Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Obama - All Blogs Are Not Equal

George Washington's blog has an interesting article entitled The Truth About Blogs.

I like that blog because it looks like this blog.

Anyway, the article concerns financial comments on blogs. The GW thread says Obama does not trust blogs. Is that like saying one does not trust the news media at all?

Zip, none, nada? Surely some newspapers are more worthy than other newspapers?

Well, Mr. President, please slow down and remember that not all newspapers and TV news are the same. Some are pure bunk and some are valid.

Fox News is different from Mother Jones. Likewise, blogs are not all the same. I said the following on a blog a long time ago:
Bob Ney helped create the American housing bubble as I have posted here before. His legislation set us up for what is now happening to the stock market. The financial stocks are crumbling pulling hedge funds and who knows what else, like Diebold, down with it.

Its faux news and a faux economy. Bush must have planned for it to come down a bit later, because it is clear to see that the republicans produced the bubble by legislating the out of control bubble.

Bush was involved in the great savings and loan fiasco in the early 90's too. He hangs with the bubble crowd.
(BB 8-14-2007). I made that comment over a year before the big crash began and over a year before the 2008 election.

And that comment recalled an even earlier thread where the same subject matter had been discussed. Bloggers are saavy if you find the right places.

Blogs are the future, people, so it is time for folks to learn how to pick the good ones.


  1. I'm going to post something about Israel tomorrow. Isn't this the part where Dredd takes a shit-fit???
    Big Dan Big Douchebag | Homepage | 03.11.09 - 1:06 am | #

  2. Bamboo Harvester,

    You want me to count the chickens before they hatch?

  3. Oops that was supposed to be in quotes...

  4. Raw Story tells of yet another newspaper, the largest so far, to go exclusively online.

  5. Today I have a little time to catch up on your blog, and get a sence of who you are and what you mean.

    I starets a locak community, neighborhood blog, in Cambridge, because the local Pols were telling outrageous lies, and the local "news" papers were perpetually "out to lunch," or otherwise occupied.

    I now have 5 blogs.

    I started shoe08, after the shoe was thrown at Bush in Iraq. Many demonstrators have attempted to copy that model of protest, and hurled shoes, but they missed the whole point. The induvidual that threw the shoe was a "hero" because he was a journalist who finally stated that he will no longer file the accepted reports, ignoring the people's right to know.

    At issue is the free press vs the people's right to know.

    Blogs are an ideal antidote to the robing of our minds, and our ability to think for ourselves, due to the daily inundation of propaganda of all shades, from white to black, like pepper and salt, that is the MSM today.

    MSM = vectors of disinformation, read at your own risk, and be sure to have plenty of time to vet the tripe.

  6. Kathy,

    Thank you for sharing about your blogs.

    Let us know, by comments here, when a subject here on Dredd Blog is related to one of your posts, and vice versa.

    That way we get many facets of the subject matter and become well rounded.

  7. Thanks, do I call you Dredd?

    That's not a bad idea. Especially since we seem to come from several topice from different angles.

    Your current post, with the chilling photo of the World Trade Ctr is interesting. I actually watched these buildings come down. It is difficult to talk about. My son was at Princeton then, and many of his friends lost parents/siblings.

    I am on several specific topic list servs, and get tons of info, that just percolates. I am not a prolific poster. I know many who genuinely believe that it was impossible for single planes to bring down the buildings. I am not sure about that argument, but what I know about our penchance for covery ops, and false flag dirty tricks, I wouldn't summarily dismiss that argument.

    I lived in China in '88 and '89, so I know there was no massacre in Tiananmen Sq, and I also know that our government also knows that. But when I tell say this, I am accused of being brainwashed by the pinly commie finks, therefore, I am not going to accuse the so called truthers of being conspiricy theorists, because it sometimes takes more than 50 years for us to get stuff declassified. That said, having fired kilns, I am quite impressed with the power of the heat that is created with contained "fire."

  8. Kathy,

    There is a post here "All 9/11 Is Local" where I discuss the import of "local" on perceptions.

    For example, there is a similar article "All Weather Is Local" and "All Security Is Local".

    The point being made is that we see through our "eyes".

    Eyes that, in most people, see things from a local perspective, a local bias.

    Professionals are trained to negate the local bias, then see a case from its facts.

    The 9/11 posts here show that there are many viewpoints within the 9/11 Truther movement, and there are many viewpoints outside the 9/11 Truther movement about what happened.

    The 9/11 Commissioners, for example, do not believe, now, that their report came to honest conclusions.

    Thousands of professionals agree with them, and millions of people are swayed to a certain degree by the disbelief of the Commissioners and the professionals, while other millions are not.

    It is a perfect case for a redo of the investigation unfettered by the localism, unaffected by the emotionalism, but fully empowered to get to every fact.

    But not to prosecute or indict, just get to the facts.

    Prosecution or indictment would be for the normal grand jury process, which has been around a long time, should the facts indicate any such need.

    I try to keep my mind clean and clear so I could sit on a jury or inquest should I be called.

    The oath I would then take would be to decide upon the facts and to do so in a manner that respects all the arguments made upon those facts.