CNN ranks as the 16th most popular website in the US compared to FOX News which comes in at only 39th. So I am wondering if you go by both Web and TV if CNN beats FOX overall with the world moving to more on-line viewing as apposed to TV? Thoughts?

Also, can anyone tell me what a reach of 2.0000 translates to?


http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/cnn.com#

Also, Huffington Post comes in at #24 also beating FOX as well as the Drudge Report which comes in at #86

On Edit: Not that I am a huge fan of CNN but they are layers of cake above FOX.

Take a look at this chart that shows personal debt since 1982.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/ch...

In the early 80's people had very little personal debt and so we could handle recessions without too much trouble as people had plenty of money to spend. Since 1982 because less and less money has "Trickled Down" to regular people, personal debt is in a danger zone very similar to the way it was before the Great Depression and a big reason recessions are lasting longer and longer and are more difficult to dig out of. As Michael Hudson pointed out in a Real News video the other day when talking about the 90% top tax rate during Eisenhower when productivity was highest. As taxes have been lowered on the wealthy, personal debt has gone up and up and up which is like putting your foot on the break when accelerating your car. The worse personal debt gets in the country the harder that break pedal is being pushed down and eventually the car isn't going anyplace no matter how much gas you put on because the vast majority of working Americans have no money to spend.

Yes, he was worse than all the rest because his legacy of deficit spending and amassing of national debt to this day is crushing our ability to deal with the short-term and long-term world crisis. Bush I and Clinton both tried to get Reagan's deficit down, Clinton with with some success only to have Bush II add even more shit to the pile. Even today, much of our national budget goes to servicing Reagan's debt and reassuring our debtors. For the past 25 years we have continued to pay perhaps hundreds of billions just in interest because Reagan decided the wealthy shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes. Those tax cuts for the wealthy were simply passed on to all the rest of us with the crippling debt they created and may take decades or even a century for you and I to pay off. When it's all said and done Reagan's debt and all the interest we have had to pay on that debt could add up into the tens of trillions. It's not much different than a poor person running up their credit card to $10,000 and then only paying $10 a month to pay it off because that is all he has left to pay on the card. By the end of the poor person's life he may end up paying the credit card company $100,000 or more for a $10,000 loan. Think of Reagan and Bush II's debt as being on your current credit card statement even though it doesn't show up, because the fact is we will be paying for it out of our own pockets probably for the rest of our lives.

Keep in mind the so-called Reagan boom was in fact a rather middling episode of economic growth. The economy grew much more slowly in the 1980s than during the 1960s, more slowly than the postwar average of 3.6% annual growth, and no faster than in the 1970s or the 1990s. This is absolutely terrible when you think of all the debt he saddled upon us. We got no bang for one hell of a lot of bucks that we are still fucking paying for! Clearly the tax cuts had very little impact on stimulating the economy. Most of the other economic numbers from the 80's were below par compared to other decades. In a nut shell, if you did a cost benefit analysis of Reagan's economic policies he would get not just an F but a ZERO because he did much more damage than good.

Another dandy was Reagan's deregulations which lead to to our current economic crisis as pandora's box was opened and the the great corporate beast was let lose to begin dismantling anything pure in our financial system. And due to Reagan's deregulation of the media, they have become a significant anti-democratic force in the United States and, to varying degrees, worldwide. The wealthier and more powerful the corporate media giants have become, the poorer the prospects for participatory democracy. We can also thank Clinton for part of this mess.

These are just a few dandy parts of Reagan's Democratic, monetary recking ball. The list is a mile long. The sad fact is this country may never recover from what Reagan started. Bush II was a disaster but he was just the icing on Ronald Reagan's rotten fruit cake left to us all.

This stuff needs to be said a million times! The American people need to know the truth about Reagan. He was no great president, he was a colossal disaster to this country.

Feel free to add to the list.

The American people generally vote for someone who's strength's are in areas the last president failed in which in Bush's case is just about everything, however Bush's biggest problems are with honesty, competence and his ties to the big corporations. Also how he has embarrassed America in the eyes of the rest of the world with wars of aggression and things like torture. People want someone who will help America seem like the good guys again. I think the American people may tend to shy away from people who are too Religious this time as well. So who fits the bill as the opposite of Bush?

Hillary is coming across as a corporate stooge who is dishonest and too much of a slick politician who can't give a straight answer. Ultimately I think she will go down as some of her characteristics are too much like Bush though since she is a woman and Bush is a man, that is a big plus for her. She also seems much smarter and more competent than Bush (Both big pluses). Her connection with Bill Clinton who was seen as very competent and a good president is a big plus.

Edwards may be seen as a slick lawyer who talks about helping the poor but then builds a huge mansion and is tied to hedge-funds. He may come across as too much like Bush in certain respects because people just don't trust lawyers. Personally Edwards is my favorite but knowing the American public and how they react in elections I think Edwards has some perception problems based on the current political climate. Edwards big pluses are his communications skills and the fact that his policies have the most substance and detail of all the candidates. However the American people don't have the time to look into all the details so Edwards won't get credit for doing his homework.

So who is left? While Obama is not my favorite I think he fits the bill of what American's are looking for this time around. He seems the least like Bush. He seems very honest, he is very articulate and well spoken, comes across as very smart and is probably the most inspiring of all the candidates. He is not a lawyer and he doesn't seem to be too slick or tied to the big corporations. I think he comes across as someone who can bring America back and mend fences with the rest of the world. He may want to tone down the Religious BS a little. If not Obama then I think Biden may surprise. I am pulling for Edwards and he may surge in the end but I think this election is taylor made for Obama if he can survive the bigots.

Peer-Review: Why does it matter?

One of the basic foundations of modern science, whether it be medicine, physics or climatology, is "peer review." Peer review means new scientific discoveries, ideas, and implications are not accepted or considered valid until they have been scrutinized, critiqued, and favorably reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same area or scientific field.

The peer-review process commonly takes place as a prerequisite to the publication of a scientific paper. When scientists wish to publish papers on their scientific discoveries, the journal to which the paper is submitted usually will ask two or more other scientists in the same or a similar field (i.e., scientific peers) to review the paper.These reviewers will rigorously evaluate the work to make sure that the results are well supported by the data. If the paper passes the review and is accepted for publication, we can assume that the science is well-founded and valid. Sometimes the paper does not pass the review and is not published, but more often, the reviewers ask questions that the authors of the manuscript have to address satisfactorily before their paper is published.

Not all published scientific work is peer-reviewed. When a scientist or informed non-scientist wishes to evaluate new or controversial scientific papers, one of the first things they usually ask is if the paper was published in a journal that requires critical peer-reviews. Journals such as "Science" and "Nature" are among the most highly regarded journals in terms of the peer-review process. Articles and opinions published in newspapers or popular-press magazines (for example, "Time" and "Newsweek") are not peer-reviewed, and thus must be considered with caution if they are not based on a peer-reviewed scientific papers. Moreover, some "scientific" books and journals do not involve rigorous peer-reviews, readers must be careful not to put much scientific faith in what is presented in these books or journals.

The peer-review process sets a scientific standard; we know that peer-reviewed scientific work has been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts in the appropriate field and has been judged valid. All of the scientific journal results reported in this www site, "A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming," have undergone this level of scientific peer-review.

Back to... "Paleo Data of the Last 2000 Years"


Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarmi...

It's refreshing to see at least one or two Freepers who believe in the Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, most of them still seem to think "Separation of C & S, is made up.

So few people, Republican or Democrat, really have a good grasp of what the Founding Father's meant. What I try to tell my Freeper friends is that the Founders wanted to separate Church and State to protect the Church from the State. I ask them: "Do you really need the Government to tell you how to be religious????????" By observing History the founders understood that when Religion and State are one, then people start killing one another and people start burning witches at the stake and things like science and reason are ignored. As Madison put it, by keeping the church and state separate ones religious beliefs stay "pure" because people turn to religion because they want to, NOT because the State told them they should be religious. Separation of Church and State has been good for Religion because it's absolutely everywhere!!!! Thousands of TV and radio stations carry Religious messages constantly and we are one of the most religious country's on the planet. What more do they want???

It's ironic that Republicans, who hate Government, think the Government would do a good job with Religion???? Do they really want Politicians telling them how to be religious???????? OMFG! Get a grip Freepers!

See ignorance here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...

I came across this and found it interesting. For those who think the Supreme Court and the ACLU secularized our schools they should read this. It's important to note that their were no public schools when the United States was founded:


Disestablishment
In the colonial era and early years of the republic, established denominations, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia and the Congregational Church in Massachusetts, received preferential treatment. Perks of establishment included public funding of congregations and making membership a requirement for voting and office-holding. But dissent, a desire for self-governance in religion and application of the U.S. Constitution ended the practice.

Snip>

Protestants in the 19th century agreed to bar "sectarian teaching" in public schools -- largely because they feared that Catholicism would be taught in districts dominated by the new wave of Roman Catholics. But Protestants agreed to keep prayers and devotional Bible-reading: symbolic practices that reflected their faith and values. Many Catholics could not in good conscience send their children to public schools in which the day began with readings from the Protestant Bible. Haynes said this is one reason there is a strong Catholic school system today.

Disestablishment in public schools was a significant turning point in U.S. history. People viewed public schools as places to socialize children and to Americanize immigrants. By secularizing schools, they thought they could keep out the world views of Catholics, and later Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists. Ironically, by secularizing the schools, the old Protestant establishment shut out their own beliefs.

“When religious groups – read Protestants – turned over their schools to the state, they did not think they were turning over their schools to the state,” Haynes said. “They thought that their schools would still be their schools. Why? Most people were Protestant. It was the culture.”

As religious diversity grew in the 20th century and society became more secular, the "Protestant consensus" began to fall apart. Some historians have called this the "second disestablishment." By the time of 1960s Supreme Court decisions striking down state-sponsored religious practices, many public schools had already abandoned such practices, leading to the almost total exclusion of religion of religion from public schools.

http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/haynes...

Groupthink!!!!

Please read everything below!!!!! I have been in groups where Groupthink has occurred and I can't express more strongly how important this post is. Most people don't understand Groupthink and need to read this information to see how important this is. I would suggest this is one of the more important posts I have ever made on DU as this problem MUST be fixed in public policy yet so few people understand what it is much less know it was the cause of the Iraq war and most major blunders in US policy.

Please hear me out!!!!

The important question here is: >>>>>> How do we prevent Groupthink from happening in the future in Administration decisions? The sad thing is it's EASY to prevent Groupthink which I will go into below.


EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:

http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview...

Examples of Groupthink: Past and Present


Examples of groupthink “fiascoes” studied by Janis include US failures to anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of Vietnam war, and the ill-fated hostage rescue in Iran. Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “preemptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties, diplomatic standing in the world, and economically.

My proposal to stop Groupthink from occuring in Administrations:

I would suggest their be a "Groupthink Prevention Committee" created of say 12 neutral senators from both party's. This committee would be in charge of testing Administrations decisions and checking for Groupthink. If the Committee decided they felt Groupthink was occurring in the Administration they could call a vote to stop an Administrations decision. It would then go to debate
on the senate floor (closed door session). The Senate would then have to see if they felt Groupthink was occurring and vote on weather to let the Administrations decision stand.



What is Groupthink?

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.


Symptoms of Groupthink

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.


When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.




Review the following consequences of groupthink and consider how many of them apply to the Bush administration’s handling of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the issues related to Iraq and Saddam Hussein:

http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview...



a) incomplete survey of alternatives

b) incomplete survey of objectives

c) failure to examine risks of preferred choice

d) failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives

e) poor information search

f) selective bias in processing information at hand

g) failure to work out contingency plans

h) low probability of successful outcome




My Thoughts:

I cant express how strongly I feel about this! Groupthink has been the leading cause of many of the worst historical decisions throughout time. It has lead to the loss of perhaps millions of lives in a countless number of wars that could have and should have been avoided. Why on earth Administration officials are not required to take a course on Groupthink is a travesty!!!!! In fact I think measures should be put in place as standard operating procedure to prevent Groupthink in US Administrations. This should be proposed as a Bill by a group of Democrats as soon as possible!!! How can we make this happen?


Remedies for Groupthink (These should be MANDATORY!!! in Administrations)

First my proposal also listed above:

I would suggest their be a "Groupthink Prevention Committee" created of say 12 neutral senators from both party's. This committee would be in charge of testing Administrations decisions and checking for Groupthink. If the Committee decided they felt Groupthink was occurring in the Administration they could call a vote to stop an Administrations decision. It would then go to debate
on the senate floor (closed door session). The Senate would then have to see if they felt Groupthink was occurring and vote on weather to let the Administrations decision stand.




Decision experts have determined that groupthink may be prevented by adopting some of the following measures:



a) The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member



b) The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset



c) Each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups' deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on the associates reactions



d) One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis. The outside experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members.



e) At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil's advocate (to question assumptions and plans)



f) The leader should make sure that a sizable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of rivals' intentions.

Some links on Groupthink:


Rice appointment assures more Bush Administration Groupthink

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/media/storage...

Chickenhawk Groupthink?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/05...

Fahrenheit 9-11: Jolting Us Out of 'Groupthink'
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0629-1...


http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/09/16/isg...