Here's a Hint - when someone ....

[jazzimov]

posts something with their "hair on fire", even if they post a link to a BLOG of someone else who also seems to have their "hair on fire", it's probably wrong. Or at least misrepresented.

There is something that DUers should understand, and that I think they do but only when it is convenient - Journalists can, and will, lie.

In this case, we have been blessed in the fact that the actual documents themselves are available.

However, most people simply don't want to read the original documents. They would rather have someone else "tell" them what it contains, even if it is WRONG and directly contradicts what was said in the original document.

A perfect example is the FISA order that the Guardian decried as "being only one paragraph!". Well, yes it was, but that single paragraph had several references to existing laws. In essence, the FISA order said that "all orders will follow existing law". But the Guardian article tried to portray the brevity as some kind of "proof" that the FISA court doesn't follow established law. When in fact the order commands that the FISA Court MUST follow those laws that have been established previously - without being redundant.

I know that many people here will disagree with my interpretations, but the Guardian interpretations are demonstrably wrong simply by reading the documents that they, themselves, released.

The thing that amazes me is that a News Article could be so "off-base" and then release documents that directly contradict them as "proof" of their stance. The leaked documents directly contradict their allegations, and yet the allegations remain. Karl Rove himslelf couldn't have engineered such a coup.

Before you jump to conclusions, please read the FISA order.

Ya know, I started to link to the original order, but I'm tired of doing that. Google is your friend.

And if you want to argue, refer back to the actual order. I don't care what any site says, because they are full of shit. Refer back to the actual order.

[RobertEarl]

1. I think your hair is on fire

[dawg]

3. Then he's probably wrong.

[treestar]

2. It's so easy to manipulate some people

And get them to go off with their hair on fire before considering something rationally.

Then they double down due to unwillingness to admit they jumped the gun.

[Whisp]

9. that is the character flaw that is harvested so these stories

can become what they are. And I do mean stories, not journalism or whatever it's called these days.

Some people just don't get it, even if it's been done to them dozens of times they will open their mouths wide for the next hook.

[Buzz Clik]

4. "Journalists can, and will, lie." And most people who spew are not journalists, just liars.

[graham4anything]

26. and the term journalist, really is an antiquidated term that hasn't existed in 20 years

what these folks are isn't a journalist at all

but an angler.
Whatever they get paid for, their customers get what they want to hear

I disregard everything in the major and minor leagues, because sadly, they are anglers.

Now, I can change my view if only someone would pay me.

Otherwise, it's MY VIEW and I'm sticking to it.


as the old song paraphrased here said-

some play to win
some play to lose
in 2016, when the 80-20 comes into being, the United States is going to be fully blue

(with apologies to Danny O'Keefe(c) good time charley)

[Bluenorthwest]

5. I love how popular that phrase has become recently, 'hair on fire' is suddenly the fave phrase

craze of the Centrist blather department on DU. It's the the cat's pajamas!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. "Concern troll," "pearl clutching" and "fainting couch" became overworn.

[Buzz Clik]

28. there are other, emerging one: "third way" comes to mind.

[Buzz Clik]

27. four years and counting. But, it has a great smiley:

[Bonobo]

6. Here's another hint --When someone uses the phrase "hair on fire"...

They are almost certainly creating a strawman argument to discredit the person by using the 21st century version of the word "hysterical" which was a sexist term designed to undermine women's viewpoints as being the result of their emotional instability.

[RobertEarl]

8. Well, then I apologize

I did not mean to refer to women at all by telling the OP its hair is on fire.

[socialist_n_TN]

11. SOOOOO Bonobo, logically extrapolating from what you're saying.....

The the centrists who are complaining about "hair on fire" are sexists.

[Bonobo]

12. Ummm, no. That's not logical.

Unless you think the below is logic.

Apples are red.

Firetrucks are red.

Therefore apples are firetrucks.

[socialist_n_TN]

17. I don't know. Applying the same "logic" that has been applied....

to posters that are against Obama's use of NSA snooping by calling them "racist" sounds like the same "logic". Shouldn't we use the same "logic" in both cases?

Just making a general point.

[treestar]

16. If you don't like that phrase, there are many others

overreacting
out of control
freaked out
extremely agitated
dramatically enthusiastic
urgently concerned

[Bonobo]

20. None are as accurate as "conditioned to mind-numbing gullibility". nt

[treestar]

22. That would describe reacting to every story as soon as it breaks

and sounds like it possibly might be fun to play victim on (they are spying on us omg!) as you may choose to be gullible about every 'scandal.'

[Bonobo]

24. Whatever.

I have no expectations of changing your mind.

I have read enough of your posts to know what you're made of.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. I don't give a crap about the existing laws. The laws that justify the spying need to be changed.

[treestar]

23. You don't?

Existing laws are decided by society, by elected representatives, and can only be overturned by the courts. You aren't dictator.

[1-Old-Man]

10. "Google is your friend"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yup, this is why this reporter

Quoted the actual order...it says what it says.

[Jarla]

14. It sounds like you believe that anyone who has concerns hasn't read the documents nt

[Jarla]

15. Here are the links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-a-procedures-nsa-document

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document

I've had them both open in my browser since yesterday evening.

[cali]

19. hint: whether or not someone's hair is in flames, is wholly subjective.

[The Link]

21. Your pants are on fire.

Google is your friend.

[pipi_k]

25. After seeing lots of

"hair on fire" stuff here over the years (and yes, even when I was merely a lurker, in 2002), and tons of hyperbole, I have gotten a bit leery of reacting in any way to certain topics.

I saw people go off the deep end over a certain volcano in Iceland, which was (OH NOES!!!) going to destroy us all. An oil leak disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that was going to (GASP!!!!) be an earth-ending event. Some silly CT stuff after Katrina where one or two people were positive the government was lying about the numbers of dead.

Then there was the premature (and very mistaken) cheering over a certain prosecutor who was going to legally destroy certain members of the Bush gang and be the catalyst for some very long prison sentences for a few of them (including Dick Cheney) and that load of bullshit led to the phrase, "Merry Fitzmas". In the end, not much happened. What a letdown.

Hair on fire. Hyperbole. Chicken Little "The-sky-is-falling" crap.

It's hard to sort out the crazy from the not crazy, and that's why I don't get involved in a lot of issues where people are throwing their own sets of "facts" at each other.

[UtahLib]

29. Your last sentence expressed my sentiments, exactly. n/t