HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Cerridwen » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Las Vegas, Nevada
Home country: United Corporate States of the US
Current location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Member since: Thu Jun 24, 2004, 10:32 AM
Number of posts: 13,234

About Me

Hairy, scary, pro-abortion, 'rad fem', doing my best to piss off the "religious" right and MRAs everywhere.

Journal Archives

Do the ACA signup websites shutdown with the gov't?

Tomorrow is the day people can start signing up.

Anyone know if they're going to keep the websites up for signup?

I presume so; however, I don't know so I'm asking if someone here has an answer.

Thanks in advance.

"The ironic impact of activists"

"The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence"


Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by examining individuals' perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants' willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Boring, isn't it? Much more interesting and meme catapulting to say:

[font size=5]Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists[/font]
[font size = 1]New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists [/font]


If you're going to criticize the media, maybe it's time to question everything reported, how it's reported, and what they choose to report.

Yeah, it's just the internet. I want better than that.

Media spin: a tale of two titles

The same article. As far as I can tell, word for word. Each article appears in a different venue with a different title.


The title used in the original article at the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa-american-media

[font size="4"]Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media[/font]
[font size="2"]Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should 'fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can't control'[/font]


The title used for the reposted article at Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/media/seymour-hersh-story-about-killing-osama-bin-laden-one-big-lie?akid=10983.38044.3iPMRk&rd=1&src=newsletter902420&t=3&paging=off¤t_page=1

[font size="3"]Seymour Hersh: Story About Killing Osama Bin Laden is One Big Lie[/font]
[font size="1"]Plus, 90% of lamestream editors should be fired.[/font]

The font sizes are approximated to show the emphasis in the "originals."

Imagine how a discussion might go based on each of the titles. The first might be a discussion about the media and how it molds impressions. The second might be a discussion about bin laden; or President Obama; or the lies of the current administration.

Same article. Different titles. Different emphasis. Different focus on information. Cherry picking to spin.

This is how media spins the message and emphasizes details.

I wonder who the target audience is at the Guardian and who the target audience is at Alternet.

Correction of anti-union talking points currently being catapulted by wsj and others. (corrected)

There's a recent group of talking points about "The Unions(tm)" being against the ACA. The wsj seems to be front and center in this round of anti-everything human propaganda-fest.

Here's the response by one of the unions being misquoted for you to have handy when you see the steam start to arise from the pile of shit:

From http://www.teamster.org/content/hoffa-calls-cruz-right-wing-extremists-stop-aca-misrepresentations

[div class="excerpt"Hoffa Calls On Cruz, Right-Wing Extremists To Stop ACA Misrepresentations
September 25, 2013
Official Statement Of James P. Hoffa, Teamsters General President
Press Contact
Galen Munroe

(Washington, D.C.) – The following is an official statement by Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa:

“In July, I co-wrote a letter to Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi expressing our concerns about specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the potential unintended consequences of those provisions. The concerns outlined in that letter have been taken out of context by anti-worker legislators and political organizations in an attempt to bolster their own arguments against the ACA. They are further trying to show that there is some broad movement to derail the ACA from all sides of the political spectrum.

“Though we may have concerns with specific provisions of the ACA, we share the president’s goal of ensuring that every American has affordable access to top-quality health care. It is on this main point that we disagree wholeheartedly with the efforts of extreme right-wing Republicans to gut the ACA. Any suggestion otherwise is simply political posturing.

“I call on Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. David Vitter and others to cease and desist from misusing our constructive comments in their destructive campaign to hobble the president and the nation.

“Working Americans are fed up with the continued cycle of holding the government and the economy hostage to achieve some empty political victory. Working families are the only people hurt by Republican maneuverings to shut down the government and play Russian roulette with the debt ceiling.”

Washington's farewell address - 1796 - "overgrown military establishments"

link: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

So much more at the link.

Why isn't this taught in school instead of the mythology of George Washington?

Go to Page: 1