Slacker Uprising!

Originally Posted by Uncle_Theodore BTW, I'm reading the website you suggested, actually, it's quite interesting, thanks for letting me know about it. Though, there are arguable things there as well.

I agree that some opinions creep into that site. Opinions can always be debated.

But there is plenty of information there that shows Moore for what he is.

edit: Actually, I didn't search long; that site was practically the first I found. If you google, you'll come up with many, many sites talking about Michael Moore's lies. The objective evidence is overwhelming.

Originally Posted by jiml8 You just do the best you can, realizing at every point that aggressive attempts to manipulate and deceive you are being made. The existence of people like Michael Moore makes that job much much harder.

Sometimes that is not possible. Last Georgia-related conflict (especially iformation war part) clearly showed that in the end all information you get through all channels is somewhat unverified and can be manipulated if someone with access to mass-media tries hard enough. The worst thing is that you can't verify yourself most facts provided by common information sources (news/etc.). The problem is that I still think that current information network is too small, weak, vulnerable and still can be controlled to some very serious extent. Shutting down internet access in area, blocking roads makes the rest of the world almost perfectly unaware what's going on, so interested party might make their own version of truth which will be introduced for the rest of the world. To me it looks like both Moore, your government and the site you mentioned try to manipulate "truth" in some way or other, and in the end you'll never be absolutely sure who is right, because it mostly depends on who do you trust.

Last Georgia-related conflict (especially iformation war part) clearly showed that in the end all information you get through all channels is somewhat unverified and can be manipulated if someone with access to mass-media tries hard enough. The worst thing is that you can't verify yourself most facts provided by common information sources (news/etc.)

That situation has worried me considerably, for exactly the reasons you mention. There is a history there, and a lot of things going on, and I am not sure of the justice or lack thereof in the Russian actions. I was a cold warrior, and for many years all of my professional efforts were focused on bringing down the Soviet Union. Since that time, I have gotten to know a lot of russians socially and for the most part I like them. I have been more than pleased that the cold war is over.

The "spin" in the US has been that Russia is becoming an aggressor again. There is talk here of a "new cold war". Talk that Russia is trying to reassemble its empire. I consider the talk to be simplistic, and the spin bothers me. But there may be some truth to it; I cannot tell. I sure hope not, though.

To me it looks like both Moore, your government and the site you mentioned try to manipulate "truth" in some way or other, and in the end you'll never be absolutely sure who is right, because it mostly depends on who do you trust

Well, our government is one issue. I declined to go there earlier and will decline to go there again because it is not the point of the thread. If you are genuinely interested in what I think, you might want to research my commentary on this and other sites around the web; I have been vocal and highly, highly critical of developments in this country. Following my usual pattern, though, I have set forth very clearly why I think what I think, rather than just spouting.

But Moore vs the site I linked doesn't involve much trust. The site I linked does express some opinions, and the bias of the author shows through quite clearly. Nonetheless, that site (and many, many other similar sites) provides plenty of links to objective outside evidence that clearly shows what manipulations Moore performed and what the outcome was. I don't have to trust very much at all to conclude that Moore is a liar and a propagandist; the evidence of that is overwhelming.

edit: Also, I think, there is a very important difference between Russia and the US. In the US we have a long tradition of dissent and a deeply rooted belief in freedom of the press. Russia has a long tradition of looking to its leadership to create an environment.

My biggest complaint about the US today is that we are increasingly looking to the leadership to create an environment. However we retain our belief in freedom of the press, and this makes it very hard to suppress information here. Propaganda can certainly be presented, but the truth is usually available for anyone that wants to dig for it.

In Russia, lacking this tradition, it is a lot easier to control and suppress information - even today. The internet makes that a lot harder for any would-be dictator, but it is still possible where you live.

I have told my russian friends that, if your nation adopts nothing at all from the US other than this, you should adopt the first amendment to our constitution, which makes it illegal for the government to interfere with the press or to suppress speech. That one law, by itself, would make your nation into a very different place.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Theodore Come on! I didn't say admired, I said respected. For stating his point openly and defending it. You can find arguments to counter his point of view and I will respectfully study your arguments too. As, I hope, you would look at what I have to say without throwing it all away as lies and BS from the start. At least he gets his ideas in the open, I don't think he's the only one who thinks this way, although, like I said, mostly I disagree with his views.

I cannot say I respect someone who supports his own opinions by misrepresenting the facts. With out honest research as to their credibility by those who watch his films, he is able to suck them in and persuade them as mindless robots.

Respect for those on the other side of the isle should go to those who make a valid, honest, persuasive argument. Not twisting the facts.

Originally Posted by jiml8 That situation has worried me considerably, for exactly the reasons you mention. There is a history there, and a lot of things going on, and I am not sure of the justice or lack thereof in the Russian actions. I was a cold warrior, and for many years all of my professional efforts were focused on bringing down the Soviet Union. Since that time, I have gotten to know a lot of russians socially and for the most part I like them. I have been more than pleased that the cold war is over. The "spin" in the US has been that Russia is becoming an aggressor again. There is talk here of a "new cold war". Talk that Russia is trying to reassemble its empire. I consider the talk to be simplistic, and the spin bothers me. But there may be some truth to it; I cannot tell. I sure hope not, though. .. edit: Also, I think, there is a very important difference between Russia and the US. In the US we have a long tradition of dissent and a deeply rooted belief in freedom of the press. Russia has a long tradition of looking to its leadership to create an environment. My biggest complaint about the US today is that we are increasingly looking to the leadership to create an environment. However we retain our belief in freedom of the press, and this makes it very hard to suppress information here. Propaganda can certainly be presented, but the truth is usually available for anyone that wants to dig for it. In Russia, lacking this tradition, it is a lot easier to control and suppress information - even today. The internet makes that a lot harder for any would-be dictator, but it is still possible where you live. I have told my russian friends that, if your nation adopts nothing at all from the US other than this, you should adopt the first amendment to our constitution, which makes it illegal for the government to interfere with the press or to suppress speech. That one law, by itself, would make your nation into a very different place.

The reason I've mentioned that conflict is because situation around it was quite unusual and revealed some interesting things, and broke a lot of my illusions. If you were anti-Soviet (this "title" sounds very interesting in 21th century) military, then maybe you could access russian resources at times of conflict and could compare representation. During the first day the whole area was shut offline (half city was destroyed they says). There are no satellite photos, no cameras, nothing in the whole area that could put some light on the situation (who started the thing, what is going on). The later there were rumors about georgian internet services shut off or censored (blocked out russian IPs), about georgian troops killing civilians, etc. At the same time, out-of-Russia services start reporting about "Russia invades Georgia". So we have two conflicting points of view and two conflicting representation of situtuation, both provided by somewhat trusted sources. I think invasion messages were provided by BBC or Washington Post, and reports about Georgians destroying civilians/invading country came from somewhat large russian press sites. Later situation became much more interesting - at some point even european news sources started to produce conflicting information. (Some say russian troops stay, some that they move away, and some that they advance into territory). This cr@p continues even right now. During military forces pullout there were constant conflicting information about russian troops - unclear whether they are leaving territory, advancing into territory, securing weapons georgian troops left behind, or seizing control of the villadges. The europian news channels jeopardized situation even more - it is said there were a broadcast with Osetian family which were to explain situation, and that person who was supposed to take interview in the real time tried to make them stop talking when family mentioned that "they were running from georgian troops, not russian troops". There were a lot of such riduculous situations like Saakashivili accusing russia for bombing country with 50 bombers (General which asked about if it were true was surprised because (as he said) bombers don't fly in such quantities, only 3..5). And there were a story when some european sources produced a report from the tshinvali, pointed at flying jets and claimed that jets were russian, while other side claimed they were Georgian.

I could understand following from the whole situation:
1) The scenario provided by Georgia is that russia invades georgian territory.
2) The scenario provided by Russia is that Georgian tried to destroy Abkhazia's tshinvali city (it is said in our news that military forces have captured Georgians military plans about city's destruction) and that Georgian president is using it's connections to the west to broadcast it's picture of situation to the rest of the world.
3) Europe looks like it's uncertain who is right. Several countries seem to take russian side, while other take georgian side.
4) There are rumors that the whole conflict was somehow allowed by USA, reports about american combatant in tshinvali (not sure if it's correct transliteration) conflict. Other news mentions that Georgian troops were trained by american military specialists.
5) Smaller countries seem to be trying to use the whole to join NATO (Ukraine or Belarus, not sure which was more active).
6) More "yellow-pageish" news sources are trying to use the whole situation to bring more visitors to their sites and earn more profit from advertising. At the same time they are launching Anti-USA tendencies in Russia and Anti-Russia tendencies in USA.
7) As I can see the whole situation, the whole situation clearly affected future presidental election in USA. According to news sources it added popularity to McCain somehow.
8) Abkhazian refugees seem to percieve russian forces as "saviours".
9) In the light of the future presidental elections in USA, it really could be "profitable" for someone to make people think that "cold war has returned". Because when there is common enemy, people unite and can be brainwashed.

So right now there are several version of "truth" and it's problematic to find who is right. For me it looks like most realistic scenario (after a lot of thinking) is that Georgian president suddenly went berserk and decided to destroy Tshinvali for some reason and now many parties are trying to play outcome to their favor. To my opinion this scenario has 70% probability, and might be confirmed by strange behavior of Georgian president - there are at video when he was scared nearly to death by his own jets flying over the city, over sources mention that he started chewing his own tie during live broadcast. The next possible scenarios (30..40% probability) are that either Russia or USA launched that conflict, but I don't think it's real deal.

What the moral of all this story as I see it?
All information can't be (easily) trusted.
As I understand now, ideally Internet was "meant" to provide information for everyone about anything - "the whole world at your fingertips", without boundaries. So in situation like this you ideally should be used to get clear picture from any nearby source. Instead, area were shut off (it is said all communications were shut off, including cellphones - retranslator towers were destroyed). And Internet were turned into informational battlefield, because many sources of news tried to affect people's opinion by manipulating their opinion through emotions. Reports about killing civilians by Russian/Georgian troops could be created by interested party to enrage "average Joe"-type people. This kind of action could be used by any side (russian, american or georgian). Just thinking about all of the possible interpretations and true intents of every side is enough to drive person nuts.

This whole thing is sad. There are many opinions floating around, they are all realistic to some extent, but there is no way to make sure what is really true, because all information is unverified and cannot be easily verified (too bad there is no "universal truth provider certificate" or something), because in some situation emotion-based opinion of entire society can overwhelm sanity. So there are 2000 dead and hard to tell who should be responsible.

That's why I wrote about that "sometimes it's not possible to rely on facts and evidence" - Moore might be representing his true point of view in 9/11 or he might be using clever propaganda. Parties that disagree with him might rely on true facts, or they might be using incorrect information.

I just hope this conflict won't evolve into something bigger, because it could be much more realistic "end of world" scenario than "Hadron Collider". I'd prefer one century of peace, since there were too many wars in 20th century.

P.S. Sorry for long post. I was thinking about all this some time, so I had to post it somewhere.

I just hope this conflict won't evolve into something bigger, because it could be much more realistic "end of world" scenario than "Hadron Collider". I'd prefer one century of peace, since there were too many wars in 20th century.

Amen to that, brother. I think most of the world would like that, in every country in equal proportion. Just my opinion and belief, I don't have much "evidence" for that.

4) There are rumors that the whole conflict was somehow allowed by USA, reports about american combatant in tshinvali (not sure if it's correct transliteration) conflict. Other news mentions that Georgian troops were trained by american military specialists.

I have heard that. But "allow" implies that we have the power to stop it. We don't. I cannot tell you if Georgian troops have received US training or not. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they have received such training, but I just don't know.

7) As I can see the whole situation, the whole situation clearly affected future presidental election in USA. According to news sources it added popularity to McCain somehow.

This is accurate. McCain is seen in this country (with considerable justice, I think) as being the person you would want in charge if there was an international crisis. Obama is working hard to overcome that perception. So, if the international situation is seen as threatening or deteriorating, that has to boost McCain.

8) Abkhazian refugees seem to percieve russian forces as "saviours".

As I understand the history, I think I can believe this.

9) In the light of the future presidental elections in USA, it really could be "profitable" for someone to make people think that "cold war has returned". Because when there is common enemy, people unite and can be brainwashed.

Putin has made some comments to this effect. Problem is that I do not believe there is ANY entity who could set up such a large and far-flung conspiracy, and make it work. The movie "wag the dog" was, after all, just a movie.

So right now there are several version of "truth" and it's problematic to find who is right. For me it looks like most realistic scenario (after a lot of thinking) is that Georgian president suddenly went berserk and decided to destroy Tshinvali for some reason and now many parties are trying to play outcome to their favor. To my opinion this scenario has 70% probability, and might be confirmed by strange behavior of Georgian president - there are at video when he was scared nearly to death by his own jets flying over the city, over sources mention that he started chewing his own tie during live broadcast.

Since these were "breakaway provinces" that appears plausible.

The next possible scenarios (30..40% probability) are that either Russia or USA launched that conflict, but I don't think it's real deal.

US didn't do it. We lack both means and motive. The idea that some faction in the US would do it to influence the outcome of the election just isn't credible. And, frankly, our power relative to the rest of the world is no longer so overwhelming that we could easily do it. We are a bit less powerful than we were at the end of the cold war, because we no longer need that power and don't want to pay for it, and the rest of the world has been gaining strength since then.

As for Russia...the US media says the Russians invaded and are calling Russia the aggressor. The US media has been fairly united in that opinion. I have read some analysis that says the Russians were responding to a Georgian threat. Like you, I don't know.

In any event, are we now agreed that Michael Moore is a propagandistic liar, unworthy of respect?

Originally Posted by jiml8 In any event, are we now agreed that Michael Moore is a propagandistic liar, unworthy of respect?

Mmmmm... Not quite sure still... BTW, since the whole shebang started with my innocent comment about respect, I'll throw in another 2c worth. McCain is another person whom I respect as a war hero and a very energetic politician, but with whom I disagree on certain issues. Like his choice of VP, for instance. Or, his comment, right after the Russia-Georgia war started, that we are all "georgians" now... Like one web comment said, if Mr McCain wants to the president of georgians, why don't he go to Tbilisi and run againts Saakashvili?

I disagree with McCain on a number of things but I think his choice of VP was politically brilliant. Whether she'll make a good VP or president is another thing entirely, but from an election standpoint the choice was brilliant.

And Michael Moore is a lying propagandist.

Originally Posted by ErV The reason I've mentioned that conflict is because situation around it was quite unusual and revealed some interesting things, and broke a lot of my illusions. If you were anti-Soviet (this "title" sounds very interesting in 21th century) military, then maybe you could access russian resources at times of conflict and could compare representation. During the first day the whole area was shut offline (half city was destroyed they says). There are no satellite photos, no cameras, nothing in the whole area that could put some light on the situation (who started the thing, what is going on). The later there were rumors about georgian internet services shut off or censored (blocked out russian IPs), about georgian troops killing civilians, etc. At the same time, out-of-Russia services start reporting about "Russia invades Georgia". So we have two conflicting points of view and two conflicting representation of situtuation, both provided by somewhat trusted sources. I think invasion messages were provided by BBC or Washington Post, and reports about Georgians destroying civilians/invading country came from somewhat large russian press sites. Later situation became much more interesting - at some point even european news sources started to produce conflicting information. (Some say russian troops stay, some that they move away, and some that they advance into territory). This cr@p continues even right now. During military forces pullout there were constant conflicting information about russian troops - unclear whether they are leaving territory, advancing into territory, securing weapons georgian troops left behind, or seizing control of the villadges. The europian news channels jeopardized situation even more - it is said there were a broadcast with Osetian family which were to explain situation, and that person who was supposed to take interview in the real time tried to make them stop talking when family mentioned that "they were running from georgian troops, not russian troops". There were a lot of such riduculous situations like Saakashivili accusing russia for bombing country with 50 bombers (General which asked about if it were true was surprised because (as he said) bombers don't fly in such quantities, only 3..5). And there were a story when some european sources produced a report from the tshinvali, pointed at flying jets and claimed that jets were russian, while other side claimed they were Georgian.

I question anything Georgia says mostly because here in the west all we saw was 'ossetian rebels attack, etc.', yet nothing about what the Georgian side is really doing, and who really provoked the conflicts. As far as I'm concerned the Russians actually correctly in recognizing Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, and sent a clear message to the west. This is also about Kosovo, and I agree 100% with the Russians on this, "You went against our recommendations for NOT recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, and forced others to recognize them, so now we are doing the same, you must recognize Abkhazia and S. Ossetia as independent states". Good on them! But I digress.

Back on topic now: As far as Mike Moore's stuff, I have mixed opinions. He does bring to light issues, however perhaps the way he presents things, does need to be refined and a little more neutral than it is presented now.

Originally Posted by jiml8 This is accurate. McCain is seen in this country (with considerable justice, I think) as being the person you would want in charge if there was an international crisis. Obama is working hard to overcome that perception. So, if the international situation is seen as threatening or deteriorating, that has to boost McCain.

Honestly, for some reason I have the feeling that McCain as president won't mean good USA<->Russia relationships, while Obama more probably will. I'm unsure what's that feeling based upon, it's just what I think after reading election-related news from time to time. Of course, I might be wrong about it.

Originally Posted by jiml8 Putin has made some comments to this effect. Problem is that I do not believe there is ANY entity who could set up such a large and far-flung conspiracy, and make it work. The movie "wag the dog" was, after all, just a movie.

Well, I didn't mean that there is a conspiracy that launched conflict, but I think that when conflict started, someone could notice opportunity to play on old cold war memories in a light of presidental campaign, which isn't the same as launching whole conflict. On other hand, "russia agressive again" story could draw more attention to the media, so I think some people/companies could start speculating on this subject, even if there is no conspiracy.

Originally Posted by jiml8 US didn't do it. We lack both means and motive.

Well, thinking about all this right now, I can't quickly remember any sane explanation why USA would want this conflict. There were numerous talks related to "anti-rocket defenses" in Poland, but nothing that could be seriously used as motive.

Originally Posted by jiml8 As for Russia...the US media says the Russians invaded and are calling Russia the aggressor. The US media has been fairly united in that opinion.

I don't think it is possible. Our goverment need to seriously go nuts to start "reclaiming old territories" now. Right now there is no strong uniting ideology like communism/marksism/leninism, and the whole country isn't the huge industrial machine as it were in 1930..1960 when ideology+"common enemy"(capitalists + invaders during world war 2) helped to boost morale and build industry. People in our government just can't be THAT stupid, so that's not possible.

Originally Posted by jiml8 The idea that some faction in the US would do it to influence the outcome of the election just isn't credible.

Not election. The idea that were floating in the media was that conflict was somehow connected with US, but no serious source claimed that it was started because of election. "Less-serious" sources suggested some (sometimes mysterious) other motives.

Originally Posted by jiml8 And, frankly, our power relative to the rest of the world is no longer so overwhelming that we could easily do it. We are a bit less powerful than we were at the end of the cold war, because we no longer need that power and don't want to pay for it, and the rest of the world has been gaining strength since then.

Well, after reading this I think that because of cold war in 20th century both Russia and US still looks much scarier/powerful/dangerous to each other than they really are, and media could be playing a bit on those old memories. This could explain "cold war" rumors in US and rumors about USA relation to Georgian conflict in Russia.

Originally Posted by jiml8 In any event, are we now agreed that Michael Moore is a propagandistic liar, unworthy of respect?

I don't know.
I saw the 9/11 movie, it is well done, but I can't be certain whether Moore lies or not, just because this all this happens too far from me, so I'm missing a huge chunk of information related to events mentioned in movie. You are in better position to judge, I'll just remain uncertain.

Thanks for Georgia-related discussion, it made picture much more clear, and dismissed some concerns I had before.

Originally Posted by ErV Honestly, for some reason I have the feeling that McCain as president won't mean good USA<->Russia relationships, while Obama more probably will. I'm unsure what's that feeling based upon, it's just what I think after reading election-related news from time to time.

While I don't like Mccain, I don't really care much for Obama either. It seems that people here are like sheep, they are so impressed with Obama, yet he hasn't really offered much in terms of what he will do in office. He keeps spouting out 'change' but he never really elaborated as far as I'm concerned. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Mccain, which I just said, but I don't feel Obama is the answer either. This country is in desperate need of a truly third party.

Sure people here say that there is an 'independent party,' but thats really a crock of shit, because they either swing towards a republican or democrat. This country always was, and always will be a two-party system, which means essentially the dems. & reps. work hand-in-hand, and really what good is it in switching a president every 4 years, when the congress is controlled by senators & congressmen(women) that have been there for 30+ years, (Kennedy).

Most people don't really realize this, and think that if they elect Obama things will automagically improve.. Um, think again there chuckles.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz While I don't like Mccain, I don't really care much for Obama either. It seems that people here are like sheep, they are so impressed with Obama, yet he hasn't really offered much in terms of what he will do in office.

Well, I only said that it impression that arises from reading news, which might be incorrect one. Time will show who will be president, and what will change.

Originally Posted by ErV Honestly, for some reason I have the feeling that McCain as president won't mean good USA<->Russia relationships, while Obama more probably will. I'm unsure what's that feeling based upon, it's just what I think after reading election-related news from time to time. Of course, I might be wrong about it.

I will argue either side of it. Which side do you want me to take?

I do believe that the Russian government will find McCain easier to understand and more predictable. Generally, that would be a good thing. On the other hand, McCain is definitely "old guard" and the way he deals with Russia might bring back echoes of the cold war. I don't know for sure.

Obama...I rather expect that the Kremlin would misjudge him. What would be the result of that? Hard to tell. Might be very bad. Frankly, I do not believe that the American people understand Obama; I am fairly sure I don't. If we don't then I don't see how the Kremlin could.

Well, I didn't mean that there is a conspiracy that launched conflict, but I think that when conflict started, someone could notice opportunity to play on old cold war memories in a light of presidental campaign, which isn't the same as launching whole conflict. On other hand, "russia agressive again" story could draw more attention to the media, so I think some people/companies could start speculating on this subject, even if there is no conspiracy.

Yes, I think there has been some of that. Both ways.

Well, after reading this I think that because of cold war in 20th century both Russia and US still looks much scarier/powerful/dangerous to each other than they really are, and media could be playing a bit on those old memories. This could explain "cold war" rumors in US and rumors about USA relation to Georgian conflict in Russia.

The US continues to be very very powerful. Our strategic forces are unchallenged. That those strategic forces are much smaller now than they were in 1991 is merely a reflection of reduced need.

I have wondered for some time about Russian strategic forces. For a long time, your fleets sat in port and rusted, your Air Force gave rides to rich westerners to raise money, and your soldiers went unpaid. So how could you possibly be maintaining your missile forces, particularly your older liquid fueled ones, and how could you afford to maintain the infrastructure to keep your hydrogen warheads in good repair? On the other hand, throughout your difficult times, you have always maintained your space presence.

So at this point in time I have no idea what condition your strategic forces are in (there was a time when I knew, down to the last missile, what you had and where it was, but that was a long time ago).

Recently, Russia has been entering a boom economy as your oil production has ramped up, and from an economic standpoint things are starting to look a lot better for you. You have a long way to go, and I certainly hope you don't get sidetracked with more militarism. Refurbishing your strategic forces certainly makes sense, but we (neither of us) needs another arms race, and you need to be looking south and east rather than across the oceans.

That is why this Georgia thing makes me nervous; I *think* it is being improperly interpreted in our press, but I am not positive of that. I don't like McCain's comments; they are counterproductive.

But for some time we have been worrying that Putin was going to make himself into a dictator. It is still not obvious that he isn't; he did step aside due to term limits, but now he is the Prime Minister, so he didn't *really* step aside.

I don't know. I saw the 9/11 movie, it is well done, but I can't be certain whether Moore lies or not, just because this all this happens too far from me, so I'm missing a huge chunk of information related to events mentioned in movie. You are in better position to judge, I'll just remain uncertain.

Moore lies outrageously.

Thanks for Georgia-related discussion, it made picture much more clear, and dismissed some concerns I had before.

Yes, I too am glad to have it.