GG:"The role of the reporter is to state the actual facts, which means stating clearly when someone lies or otherwise makes a false statement."

This does not jump out at you when you read the code of ethics. (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, as referred to above). It seems even better hidden in the Wikipedia article on journalism. I think this needs to be stated explicitly in that code; when a source lies, that is an essential part of the story.

Semite includes both arabs and jews, but is rarely used to denote both.

The MSM calls this latest NIE report an amazing turn of events. But in analogy to the Klein thing last week, where is the soft point that allows the chisel to go in? Which reporter for which outlet is most vulnerable? The problem is that they all do it, and that gives them all strength.

Yes it is, considering what has happened since 2000. How does one take advantage of this?

"I'm not comfortable when only a few citizens (in this case, "good guys on the inside", as opposed to the "bad guys" last time) get to pull the strings of war, in secrecy and darkness. That's not democratic, that's the stuff of dictatorship."

Who is? But even if one does succeed in putting "the strings of war" back in the hands of the people, you can never do that with intelligence; it is inherently run in secrecy. That is why it is so important that such organizations be professional and non-political. Apparently they are still more so than many of us thought. And that is very good news.

As you indicate, there is an election coming. A much larger dem. majority in both senate and house would help. So would a dem. in the WH. There are very few candidates for any of the offices that I am happy with, but you do have choose the best.

most of use are scared that there is a serious intention to bomb Iran. The NIE report increases the potential opposition to actually doing it.

Rather than a purely mathematical model, how about one with a physical basis? The specks become a heap when a new behavior takes place. This is when enough specks are piled up so that they rearrange themselves (slide down) and form a heap with a (slippery) slope which can be observed and modeled.

I think it started earlier than that; there is positive feedback. Anti-intellect hurts education, and the the other way around, and the loop continues. This had started by the sixties. The love for understanding new things in the general population was fading fast at that time. It takes more than improvements in education to get out of the loop.

But he certainly wants to define me with respect to his religion. And now I will leave out the second m.

Dawkins strident? I respect your opinion, Joan, but I am having a really hard time understanding why anyone would think so.

The kind of problems that get discussed here in UT got a lot worse when the current administration took over. Not worse in an incremental or evolutionary sense. It was a big change. It is clear that a change in administration can make a big improvement. Not at all what I really want, and certainly not what you apparently want. But this continual attempt to show that all politicians are the same is as big a lie as anything the right pushes. And I doubt its sincerity.

Now there is a wild exaggeration. In most scientific work you can show exactly how far outside the system you are. Generally, it is completely outside for any practical purpose. Brain/consciousness studies? Hard to define at the current state of knowledge.

The republicans have proven something over the last four decades: you can change the system when the democrats are in charge. So if you want to change the system, you first put them back in charge again, right?

"Mike, we've been working at the various parts for generations, but the whole remains greater than their sum. A skeptical person might conclude that it always will. So where is the still point of the turning world? A riddle worthy of the sphinx, don't you think?"

I do not think you have to be skeptical to conclude that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Science tells you nothing about awareness. Science is not even close to explaining all the mechanisms, but it should be clear that what lies beyond the mechanics is beyond its reach.

at least from my perspective. I am at the American Geophysical Meeting in San Francisco. The featured topic is climate change, and of course it makes every other problem look small. realclimate.org has some reviews, but has not yet posted coverage of Lonnie Thompson's talk on abrupt climate change. Must be depressed. If the dems cannot get together to stop the war, consider the difficulties of stopping green house emissions, or finding another method of cooling down the earth.

A question about the origins of all this.

I hope someone can answer this. I have read that thiswhole telecom issue is just arose to a technology change. That this surveillance has been going on for decades but before, because the infomation was transmited by microwave, no telecom permission was required. Now, due to the introduction of fiber optics, telecom cooperation is now required. So the question becomes has this activity of surveillance been going on long before the Bush administration?

-- Ralphf

Access to the information is only part of the issue. As time goes on if becomes possible to do more with the information, and so what is happening now is not the same as before. The importance of maintaining privacy increases with time for this very practical reason.