[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]As secular as I am, I 100% agree with social conservatives that society is in decay. We have ALL the signs of it. At this stage, it is terminal. I agree, It is a values problem….. it’s having a value system based on economics. But many misplace cause and effect – they think the moral decay is causing economic decay – when it is the opposite. Modern economics has caused moral decay – because it is our value system.
[/quote]

Arraya, you make salient points here with which I agree. I’m a boomer, but over half my life has been spent in an environment in which personal contact with others has been deemphasized, and information sources are of a non-human nature. This change has given marketing professionals the keys to our brains. They’ve used this to determine what makes us tick, and utilized the that information to market directly to us, or to tailor a marketing campaign to our psychological weaknesses, in essence creating a market for goods and services.

Media has also given us a look into the lives of the “haves”, and the credit culture that resulted, in large part, from the Fed’s policy, caused us all to believe that we deserved it and could afford it simply because we had a legal way to leave the store or dealer with it. For half my life, I was well aware of my socioeconomic class because of my purchasing power; since then, it has taken conscious effort to remind myself that, although I have moved in a somewhat upward direction, I am still a middle-class working American. My experiences in the socioeconomic culture of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s enabled me to keep a firm grip in the years since then, while narcissistic consumerism and economic reality engaged in a tug of war for my soul.

People born from the late 1970s on were, essentially, christened into the Church of Consumerism. Unless their parents made a conscious effort to instill the same values with which many of them had been raised, such as earning your own way, not taking charity except in dire circumstances, living within your means (not your credit limit), saving a portion of the money you earn, and honoring your obligations, these children grew to adulthood entirely ignorant of the tools necessary to survive in the real world.

The introduction and subsequent wildfire-like popularity of reality TV shows served only to exacerbate the problem. Not only did children grow up believing that they were entitled to everything they wanted, but reality shows served as a source of learning communication methods and coping mechanisms.

You have a huge segment of the population, age 30 and below, who have been raised in this manner, and the segment born from 1970 through 1980 are at risk, depending on their early childhood experiences. They were taught that acquisition of money and goods was paramount, yet they were not taught any of the skills involved in acquiring money and goods, nor instructed in the NECESSITY of doing so.

Over the last 15 years, I’ve become immune to the looks on my friends’ faces when I opine that euthanasia of the elderly will be legal by the year 2025. It was probably not a coincidence that they were the same looks they gave me when I insisted that the fantastically healthy economy of the mid-aughts was anything but. As the economy got “healthier”, I became more and more concerned about the intensity of the “readjustment” we could expect in the near future. I also realized that we not only had spoiled our kids rotten, but had neglected to teach them, in word or deed, anything about caring for others, family obligations, evaluating non-monetary value, and the basics such as do not cheat or steal. In essence, we spawned offspring, but didn’t raise them. We taught them to want things, and that they deserved things, but neglected to give them even the most basic of the tools of acquisition. In a normally-functioning economy, many of these people will survive due to manpower demands. But in the opposite scenario, they can only rely on what they’ve been given in the way of survival skills. In the realities of this economy, it’s their conviction that they are “special” and above the rules, combined with a nonfunctioning moral compass, thanks to the parents who “raised” them.

It’s funny: Here on Piggs, there have been, of late, a number of links to articles about the lack of jobs for new college graduates. Time-permitting, I try to make a point of reading through the readers’ comments at the article’s close. I am shocked by the intensity of the accusations made by 22, 24, and 28 year-old recent grads, but not by the accusations themselves. Virtually every one states that, as far as they are concerned, they can’t get jobs because of the economy that the baby boomers messed up. There are obvious flaws in that line of reasoning, but not to people who were raised to believe that they were “special” without having to provide evidence, who were provided with everything they wanted, or who learned to manipulate when they did not, whose parents encouraged them to cheat under the guise of attaining academic excellence, and who forced school administrations to “adjust” their subpar grades, and who attended law school because they were guaranteed to get a $160K/yr job when they graduated. These people are totally self-focused and concerned solely with their own wants and needs. That, in itself, does not bode well for those of us over the age of 50, who screwed up the economy for them. Our goose is cooked.

[quote=Arraya] These riots are a prime example of feral consumerism. Or what early economic theorists considered the true “nature” of man – That of a ruthless genetic self-maximizer with no regard to surroundings, whose sole purpose is acquisition of resources for survival and sexual selection purposes – which is why we need a strong government(to protect from mans “natural” passions), with capitalism as the “bloodless” and “enlightened” competition system to channel these “natural” passions, of which all progress flows.

Interestingly, their rapaciousness is practically identical to the financial sector. Just pure ego-driven greed with no regard for law. It’s fascinating that the top and bottom of society are mirrors of each other. [/quote]

Arraya, some brilliant observations! I particularly like your use of the term “feral consumerism”, which captures the essence of not only the current events in Britain, but our socioeconomic behavioral model of the aughts. Even now, despite greatly reduced economic circumstances, there are those in whom this tendency appears to be part of their neurobiological makeup.

And I was particularly struck by the similarities you cite in your comparison of these angry rioters and the “stars” of the financial sector. But, after all, the “haves” (or “mega-haves”) were the role models for the “have-nots”. I think that the problem lies in the uncomfortable truth that the “have-nots” didn’t actually see or think of themselves as such. They were convinced of their “have” status until incontrovertible evidence emerged that they were not, an event dfor which they were not, in any way, prepared.

[quote=Arraya] http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/shopocalypse-now/%5B/quote%5D

Thank you for this great link. I think this one may be a keeper.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]As secular as I am, I 100% agree with social conservatives that society is in decay. We have ALL the signs of it. At this stage, it is terminal. I agree, It is a values problem….. it’s having a value system based on economics. But many misplace cause and effect – they think the moral decay is causing economic decay – when it is the opposite. Modern economics has caused moral decay – because it is our value system.
[/quote]

Arraya, you make salient points here with which I agree. I’m a boomer, but over half my life has been spent in an environment in which personal contact with others has been deemphasized, and information sources are of a non-human nature. This change has given marketing professionals the keys to our brains. They’ve used this to determine what makes us tick, and utilized the that information to market directly to us, or to tailor a marketing campaign to our psychological weaknesses, in essence creating a market for goods and services.

Media has also given us a look into the lives of the “haves”, and the credit culture that resulted, in large part, from the Fed’s policy, caused us all to believe that we deserved it and could afford it simply because we had a legal way to leave the store or dealer with it. For half my life, I was well aware of my socioeconomic class because of my purchasing power; since then, it has taken conscious effort to remind myself that, although I have moved in a somewhat upward direction, I am still a middle-class working American. My experiences in the socioeconomic culture of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s enabled me to keep a firm grip in the years since then, while narcissistic consumerism and economic reality engaged in a tug of war for my soul.

People born from the late 1970s on were, essentially, christened into the Church of Consumerism. Unless their parents made a conscious effort to instill the same values with which many of them had been raised, such as earning your own way, not taking charity except in dire circumstances, living within your means (not your credit limit), saving a portion of the money you earn, and honoring your obligations, these children grew to adulthood entirely ignorant of the tools necessary to survive in the real world.

The introduction and subsequent wildfire-like popularity of reality TV shows served only to exacerbate the problem. Not only did children grow up believing that they were entitled to everything they wanted, but reality shows served as a source of learning communication methods and coping mechanisms.

You have a huge segment of the population, age 30 and below, who have been raised in this manner, and the segment born from 1970 through 1980 are at risk, depending on their early childhood experiences. They were taught that acquisition of money and goods was paramount, yet they were not taught any of the skills involved in acquiring money and goods, nor instructed in the NECESSITY of doing so.

Over the last 15 years, I’ve become immune to the looks on my friends’ faces when I opine that euthanasia of the elderly will be legal by the year 2025. It was probably not a coincidence that they were the same looks they gave me when I insisted that the fantastically healthy economy of the mid-aughts was anything but. As the economy got “healthier”, I became more and more concerned about the intensity of the “readjustment” we could expect in the near future. I also realized that we not only had spoiled our kids rotten, but had neglected to teach them, in word or deed, anything about caring for others, family obligations, evaluating non-monetary value, and the basics such as do not cheat or steal. In essence, we spawned offspring, but didn’t raise them. We taught them to want things, and that they deserved things, but neglected to give them even the most basic of the tools of acquisition. In a normally-functioning economy, many of these people will survive due to manpower demands. But in the opposite scenario, they can only rely on what they’ve been given in the way of survival skills. In the realities of this economy, it’s their conviction that they are “special” and above the rules, combined with a nonfunctioning moral compass, thanks to the parents who “raised” them.

It’s funny: Here on Piggs, there have been, of late, a number of links to articles about the lack of jobs for new college graduates. Time-permitting, I try to make a point of reading through the readers’ comments at the article’s close. I am shocked by the intensity of the accusations made by 22, 24, and 28 year-old recent grads, but not by the accusations themselves. Virtually every one states that, as far as they are concerned, they can’t get jobs because of the economy that the baby boomers messed up. There are obvious flaws in that line of reasoning, but not to people who were raised to believe that they were “special” without having to provide evidence, who were provided with everything they wanted, or who learned to manipulate when they did not, whose parents encouraged them to cheat under the guise of attaining academic excellence, and who forced school administrations to “adjust” their subpar grades, and who attended law school because they were guaranteed to get a $160K/yr job when they graduated. These people are totally self-focused and concerned solely with their own wants and needs. That, in itself, does not bode well for those of us over the age of 50, who screwed up the economy for them. Our goose is cooked.

[quote=Arraya] These riots are a prime example of feral consumerism. Or what early economic theorists considered the true “nature” of man – That of a ruthless genetic self-maximizer with no regard to surroundings, whose sole purpose is acquisition of resources for survival and sexual selection purposes – which is why we need a strong government(to protect from mans “natural” passions), with capitalism as the “bloodless” and “enlightened” competition system to channel these “natural” passions, of which all progress flows.

Interestingly, their rapaciousness is practically identical to the financial sector. Just pure ego-driven greed with no regard for law. It’s fascinating that the top and bottom of society are mirrors of each other. [/quote]

Arraya, some brilliant observations! I particularly like your use of the term “feral consumerism”, which captures the essence of not only the current events in Britain, but our socioeconomic behavioral model of the aughts. Even now, despite greatly reduced economic circumstances, there are those in whom this tendency appears to be part of their neurobiological makeup.

And I was particularly struck by the similarities you cite in your comparison of these angry rioters and the “stars” of the financial sector. But, after all, the “haves” (or “mega-haves”) were the role models for the “have-nots”. I think that the problem lies in the uncomfortable truth that the “have-nots” didn’t actually see or think of themselves as such. They were convinced of their “have” status until incontrovertible evidence emerged that they were not, an event dfor which they were not, in any way, prepared.

[quote=Arraya] http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/shopocalypse-now/%5B/quote%5D

Thank you for this great link. I think this one may be a keeper.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]A stones throw away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html%5B/quote%5D

I have my own opinions about the subject at hand, but the Daily Mail, faterik? Please.

I’m inferring that the comment accompanying the link means that you believe that we have a similar “liberal dogma-spawned generation” in the U.S. that we can expect to be inspired by their U.K. counterparts. Yes?

There’s no shortage of published material available out there to those wanting to explore what might be the causal factor in the British rioting. Is it really productive to start a thread with an opinion piece titled, “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters”?

I don’t want to take anything for granted, so while I believe that you are of an opinion that is closely aligned with that expressed in this article, I suppose it is possible that you are simply presenting an example of “journalism” that is designed not to inform, but to polarize an already widely-separated population. Let me know if I’m not correct.

If you are, indeed, sympathetic to the views expressed in the article, it begs the question: Are you truly interested in an open and courteous exchange of ideas on costs vs benefits of austerity measures, with the possibility that you might receive some facts or a piece of information of which you were not previously aware? Or are you simply trying to get a rise out of some brainless socialists who will unthinkingly wander into the trap you’ve set, allowing you to destroy their weak liberal arguments will a lethal verbal blow?

Just asking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]A stones throw away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html%5B/quote%5D

I have my own opinions about the subject at hand, but the Daily Mail, faterik? Please.

I’m inferring that the comment accompanying the link means that you believe that we have a similar “liberal dogma-spawned generation” in the U.S. that we can expect to be inspired by their U.K. counterparts. Yes?

There’s no shortage of published material available out there to those wanting to explore what might be the causal factor in the British rioting. Is it really productive to start a thread with an opinion piece titled, “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters”?

I don’t want to take anything for granted, so while I believe that you are of an opinion that is closely aligned with that expressed in this article, I suppose it is possible that you are simply presenting an example of “journalism” that is designed not to inform, but to polarize an already widely-separated population. Let me know if I’m not correct.

If you are, indeed, sympathetic to the views expressed in the article, it begs the question: Are you truly interested in an open and courteous exchange of ideas on costs vs benefits of austerity measures, with the possibility that you might receive some facts or a piece of information of which you were not previously aware? Or are you simply trying to get a rise out of some brainless socialists who will unthinkingly wander into the trap you’ve set, allowing you to destroy their weak liberal arguments will a lethal verbal blow?

Just asking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]A stones throw away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html%5B/quote%5D

I have my own opinions about the subject at hand, but the Daily Mail, faterik? Please.

I’m inferring that the comment accompanying the link means that you believe that we have a similar “liberal dogma-spawned generation” in the U.S. that we can expect to be inspired by their U.K. counterparts. Yes?

There’s no shortage of published material available out there to those wanting to explore what might be the causal factor in the British rioting. Is it really productive to start a thread with an opinion piece titled, “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters”?

I don’t want to take anything for granted, so while I believe that you are of an opinion that is closely aligned with that expressed in this article, I suppose it is possible that you are simply presenting an example of “journalism” that is designed not to inform, but to polarize an already widely-separated population. Let me know if I’m not correct.

If you are, indeed, sympathetic to the views expressed in the article, it begs the question: Are you truly interested in an open and courteous exchange of ideas on costs vs benefits of austerity measures, with the possibility that you might receive some facts or a piece of information of which you were not previously aware? Or are you simply trying to get a rise out of some brainless socialists who will unthinkingly wander into the trap you’ve set, allowing you to destroy their weak liberal arguments will a lethal verbal blow?

Just asking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]A stones throw away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html%5B/quote%5D

I have my own opinions about the subject at hand, but the Daily Mail, faterik? Please.

I’m inferring that the comment accompanying the link means that you believe that we have a similar “liberal dogma-spawned generation” in the U.S. that we can expect to be inspired by their U.K. counterparts. Yes?

There’s no shortage of published material available out there to those wanting to explore what might be the causal factor in the British rioting. Is it really productive to start a thread with an opinion piece titled, “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters”?

I don’t want to take anything for granted, so while I believe that you are of an opinion that is closely aligned with that expressed in this article, I suppose it is possible that you are simply presenting an example of “journalism” that is designed not to inform, but to polarize an already widely-separated population. Let me know if I’m not correct.

If you are, indeed, sympathetic to the views expressed in the article, it begs the question: Are you truly interested in an open and courteous exchange of ideas on costs vs benefits of austerity measures, with the possibility that you might receive some facts or a piece of information of which you were not previously aware? Or are you simply trying to get a rise out of some brainless socialists who will unthinkingly wander into the trap you’ve set, allowing you to destroy their weak liberal arguments will a lethal verbal blow?

Just asking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=faterikcartman]A stones throw away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html%5B/quote%5D

I have my own opinions about the subject at hand, but the Daily Mail, faterik? Please.

I’m inferring that the comment accompanying the link means that you believe that we have a similar “liberal dogma-spawned generation” in the U.S. that we can expect to be inspired by their U.K. counterparts. Yes?

There’s no shortage of published material available out there to those wanting to explore what might be the causal factor in the British rioting. Is it really productive to start a thread with an opinion piece titled, “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters”?

I don’t want to take anything for granted, so while I believe that you are of an opinion that is closely aligned with that expressed in this article, I suppose it is possible that you are simply presenting an example of “journalism” that is designed not to inform, but to polarize an already widely-separated population. Let me know if I’m not correct.

If you are, indeed, sympathetic to the views expressed in the article, it begs the question: Are you truly interested in an open and courteous exchange of ideas on costs vs benefits of austerity measures, with the possibility that you might receive some facts or a piece of information of which you were not previously aware? Or are you simply trying to get a rise out of some brainless socialists who will unthinkingly wander into the trap you’ve set, allowing you to destroy their weak liberal arguments will a lethal verbal blow?

Just asking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte]Back on topic, it looks like many are coming to the conclusion that S&P lacks credibility and has less than pure motivations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/p-slammed-u-downgrade-174205361.html

“S&P is the world’s largest ratings agency. In most cases, its business model is based on charging the issuers of debt–private corporations, local and state governments, for instance–in exchange for a rating. The issuer then uses a positive rating to give investors confidence in the solidity of the investment. But S&P also rates the debt of 126 countries. And, like many of the countries whose debt is rated by S&P, the United States neither requests nor pays for its rating.”

They get their income from the companies they rate. Yeah, no incentive to shade the grades there…[/quote]

Even if S & P went ahead and did this as as an ethical and moral obligation to their clients (as they claim), the risk of post-downgrade fallout was tremendous. Even if their reasoning is sound, and within the parameters of their professional duty (which I seriously question), there was NO need to downgrade at this point in time. S & P supposedly follows a list of 5 considerations in grading, and they obviously did not do so. If they had, they could have only come to the conclusion that the likelihood of U.S. default in the foreseeable future is less than miniscule.

It’s apparent that they did not recognize the potential of repercussions of enormous international impact. Or they did recognize it, and chose to go ahead and downgrade anyway.

Either one is not a quality that I would include in my firm’s marketing materials.

Entrepreneurs, take heed. Business start-up opportunity in Aisle 6 (aka 55 Water Street, New York). Doesn’t require intellect, but believing your own bullshit is a must.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte]Back on topic, it looks like many are coming to the conclusion that S&P lacks credibility and has less than pure motivations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/p-slammed-u-downgrade-174205361.html

“S&P is the world’s largest ratings agency. In most cases, its business model is based on charging the issuers of debt–private corporations, local and state governments, for instance–in exchange for a rating. The issuer then uses a positive rating to give investors confidence in the solidity of the investment. But S&P also rates the debt of 126 countries. And, like many of the countries whose debt is rated by S&P, the United States neither requests nor pays for its rating.”

They get their income from the companies they rate. Yeah, no incentive to shade the grades there…[/quote]

Even if S & P went ahead and did this as as an ethical and moral obligation to their clients (as they claim), the risk of post-downgrade fallout was tremendous. Even if their reasoning is sound, and within the parameters of their professional duty (which I seriously question), there was NO need to downgrade at this point in time. S & P supposedly follows a list of 5 considerations in grading, and they obviously did not do so. If they had, they could have only come to the conclusion that the likelihood of U.S. default in the foreseeable future is less than miniscule.

It’s apparent that they did not recognize the potential of repercussions of enormous international impact. Or they did recognize it, and chose to go ahead and downgrade anyway.

Either one is not a quality that I would include in my firm’s marketing materials.

Entrepreneurs, take heed. Business start-up opportunity in Aisle 6 (aka 55 Water Street, New York). Doesn’t require intellect, but believing your own bullshit is a must.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte]Back on topic, it looks like many are coming to the conclusion that S&P lacks credibility and has less than pure motivations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/p-slammed-u-downgrade-174205361.html

“S&P is the world’s largest ratings agency. In most cases, its business model is based on charging the issuers of debt–private corporations, local and state governments, for instance–in exchange for a rating. The issuer then uses a positive rating to give investors confidence in the solidity of the investment. But S&P also rates the debt of 126 countries. And, like many of the countries whose debt is rated by S&P, the United States neither requests nor pays for its rating.”

They get their income from the companies they rate. Yeah, no incentive to shade the grades there…[/quote]

Even if S & P went ahead and did this as as an ethical and moral obligation to their clients (as they claim), the risk of post-downgrade fallout was tremendous. Even if their reasoning is sound, and within the parameters of their professional duty (which I seriously question), there was NO need to downgrade at this point in time. S & P supposedly follows a list of 5 considerations in grading, and they obviously did not do so. If they had, they could have only come to the conclusion that the likelihood of U.S. default in the foreseeable future is less than miniscule.

It’s apparent that they did not recognize the potential of repercussions of enormous international impact. Or they did recognize it, and chose to go ahead and downgrade anyway.

Either one is not a quality that I would include in my firm’s marketing materials.

Entrepreneurs, take heed. Business start-up opportunity in Aisle 6 (aka 55 Water Street, New York). Doesn’t require intellect, but believing your own bullshit is a must.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte]Back on topic, it looks like many are coming to the conclusion that S&P lacks credibility and has less than pure motivations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/p-slammed-u-downgrade-174205361.html

“S&P is the world’s largest ratings agency. In most cases, its business model is based on charging the issuers of debt–private corporations, local and state governments, for instance–in exchange for a rating. The issuer then uses a positive rating to give investors confidence in the solidity of the investment. But S&P also rates the debt of 126 countries. And, like many of the countries whose debt is rated by S&P, the United States neither requests nor pays for its rating.”

They get their income from the companies they rate. Yeah, no incentive to shade the grades there…[/quote]

Even if S & P went ahead and did this as as an ethical and moral obligation to their clients (as they claim), the risk of post-downgrade fallout was tremendous. Even if their reasoning is sound, and within the parameters of their professional duty (which I seriously question), there was NO need to downgrade at this point in time. S & P supposedly follows a list of 5 considerations in grading, and they obviously did not do so. If they had, they could have only come to the conclusion that the likelihood of U.S. default in the foreseeable future is less than miniscule.

It’s apparent that they did not recognize the potential of repercussions of enormous international impact. Or they did recognize it, and chose to go ahead and downgrade anyway.

Either one is not a quality that I would include in my firm’s marketing materials.

Entrepreneurs, take heed. Business start-up opportunity in Aisle 6 (aka 55 Water Street, New York). Doesn’t require intellect, but believing your own bullshit is a must.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte]Back on topic, it looks like many are coming to the conclusion that S&P lacks credibility and has less than pure motivations:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/p-slammed-u-downgrade-174205361.html

“S&P is the world’s largest ratings agency. In most cases, its business model is based on charging the issuers of debt–private corporations, local and state governments, for instance–in exchange for a rating. The issuer then uses a positive rating to give investors confidence in the solidity of the investment. But S&P also rates the debt of 126 countries. And, like many of the countries whose debt is rated by S&P, the United States neither requests nor pays for its rating.”

They get their income from the companies they rate. Yeah, no incentive to shade the grades there…[/quote]

Even if S & P went ahead and did this as as an ethical and moral obligation to their clients (as they claim), the risk of post-downgrade fallout was tremendous. Even if their reasoning is sound, and within the parameters of their professional duty (which I seriously question), there was NO need to downgrade at this point in time. S & P supposedly follows a list of 5 considerations in grading, and they obviously did not do so. If they had, they could have only come to the conclusion that the likelihood of U.S. default in the foreseeable future is less than miniscule.

It’s apparent that they did not recognize the potential of repercussions of enormous international impact. Or they did recognize it, and chose to go ahead and downgrade anyway.

Either one is not a quality that I would include in my firm’s marketing materials.

Entrepreneurs, take heed. Business start-up opportunity in Aisle 6 (aka 55 Water Street, New York). Doesn’t require intellect, but believing your own bullshit is a must.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor]By the same token I do not view the Madison NBC News as a blog or racially motivated posting board. They used the term “beatings” when discussing the witnesses reports. The WIsonsin State Journal did not, they used the words attacks, the ABC affiliate WISN quoted police saying that “One officer described it as a “mob beating”…

So while you want to attribute the whole thing to every blog and forum you read misrepresenting what really happened, I am not so sure that this is accurate. So yes groupspeak and all that does exist and it goes in both directions. [/quote]

I’m a little confused by your post, and I’m sorry if I didn’t make mine more clear. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I looked at every message board. The point that I was trying to make was that I found what I considered to be adequate and responsible reporting on the incident from the mainstream media on the first day after. Around the same time, my search turned up many (and I do mean “many”) websites, all of a similar sociopolitical persuasion and tone, that were reporting that the attacks were racially-motivated, and were circulating the identical “report” that featured the eyewitness statements. When the next round of mainstream news reports came out, it appeared that they were reacting to what had been circulating on those sites (and, quite possibly, to reports from their own viewers/readers who had seen them). At that time, they mentioned that the issue of racial motivation had been raised, and they asked that anyone having eyewitness accounts of this contact them. They also quoted the police chief as saying the evidence, THUS FAR, had not shown racial motivation. He, too, asked eyewitnesses to come forward.

My overall point is that the internet has become the primary and definitive news source for a very large number of people, who are actually listening/seeing stuff generated and maintained by rumor mills. And they use these “news reports” as EVIDENCE that the mainstream media is not doing its job, and that they are arbitrarily suppressing stories, or certain facts in stories, to affect the political course in this country. Because, as everyone knows, the mainstream media (except for Fox News) is biased. And they are ALL liberal.

BTW, to all who believe that, here’s an interesting fact: many of the reporters may be of a liberal bent, but most of the publishers and owners of mainstream media are conservative. So what does that tell you, America?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor]By the same token I do not view the Madison NBC News as a blog or racially motivated posting board. They used the term “beatings” when discussing the witnesses reports. The WIsonsin State Journal did not, they used the words attacks, the ABC affiliate WISN quoted police saying that “One officer described it as a “mob beating”…

So while you want to attribute the whole thing to every blog and forum you read misrepresenting what really happened, I am not so sure that this is accurate. So yes groupspeak and all that does exist and it goes in both directions. [/quote]

I’m a little confused by your post, and I’m sorry if I didn’t make mine more clear. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I looked at every message board. The point that I was trying to make was that I found what I considered to be adequate and responsible reporting on the incident from the mainstream media on the first day after. Around the same time, my search turned up many (and I do mean “many”) websites, all of a similar sociopolitical persuasion and tone, that were reporting that the attacks were racially-motivated, and were circulating the identical “report” that featured the eyewitness statements. When the next round of mainstream news reports came out, it appeared that they were reacting to what had been circulating on those sites (and, quite possibly, to reports from their own viewers/readers who had seen them). At that time, they mentioned that the issue of racial motivation had been raised, and they asked that anyone having eyewitness accounts of this contact them. They also quoted the police chief as saying the evidence, THUS FAR, had not shown racial motivation. He, too, asked eyewitnesses to come forward.

My overall point is that the internet has become the primary and definitive news source for a very large number of people, who are actually listening/seeing stuff generated and maintained by rumor mills. And they use these “news reports” as EVIDENCE that the mainstream media is not doing its job, and that they are arbitrarily suppressing stories, or certain facts in stories, to affect the political course in this country. Because, as everyone knows, the mainstream media (except for Fox News) is biased. And they are ALL liberal.

BTW, to all who believe that, here’s an interesting fact: many of the reporters may be of a liberal bent, but most of the publishers and owners of mainstream media are conservative. So what does that tell you, America?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor]By the same token I do not view the Madison NBC News as a blog or racially motivated posting board. They used the term “beatings” when discussing the witnesses reports. The WIsonsin State Journal did not, they used the words attacks, the ABC affiliate WISN quoted police saying that “One officer described it as a “mob beating”…

So while you want to attribute the whole thing to every blog and forum you read misrepresenting what really happened, I am not so sure that this is accurate. So yes groupspeak and all that does exist and it goes in both directions. [/quote]

I’m a little confused by your post, and I’m sorry if I didn’t make mine more clear. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I looked at every message board. The point that I was trying to make was that I found what I considered to be adequate and responsible reporting on the incident from the mainstream media on the first day after. Around the same time, my search turned up many (and I do mean “many”) websites, all of a similar sociopolitical persuasion and tone, that were reporting that the attacks were racially-motivated, and were circulating the identical “report” that featured the eyewitness statements. When the next round of mainstream news reports came out, it appeared that they were reacting to what had been circulating on those sites (and, quite possibly, to reports from their own viewers/readers who had seen them). At that time, they mentioned that the issue of racial motivation had been raised, and they asked that anyone having eyewitness accounts of this contact them. They also quoted the police chief as saying the evidence, THUS FAR, had not shown racial motivation. He, too, asked eyewitnesses to come forward.

My overall point is that the internet has become the primary and definitive news source for a very large number of people, who are actually listening/seeing stuff generated and maintained by rumor mills. And they use these “news reports” as EVIDENCE that the mainstream media is not doing its job, and that they are arbitrarily suppressing stories, or certain facts in stories, to affect the political course in this country. Because, as everyone knows, the mainstream media (except for Fox News) is biased. And they are ALL liberal.

BTW, to all who believe that, here’s an interesting fact: many of the reporters may be of a liberal bent, but most of the publishers and owners of mainstream media are conservative. So what does that tell you, America?

[Author]

Posts