• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

David, ENOUGH ALREADY!

Free episodes:

DBTrek said:
grannysmith said:
The resources (human, wealth-creating) increase?

Yep. When millions of dirt-poor people move in to an already crowded area, that area's 'wealth resources' increase. :rolleyes:


-DBTrek

Well, much academic research suggests that's the case and that migration is more complex than millions of people just 'fetching up' on the off chance - it is generally patterned to match opportunities available in the host state.

You seem long on rhetoric but short on actual knowledge of this complex subject (simple 'math', indeed). Why is it no-one can see your oh so simple 'truths', hey? :rolleyes: (hey pressing 'rolleyes is great isn't it?):D.
 
DBTrek said:
Are you suggesting that you never form opinions or have thoughts on anything other than what you personally experience first hand? I fail to see the wisdom in ignorng anything that one personally has not experienced. I've never eaten a fatal dose of arsenic or shot heroin. Am I not allowed to form opinions on these actions because I haven't personally done them? That makes no sense.

Who do you percieve me as defending . . . and who do you perceive as being in control of Iraq, since the world news agencies are apparently just fooling the citizens of Earth?

Do you honestly think that Dbtrek swallowing arsenic is a valid parallel to international politics?

You're smarter than the rhetoric you're wielding around. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned "intellectual cock-fighting". We should be trying to reach a greater understanding together, not puff ourselves up by knocking others down.
 
grannysmith said:
Well, much academic research suggests that's the case and that migration is more complex than millions of people just 'fetching up' on the off chance - it is generally patterned to match opportunities available in the host state.

Such as? Where can I find this academic research? The immigration problem is complex, but aspects of it are simple, such as the fact that more natural resources don't appear simply because more people settle in the area.

Do you honestly think that Dbtrek swallowing arsenic is a valid parallel to international politics?

I think it is a valid example demonstrating that human beings learn plenty through second hand information, so dismissing it out of hand is a mistake. News may be second hand, that doesn't make it value-less.

This is what I was referring to when I mentioned "intellectual cock-fighting". We should be trying to reach a greater understanding together, not puff ourselves up by knocking others down.

Politics didn't enter this thread through people reaching out for understanding . . . it began with people scrapping over Fox News. If you're looking for a thread where people are rationally discussing how they can bridge their differences you're going to have to create it (because I haven't seen it on this forum).

That being said, I don't think anyone is getting 'knocked down' . . . I imagine most people don't care what some anonymous guy on the internet thinks.

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
grannysmith said:
Well, much academic research suggests that's the case and that migration is more complex than millions of people just 'fetching up' on the off chance - it is generally patterned to match opportunities available in the host state.

Such as? Where can I find this academic research? The immigration problem is complex, but aspects of it are simple, such as the fact that more natural resources don't appear simply because more people settle in the area.


-DBTrek

Harris "Thinking the Unthinkable : The Immigration Myth Exposed";

Hayter "Open Borders";

Sassen "Guests and Aliens";

Cohen "No-One is Illegal".

Human beings are an economic resource and you don't need to subscribe to Marx' labour theory of value to appreciate that.
 
DBTrek said:
I think it is a valid example demonstrating that human beings learn plenty through second hand information, so dismissing it out of hand is a mistake. News may be second hand, that doesn't make it value-less.

This is where precise communication might come in handy.

Look back at my post. At no point did I say that humans cannot learn through second-hand information. So your strawman argument has no relevance to what I was saying.

I was talking strictly about the news, and the self-serving motivations behind the organizations bringing you this information on Iraq that you consider so factual. Despite what you might think, news organizations do not exist as an altruistic organization designed to enlighten the public with factual information. That is not even remotely their function.

You may disagree with that statement, and so I will recommend a project for you: Look up the case of FOX news and their RBGH lawsuit. They were sued by former employees for falsifying news regarding RBGH. FOX publicly praised themselves as totally exonerated after they were found "not guilty". What was never mentioned is that they were found not guilty because it was ruled that *falsifying news is not against the law*.

News organizations are legally allowed to lie. There is no more that needs to be said on this subject.
 
grannysmith said:
Human beings are an economic resource and you don't need to subscribe to Marx' labour theory of value to appreciate that.

I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, illegals are an excellent economic resource if you're in the position to employ unskiled labor. Two books that I thought did an excellent job of demonstrating this are:

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

and

Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market also by Eric Schlosser

The aspect of the debate I'm referencing in my examples pertain to the natural (and other limitied) resources available within a specific geographic location.

Certainly we wouldn't want all of Mexico moving their population in to the USA. Do we want half of their population? A third? At some point, the number of people illegally crossing the border will be sufficient to negatively impact those who are already drawing on the available limited resources.

I'm not a believer in the alarmist cries of "Illegal Mexicans are destroying the country", I'm simply pointing out that there are other reasons apart from racism that people might be opposed to millions of folk crossing in to the country at will.

I'll keep an eye out for those books as well, thanks for providing something that I can reference to see where you're coming from.

-DBTrek
 
BrandonD said:
Look back at my post. At no point did I say that humans cannot learn through second-hand information. So your strawman argument has no relevance to what I was saying.

I think you're missing the point. You began by questioning me about when I had last gone to Iraq, stating that since I have not been there first hand I don't know what's really going on. From there you pointed out that news organizations have agendas and are second hand information. The implication is that since I haven't set foot in Iraq, and news organizations have agendas, I don't really know anything about what's going on there.

The reasoning is faulty though, because it requires all news organizations to present 'versions' of the truth similar enough to eachother that the entire globe will be fooled. It also requires that everyone blogging in Iraq be part of the conspiracy effort to put forth this false image.

The problem is . . . news organizations have different agendas. FOX News and Al Jazeera both have their take on what's going on, but their agendas are not the same. Because of this, I reject the simplistic notion that since news agencies have agendas, we can't believe anything that comes out of them.

Rather we need to take in to account for the bias of the information source and if possible balance it with the same information for competing sources. If Fox News, Al Jazeera, The Los Angeles Times, and Xinhua News Agency all say a car bomb killed seven bystanders in a Bahgdad market, we can be relatively confident that it happened. That certainly makes more sense than all those news agencies getting together to concoct a fictional bombing so they can write a story about it.

News organizations are legally allowed to lie. There is no more that needs to be said on this subject.

I can see your mind is quite closed on the matter.

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
grannysmith said:
Human beings are an economic resource and you don't need to subscribe to Marx' labour theory of value to appreciate that.

I think we're talking about two different things.
The aspect of the debate I'm referencing in my examples pertain to the natural (and other limitied) resources available within a specific geographic location.

At some point, the number of people illegally crossing the border will be sufficient to negatively impact those who are already drawing on the available limited resources.


I'll keep an eye out for those books as well, thanks for providing something that I can reference to see where you're coming from.

-DBTrek

Hi. I'll make this my last contribution (and hopefully a non-confrontational one for that very reason -lol) before someone tells us off for being ot.

I don't think it's a matter of two different things rather than a difference concerning 'how economies work'.

Natural resources are of course technically finite but the myth I am trying to explode is that the practice of immigration in fact overstrains these.

Sassen in particular is, I think good on the - please notice the 'scare quotes' - 'self-regulating mechanism' of migratory flows - I'll graciously let you agree to disagree or have a look at the source if your interested rather than write a thesis here.

I just wanted to give a bit of a corrective to an issue which I felt was initially being presented a bit simplistically.
 
DBTrek said:
I want to be civil . . . I really do .. . but the sheer magnitude of 'dumb' that I'm confronted with tests my very limited patience. I read what you guys write and I'm left awestruck, wondering if any of you are familiar with US history, or are imbued with a shred of self-preservation.

DB Trek, the arrogance in this is breathtaking.

DBTrek said:
If you want to believe that our rights are being trampled more now than ever before, go ahead . .. but it's not true. Read about this country sometime, and you'll find that it's been worse. Realize that people who are familiar with US history will write your opinions off as 'uninformed' (at best) when such ridiculous statements are made. Sedition laws anyone? Slavery? Internment camps? US tanks being rolled over protesting US veterans? Kent State? Hello? Anyone? Hello?

I assume you believe you're paraphrasing my statement, "We think we live in a democracy, but if you look closely, you'll notice all the Founding Fathers' tenets have and are being tampered with on a level never dared before." If you're not, forgive me. If you are, then check it out again. I'm not claiming "our rights are being trampled more now" and ignoring slavery or the Japanese-American internment, etc. I'm talking about the ideals that founded the country, that stirred us to separate from England, the stuff in the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights. There's a difference in the two statements. Sure, the US has betrayed its ideals often, particularly when it comes to race, but never before in our history has a president taken us this close to a fascist dictatorship. Thankfully, we're not there, but all the mechanisms are in place right now. That's not happened before. If there were still Republican control of the House and Senate, we'd be on the brink (There's actually a bill in the House to repeal the 22nd amendment, so Bush can stay on indefinitely.). When Roosevelt was first elected during the Depression, there was a widespread movement, especially in the media, to make him a dictator--in 1932 it didn't have the terrible connotation it has now--but he refused. He loved the country's ideals more than the power or ease in getting his agenda accomplished.

Before you slam people, read what they say. Maybe even give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, we have more in common than you think. We all love the paranormal and never miss an episode of The Paracast.
--scott
 
OK, let's bitch and moan about the UFology field being "marginalized" once every 3.5 minutes per show. Next, let's mock one of the best researchers with impeccable cred, known as one of the genuine good guys of the field behind his back. For the next three weeks, repeat.

Next, let's wonder why people are mad, write an inane diatribe about stupid Americans and Fox News (which has about nothing to do with nothing - slagging a fine researcher for kicks every week is my beef and what this thread began about). Lastly, tell people in sounders we welcome discussion then take the "if you don't like it, f*ck off and die" argumentitive approach when challenged on the boards. Nice.
 
Lone Gunman, way to bring it back on topic 8 pages later. (Kidding! Don't flame me! I quit!)

Well...except for this... No, I don't think we can or should do away with the labels "liberal" and "conservative" or break up that divide because not everyone agrees that the game is rigged and the real fact of the matter is powerful elite vs. the masses. The people who do not believe this are conservatives. Not all conservatives believe in their government but all Americans who believe in their government are conservatives. So they would NEVER agree with you that there's this Establishment out to get us or keep us down.

All ya gotta do is pull yourself up by the bootstraps and you can achieve anything!

BLAAAAAAT.

And okay one last thing for real this time and maybe it should be its own thread but it's something I've never really thought about before: If there is a secret agency that knows the truth about ufos/occupants, we tend to take that to mean they know about these beings from space or another dimension or time travellers. But if the Trickster hypothesis holds and this is some sort of intelligent force acting as individuated beings, CAN the government agency know that?
 
I'm so far right, I'm left. ;)

I truly feel your pain. I left a good rant on this subject at The Oil Drum | Discussions about Energy and Our Future already today (its been raining for 2 weeks here).

onafritz: the subject is..umm...oh yeah, "Was David outta line for picking on Stanton 3 weeks in a row?" I don't think so. Mostly, they were kinda snide comments, but the kind of snide comments we all make and hopefully learn to get over.
I'm even MORE paranoid than the rest of you, and I can find patterns in everything. If I didn't trust that David was such an anarchist, I would say that his EDH is part of a conspiracy to hide the true nature of physics from the world. (Let's not go down that rabbit hole for the moment...)

Brandon: I'm with ya. There truly is some evil about. I believe that evil is when people take action based upon Blind Faith. Whether it is blind faith in democracy, capitalism, corporations, gods, or gurus, if you do something that you don't truly know the cause of your actions, or you believe something to be true simply because of peer pressure or old prejudices, and you take action based on those prejudices and pressures, then you are acting in an evil way. Suicide bombers do it all the time. That's why it's evil. Not because of the destruction itself, we do that all the time when we buy teakwood for our boats, or Happy Meals at McDonalds. Knowing the results of our actions, and seeking a truly Net Creative way of living, either individually or collectively, can remedy many of the ills we fight over.

Last but not least, DBTrek:
I know what you mean about being accused of some kind of slant. We all tend to try to stereotype people in order to save the time it takes to get to know them. I am as guilty of that as anyone. You try to defend an entertaining, high quality newscast, and the next thing you know, you're a right wing nutcase!
I'm not saying that their idea of quality goes beyond the appearance, though.
I'm a gun-toting, psychopathic, farm-raised lunatic, and I get accused of being a leftwing liberal on my blog because I think that we need to care a little more about our land and how people live on it. Go figure.

As to the anger we all are feeling:

We all have some ego to give us a reason to pursue our own desires, but we cannot ever forget that we are not the specially crafted, pristine creation of some imaginary sky buddy. We are symbiots, with alien organisms inside and outside our bodies, dependent upon the world around us for a future. The arrogance of Manifest Destiny thinking has wrought horrible tragedies upon the human race for many years, and there are powerful men who take advantage of our tragedy of the Commons. These men are enabled by the American public, living the Suburbia Dream of mindless consumption, voting for whosoever promises them further dreams.

We are starting to wake up, but it will take time. Many are learning the hard way through upside-down mortgages, high fuel costs, and dead sons and daughters (whether in Iraq or on highways going nowhere fast). There is something fundamentally wrong in this country, and it isn't as simple as 'left' or 'right'. The nearest I can guess, it is a failure of emotional discipline. In the past, the Churches and Temples were the biggest spectacles of entertainment, distracting people just long enough to take a break from labors and pay homage. Once the distractions became commercialized and our lizard brains took over control of our living ego, there was no longer any focus for communities to cooperate in the enterprise of Life. Competition became the norm, instead of cooperation.
That competition feeds over into everything we think and do, from signing our children up for daycare to picking a nursing home for grandpa. Instead of engaging in conversations, we spew epithets and bumper sticker slogans at each other.

We have a hard time coming up to deal with, the Trifecta of Tragedy: Political Idiocracy, Climate Change, and Peak Oil. In the meantime, the UFO subject and the way the government deals with secrets might just open up enough for us to crack into a shell that has been built around our lives, keeping us dependent upon fossil fuels in order to enrich a few powerful men, keeping us from communicating with possible advanced cultures who would either help us or harm us, and keeping us from finding out enough information to possible throw off the chains of myths and ignorance forever.
We aren't going to crack that shell if we don't keep our powder dry, our guns oiled, and our eyes sharp, watching each others' backs.
Everything you think you know is probably either inadequate, disinformation, or a sales pitch.
Books all around:
"Crossing the Rubicon"
"The Conspirators"
"Armed Madhouse"
"The Flouride Deception"
"A Language Older Than Words"
"Endgame"
"The Last Rays of Ancient Sunlight"
"Confessions of An Economic Hit Man"
"Collapse"
"Out There"
"The Hunt for Zero Point"
"What Are People For?"
"The Lost Language of Plants"
"The Greening of America"
"Empire of Oil" (c. 1958 by Harvey OConnor)
"The Poisonwood Bible"

Don't think you have blind faith?
Go to http://www.microsoftsucks.com and read about it yourself.

Oh, one final note to David and Gene: You guys are great. I would send you some FRN's, but there is no mailing address listed.
 
Ahh come on guys, Stan is a big boy and I am sure David does these in jest. One thing to keep in mind... do you think for one minute that anyone is going to do something to keep Stan from coming back on the show? I mean this is Elvis for crying out loud. Stan Friedman is the Elvis of UFO researchers. He is the king man!

Stan is going to do a version of Hound Dog next time just for you:

You ain't nothin' but a Reticulli
Cryin' all the time
You ain't nothin' but a Reticulli
Cryin' all the time
You might have caught Betty Hill but
You ain't no friend of mine.

You said you was alien stuff
Well that was just a lie...
You said you was a ufo putz
Well that was just a lie...
You got drunk and crashed at Roswell
Sometime round the 4th of July!!!!!

Now, if Stan starts wearing the jump suits and the Eagle belt buckle... well, then I'll start worrying.
 
ondafritz said:
Ahh come on guys, Stan is a big boy and I am sure David does these in jest. One thing to keep in mind... do you think for one minute that anyone is going to do something to keep Stan from coming back on the show? I mean this is Elvis for crying out loud. Stan Friedman is the Elvis of UFO researchers. He is the king man!

Stan is going to do a version of Hound Dog next time just for you:
Now, if Stan starts wearing the jump suits and the Eagle belt buckle... well, then I'll start worrying.

Stan is a physicist. They don't get invited to those kinds of parties....;-) (Tips hat to Douglas Adams, RIP)

Now, if he starts doing covers of Paranoid Larry, I'll buy the album!
 
auntiegrav said:
Now, if he starts doing covers of Paranoid Larry, I'll buy the album!


I was thinking about that comment, and I think everyone should go to Paranoid Larry's site. Is it just me, or does he kind of look like David with a beard..maybe a little Photoshopping on the eyes.........cue Twilight Zone music.....:-)

"The Secre -Tarry of Defense is into Pharmaceuwoowoowoowooticals...
That's why they think he's be-yooowoowoootiful."
 
ondafritz and auntiegrav....

I luvs u guyz.

If I wasn't a tad snide, I wouldn't be, well, um, me.

Anyway, I've already apologized for my Stanton snidery, so next I'll be moving onto someone else. Like DBTrek. I'll make fun of him on the show, but only forum folk will get the joke.

No, wait, I know, I'll start up some Miquel Sherbert, I mean, Shermer routines.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Auntiegrav, add to your list of books, the rather excellent A Crude Wakening documentary.

More later...
 
David Biedny said:
ondafritz and auntiegrav....

I luvs u guyz.

If I wasn't a tad snide, I wouldn't be, well, um, me.

Anyway, I've already apologized for my Stanton snidery, so next I'll be moving onto someone else. Like DBTrek. I'll make fun of him on the show, but only forum folk will get the joke.

No, wait, I know, I'll start up some Miquel Sherbert, I mean, Shermer routines.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Auntiegrav, add to your list of books, the rather excellent A Crude Wakening documentary.

More later...

Let's all get those little grey bobble heads he had on Larry King. A badge of courage!
 
Lone Gunman said:
OK, let's bitch and moan about the UFology field being "marginalized" once every 3.5 minutes per show. Next, let's mock one of the best researchers with impeccable cred, known as one of the genuine good guys of the field behind his back. For the next three weeks, repeat.

Next, let's wonder why people are mad, write an inane diatribe about stupid Americans and Fox News (which has about nothing to do with nothing - slagging a fine researcher for kicks every week is my beef and what this thread began about). Lastly, tell people in sounders we welcome discussion then take the "if you don't like it, f*ck off and die" argumentitive approach when challenged on the boards. Nice.

Hear hear.

It's extremely frustrating and queitly depressing to now have to listen to Biedny's new proposals on how, (paraphrasing) "well what if the scientific method is just missing something" and "the egos of scientists get in the way" bullshit. This is beginning to sound like typical non-critical appeals to ignorance arguments that won't get anyone anywhere, except of course to keep gullible listeners coming each week. Very disappointing. Might as well listen to c2c, only I have a fear of the moustache (parental thing, should see a shrink about that).

What happened to Biedny's request to Dr Roger Leir to have one of his retrieved objects examined - any news on this? This is the kind of question that everyone should be asking, don't you think?
BTW, If his stuff is legitimised, by which method of recognition will he receive his Nobel?
 
Back
Top