially deceptive advertising. “We did not instruct participants to evaluate the ads. We wanted to mimic the passive exposure to advertising that we all experience every day,” says Dr. Stacy Wood, Langdon Distinguished Professor of Marketing at NC State and co-author of a paper describing the research.
Participants were exposed to three pre-tested advertisements that were deemed “highly believable,” “moderately deceptive” or “highly deceptive.” The ads were also pre-tested to ensure that they were for products that consumers found equally interesting and desirable — leaving the degree of deception as the only significant variable.
FlowingData points out a recent graphic from a story on Fox News showing the unemployment rate changes under Obama. The numbers are presumably correct, but do not seem to correspond to the rise and fall of the visual, in which, for instance, 8.6 is a higher number than 8.8 or 8.9. Ah, the “Fox Chart” — what does it mean? Is it a work of postmodern art?
The power of the corporate media to deceive the people is simply astonishing, but, mind you, it depends on an already distracted, ignorant, semi-passive multitude whose marching values have been carefully cultivated.
In 2003 we went into Iraq under scandalously false pretexts, guns blazing—bragging about our ability to deliver “shock and awe” with impunity (the mark of the bully) and with one goal in mind: to rob and rape that country blind of its riches. The official excuse was that Iraq and Saddam were mortal threats that had to be neutralized.
Within a matter of weeks if not days, the official line—adopted without missing a beat by the entire punditocracy—was that we had gone in “to save Iraq”, “make it a democracy,” and all the rest of the self-serving claptrap we use over and over again to justify our uber-criminal behavior. With a straight face the official voices declared that those who had the audacity to resist our criminal violence were ingrates.… Read the rest
By asking a group of older adults to analyze videos of other people conversing — some talking truthfully, some insincerely — a group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco has determined which areas of the brain govern a person’s ability to detect sarcasm and lies.
Some of the adults in the group were healthy, but many of the test subjects had neurodegenerative diseases that cause certain parts of the brain to deteriorate. The UCSF team mapped their brains using magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, which showed associations between the deteriorations of particular parts of the brain and the inability to detect insincere speech.
“These patients cannot detect lies,” said UCSF neuropsychologist Katherine Rankin, PhD, a member of the UCSF Memory and Aging Center and the senior author of the study. “This fact can help them be diagnosed earlier.”
The finding was presented April 14, 2011, at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in Hawaii, by Rankin and her postdoctoral fellow Tal Shany-Ur, PhD.