Posts Tagged ‘Logic’

Garbage – Push It – TPM Was Not DDoSed By Anonymous


Vodpod videos no longer available.

So who is pushing garbage on the internet? Is it the groups that are fighting for freedom, truth and full disclosure?  Those that want to promote open science, media and dialogue?  Or those with singular ideas that want to make sure you all agree with them, while they stuff money down their pants?  If you aren’t profiting from the undertaking by expressing on idea, then I am clearly more likely to listen.

With that thought in mind, I was thinking about the recent Talking Points Memo (@TPM) DDoS attack which could have been pulled off by any malicious group with a high school education.  Then I began to think about the thousands of left wings followers (and the thousands of far right wing followers) of the six major Anonymous groups.  What would be in it for Anonymous to attack TPM on the eve of one of biggest world wide protests ever seen? Nothing.

Then I continued the thought.  Who would be best able to mount such a false flag attack on TPM? Who could benefit from discrediting them at this time? I will leave for you to figure out—

I continued the thought.  The six major groups all hash out their plans, vote and always announce them in advance and take credit for the attack afterward.  This has not been done in this case. Why? I will again leave for you to figure out—

The various groups do have a number of principles they follow and it just seems to me that to target TPM for this article would be antithetical to those principles.  And just plain foolish to only target them. Check them out here and affiliates here and here and here and here  and here.  I suppose splinter groups are always possible, but then are they Anonymous?

Now for the oglers that want to see the pictures of innocent people that were momentarily NOT available on TPM you can look here and here and here and here. To just name a few in a brief search. So were they just saying, this is your fault TPM and we are going to risk 15 years in jail to momentarily disrupt information that we can no longer stop being disseminated across the internet? They would do this even though TPM is just doing what what Anonymous risks their freedom to achieve, namely freedom of information? I can’t believe this to be true.

The TPM photos were not available here oddly for the longest (but not as long as I thought). Oddly because that would make it a record for a DDoS sustained attack. Damn near tantric!  On further review I found out  the longest such attack was as long as 60 days!  This brings on reverse of my original thought. If it was really meant to do harm, then why not do it for longer? I still don’t buy that it TPM would be sole target even if they were the origin of all the information proliferation on the internet, and I think the editor will end up apologizing for even suggesting it was a logical implication that it was Anonymous that did it.  By the way, why would they take down the group pictures and not this one? Note who are the historical victims of Anonymous as reported by TPM here.

Don’t mind me. I am just gullible.

Update:

OK, I got some comments that Anonymous was not an organization as seen in Gawker.  I clearly disagree.  The left also, professional or otherwise, is not considered an organization either, because in the aggregate we too have no leader, but thought. No wealth, but creativity. And no agenda, but truth. So would someone say those left or right of center are just a loose collection of [insert noun here]?  Since those not in center often see the center as a sheep pen, I suppose the obverse is true as well. All the sheep see are wolves circling.

To be more formal in the organization argument consider a complex distributive network like the heart. A few cells will beat on their own. When hooked to a larger series of networks a simple signal can keep the whole in working order.  Would anyone deny the heart is an organization? I think free societies only work as such when they are modeled on complex distributive networks.

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Opposing Gay Marriage By Bill O’Reilly


Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Opposing Gay Marriage By Bill O’Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, May 21, 2009

… There is no stopping the gay nuptials now, even though most Americans say they are opposed to extending marital law to same sex couples.

Yes, there is no stopping it.  Why? It is because being gay is an identity and those that embrace that identity already marry.  They jump the broomstick as it were.

Right now, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and Maine allow gays to marry. New Hampshire will soon do so. Once the legislatures of New York and New Jersey get finished taxing the life out of their citizens, they, too, will most likely pass gay marriage. And, even though the folks in California voted down gay nuptials, the Supreme Court there is desperately trying to find a way to nullify the vote.

What happened to the rule of law? Are we returning to the anti-civil rights arguments of the 50s combined with the propaganda techniques of the 30s? Is this fair and balanced bigotry?

A new CNN/Opinion Research Poll says 54% of Americans oppose gay marriage, while 45% support it. But if you oppose gay marriage, your opinion makes you a bigot. … That’s what the Miss California controversy was all about.

Where have we heard this ‘we the people’ line before?  That front groups that oppose gay marriage appear to be affiliated with other corporatist front groups that oppose anything that might cut into their profits.  Is this is the great great moral stand that O’Reilly touts? Does he stand with the Mormon Church because they know the evils of gay marriage, like plural marriage, or because they know its power?

Your humble correspondent doesn’t really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we’re dead. I take a libertarian position on issues like gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally.

Humble is not the word I would have chosen. The idea that this is a libertarian view is de facto absurd. Is this a separate but equal argument against gay marriage? No government sanctions on marriage of any kind would be more libertarian.

… most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society. Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father—certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children.

Let us not forget to do some drum beats for the great American way while we are at it. Pleas to common practice (tradition) and authority are bad enough, but conflating correlation to causation, and just plain rallying of nationalist fervor are quite beyond the pale. None of this is proof, lest it be of pandering to the right. It does remind me of journalistic propaganda from somewhere though. Reality may not have a right wing spin, but O’Reilly sure does.

I also understand that once America changes marital law for one group, homosexuals, it will have to allow plural marriages and other types of situations under “equal justice for all.” Also, there is no question the Scandinavian marriage model of anything goes has led to a drastic decline in traditional marriage.

Oh, I see, Gay Marriage is like a gateway drug? And yes, if you legalize something, then the tradition changes.  Hopefully for the better, promoting the values of marriage, not just the form.  Like many other issues defined by the right, this is all form and no substance.

…When was the last time you saw a Catholic cardinal or archbishop speak against gay marriage on television? …

After some more left wing biased media bashing, then he goes after the Catholic Church for being silent. I wonder where he got that from?

The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. … The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

Lets review: A bigot is someone with half baked ideas that asserts self serving views without proof against a group of people he knows little about and refuses to hear evidence to the contrary. Yes, the left does appear to have a point.

So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won’t pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer.

Oh yes, then there is the fear monger divisiveness to top it off. We have different models of the universe so we will go to war over which side of the egg we crack open first. Pick your issue. Pick your commentator.  Fox News defining the issue is like Al Qaeda defining terrorism. Interestingly the divide on this issue is generational, not geographic.  Logan’s Run anyone?

Deconstructing Glenn Beck


Deconstructing Glenn Beck

From the July 27, 2009 edition of Fox News’ Glenn Beck:

BECK: Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas. That’s what the Contract with America was — I mean, that’s what it was about? Really? Hmm. I completely missed that.

Now, he’s got friends that say things like that. There’s his friend. There’s Barack Obama’s good friend that says things like that, and he has some really, really extra special friends, also.

Well, deconstructing Glenn Beck is almost surreal here.  We all know that he is about to do a high tech lynching of an uppity nizzle that just happens to be the President. Otherwise, why would he allude to Clarence Thomas?  It’s odd really, in 1991 a conservative black being attacked for sexual harassment charges while he was at the EEOC during his supreme court confirmation hearing. This does not appear to be either a bigoted, or politically biased, positon taken by the Democrats in the Senate. This irrational start is only prelude. The only other real parallel here is that both are successful men that happen to be black. So perhaps his point, or his cover, is that the Democrats attack black men too. I wonder if he knows Clarence Thomas once represented Monsanto?

MICHELLE OBAMA : For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.

So she is proud of the involvement of people in the political process, unlike the apathy and defeatism of the past 40 years.  I can see that she is black.  Does that shade the meaning of her words somehow?  Isn’t it more instructive that as a child she was proud of the political involvement she saw? The mood changed with the assassinations ending with that of MLK, but she did not say that.

BECK: We have demonstrated President Obama’s desire for racial justice. But how is he setting out to achieve it? Exactly the way a community organizer would: through intimidation, vilification, bullying, a system, an underground shell game.

Look how he has handled different things. Gates — he calls the cops stupid and racist before he admits, he says, “I don’t know all of the facts.” But he jumps to the conclusion that the cops are racist.

I am quite dumbfounded that so few can see that Glenn Beck’s rhetorical style is full of intimidation, vilification, bullying and the posing of arguments that are a shell game of fallacies, but then he would say he is not the President or a Senator.  So that makes it all OK, because he only talks to millions of people daily. It is OK that he rallies hate, fear and war mongers and promotes power, money and glory hoarders through his bigoted millennial paranoia. Some would claim this his right to free speech, but I say all of what he says amounts to commercial speech.

Maybe I overstate the case, but stupid acts don’t make you stupid, nor does jumping to conclusions make you a racist.  Otherwise, Glenn Beck would have been dismissed as a stupid racist long since. The President did act rashly by not suggesting that the cops appeared to be jumping to conclusions that made their acts appear stupid. This is a slip that Glenn Beck makes with every other sentence.

BECK: Health care — oh, those evil, greedy doctors that are ripping tonsils out at will. And it’s also no longer about access — universal access. It’s about preferential access.

In a free country with a democracy even the socialists and communists have a voice. Our constitution allows for every one to speak. It does not allow you to be a fear monger and yell fire in a crowded teatre. Facts, real facts, do not name call, do not appeal to fear, emotion, authority, past practice, popularity, patriotism or any other fallacy. Appeals are the hucksters trade. I do not want snake oil. I want universal health care, for example, like every other modern nation in the world enjoys. I want a government not afraid to stand up to the tyranny of small shallow minds. I want a government that stands for real values, not slogans, sound bits, and video clips, which are the hobgobins of little minds.

Glenn Beck needs to be dismissed. Especially considering his most insidious of all liar’s tools, guilt by association, that is his, and all the little minds at FOX, most popular fallacy.  Maybe someone should mention the convicted felons that work for FOX.

BECK:  His green policies — it’s easy to say he wants to bankrupt the evil, earth-killing coal industry. But now he’s got a czar who’s a self-avowed communist to make sure that it happens. Our president is not just bankrupting our country; he is fundamentally transforming it as he promised, and he is doing it to the core.

So what happened to freedom to think? I see Glenn Beck’s thought completely bankrupt here? The coal companies are not evil and earth killing, but the people that run them that think like Glenn Beck could indeed be evil. In the past the coal companies surely were so.  If you don’t work to make your workplace and product safe until people die, then you are evil.  If you don’t work for your investors to find valid alternatives when you know you are going down a slippery slope, then you are evil. However, this does not necessarily currently apply to any of the coal companies that Barack Obama appeared in advertising for, promoting the possibilities of clean coal.

If we nationalized the energy and transportation grids and redistributed 300 million shares to the people would that be socialism, communism or a democratized capitalism? Would that be evil?  Talk to the Appalachian population about their B & O taxes and see if they wouldn’t prefer that model.

BECK:  In the next few years, I promise you, America will look more like ACORN in structure and less than anything that our founders had in mind. Obama handles every issue like a community organizer would, and he wants to create a civilian army.

Anybody remember this from the campaign? A civilian army in the form of community organizers, more well — I’m quoting him — “more well- funded than the military.” Last year, he said, and I quote, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded.

“You gotta be kidding me. If you want a government-funded civilian army of ACORNs, well, you’re gonna be a happy camper very soon if America keeps sleeping.

Community action organizations are just that, they organize the community to get involved in the process instead of sitting back hopelessly and helplessly getting told by the backers of the likes of Glenn Beck that they should buy gold and prepare for the apocalypse.  The apocalypse his backers fear is that someone might wake up and see that we don’t have to be slaves to the marketplace of war, fear and hate which help make us a country of self centered narcissists interested more in our appearance than the welfare of our neighbors. If you don’t see the logic in this, then just picture any professional wrestling star as you look in the mirror saying, “consumer patriot” five times.

BECK: Keith Ablow is here. He is a psychiatrist and Fox News contributor.

Keith, am I jumping the gun here? I just see this ACORN thing and also the thing at the White House as a sign. This guy has real issues with race, real issues.

ABLOW: Unfortunately — and I really mean it, Glenn — unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I don’t think you’re jumping the gun. Americans had as their fondest hope and prayer, I think, that they were electing a colorblind president who could embrace everyone equally. I think that was the hope. I think it was the hope — more than some of his policies — that here was a man who could treat everyone equally.

You mean like universal health care and rights for gays?

ABLOW:  Instead, I think we get a transparent president, in this case, whose feelings about white America are coming forward again.

BECK: Yeah.

ABLOW: And I don’t know — listen. As a psychiatrist, I’m trained to look at facts and say what fits and what doesn’t, what’s a theory that can hold water as to someone’s personality and nature. You have someone who sat in a church with a pastor who called white people the devil, whose wife has not been proud of this country in her adult life until quite recently, who calls a Cambridge police sergeant stupid without knowing the facts, and whose friends are community organizers with questionable pasts.

Sad fact is that psychiatrists are not trained to look at facts.  Psychiatry is a practice. A practice that revolves around the notion that people that cause a problem, have a problem and the cure is to agree with the psychiatrist.  Yes, exposure to radical notions like those expressed on FOX News day in and day out could brainwash a person, but that does not mean it will.

ABLOW: And so, you add all that up, and say, look –

Questionable pasts? You mean like Glenn Beck’s? One that might make him a poster child for the need to make things be either black and white because of his past impulse control issues leading to his need for structure and control at all times.  This would also explain his choice of religious affiliation matching his worldview and his frequent shows of bigotry.

BECK: Questionable pasts?

I will not commit the fallacy here of  ‘look at you, you are one to talk’.  The fact is that the past leads people to decisions.  It does not determine them. Those decisions do influence your actions, but again, they do not determine them. It is only when you remain stubbornly blind to your past decisions and remain unaware of your own biases do you let them control you.  The most affected by this lack of introspection appears to be Glenn Beck and Doctor Keith Ablow.

ABLOW: — there’s more than an apology necessary here. This is a question of introspection. The president needs to look at himself and say, “Do I have prejudice that I wasn’t even aware of, perhaps, toward white people?”

Physician heal thyself.

BECK: Well, he’s not — you know what? He’s not going to do that. I think he’s one of the more arrogant people I have ever witnessed in the office. I mean, I — I don’t think he is — this man has absolutely no fear, and no fear of the American people — no fear in a good way, like as in fear God. No fear for the office of the presidency of the United States

This arrogance appears to be a projection much like the rest of what Glenn Beck and the far Right have to say.

%d bloggers like this: